Avoid making Internet service providers public utilities.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reportedly contemplating imposing new "net neutrality" rules on Internet providers because it believes doing so is important to maintain an "Open Internet," as many people are aware.

Less known is that one proposal would regulate Internet service providers using a "utility model" or "Title II" in FCC parlance. For those who are not well-versed in the details of the Communications Act, Title II is the law's section with hundreds of different regulatory requirements similar to those of public utilities.

Regulating broadband Internet service providers the same way electric utilities are now, as Ma Bell was in the 20th century or railroads were in the 19th century, would be detrimental to American customers. But the Title II system would act in that manner. In fact, Susan Crawford, a prominent proponent of Title II, states unequivocally that "America needs a utility model" for Internet service providers.

The utility model, with its emphasis on rate control and nondiscrimination standards as well as a plethora of other antiquated regulatory requirements, may be suitable for stable firms with dominating market power, such as the old-fashioned Ma Bell or modern electric utilities. But all Internet service providers, including cable operators, phone companies, cellular service providers, and satellite providers, work in a fast-paced, cutthroat industry.

This is precisely what the FCC foresaw in 2002 when it decided that Title II utility model regulation of broadband Internet providers should be replaced with a "minimum regulatory environment." At the time, the FCC underlined how Internet service delivery was already "changing through many electronic platforms, including wireline, cable, terrestrial wireless, and satellite."

In fact, the FCC is now proposing to impose new net neutrality restrictions without needing any evidence of market failure or consumer damage due to current Internet provider activities, possibly realizing that allegations that the broadband Internet market is uncompetitive are false.

After all, the effect on customers should be the main priority. The more affordable, more flexible "commercial reasonableness" paradigm would inhibit investment and innovation by Internet service providers more than Title II legislation would. Wireline and wireless Internet providers have spent more than $800 billion in new broadband infrastructure since the FCC declared in 2002 that Internet service providers were not subject to the Title II utility model, with $75 billion invested in 2013 alone. Under virtually universal broadband deployment and continuously improving speeds and dependability, consumers have unquestionably benefitted from this significant investment. Consumers would suffer from a halt in investment.

Furthermore, Title II regulations prevent Internet service providers from introducing new business models. For instance, supporters of Title II vehemently oppose new wireless plans, like those recently launched by Sprint and T-Mobile, that grant subscribers access to a small number of well-liked websites in exchange for a significantly lower monthly fee or that exempt access to specific content, like popular music websites, from counting towards data usage caps. Consumers, particularly low-income ones, are drawn to such plans that do not handle all websites unbiasedly.

Many currently in favor of Title II regulation made the same arguments in 1999, but then-FCC Chairman William Kennard rejected them. They demanded that cable broadband providers operate under a nondiscriminatory "open access" framework similar to net neutrality. Kennard concluded that imposing the "whole tangle of regulation" associated with the utility model on Internet service providers would not be beneficial for the United States.

The statement that turning Internet service providers into public utilities would not benefit America or its users is truer now than in 1999. It's time for the FCC to withdraw the Title II proposal.