At first glance, so-called “net neutrality” regulations seem reasonable and harmless. However, a deeper examination reveals that net neutrality is neither reasonable nor harmless. Imposing neutrality mandates is unnecessary and overly burdensome. Mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth. Proponents of neutrality regulations are seeking to fix something that is not broken. Proposed net neutrality legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

The phenomenal growth of the Internet, and more recently the surge in broadband Internet services, is a tribute to the early realization that the Internet was not simply a technically precocious version of the regulated, monopoly-era telephone system. By resisting the temptation to swaddle the Internet with a regulatory blanket reminiscent of that era, we have given this technology the invaluable gift of a free-market environment.

Internet policy has never been one of benign neglect. The Internet is too vital a national resource for that. But Congress has followed a realistic and productive path of minimal regulation directed at encouraging private investment in the broadband networks that, in fact, are the Internet. This is where our focus needs to remain.

The success of minimal regulation is reflected in the $70 billion that North American communications companies invested in broadband network technology last year alone, and in the nearly 1,400 broadband providers competing to serve American consumers. This ongoing investment is expanding the size and sophistication of broadband networks. It is key to accommodating the fast-approaching new generation of 4G wireless services online and making sure America’s growing appetite for all kinds of broadband services doesn’t overwhelm the physical capacity of the Internet.

Net neutrality in its original concept is unassailable. It says the operators of broadband networks should be forbidden from discriminating against content providers who want access to those networks. When issues have occurred the existing competitive marketplace has handled them. New, strict government regulations will not result in network neutrality, but only create even more problems. This is not the time to discourage broadband investment by shifting from minimal regulation of the Internet to intrusive regulation. Leave it to the federal government to impose regulations on a problem that does not even exist.

The concept of net neutrality as translated into current legislative proposals is a dangerous diversion from U.S. Internet policy. The Internet has never been subject to the rigid non-discrimination rules that applied to common carriers going back to the original Communications Act of 1934. Court decisions and FCC policy have only reinforced the logical idea that telephone-style restrictions don’t apply to data services and certainly not to Internet services offered by telcos, cable companies and other providers.

We have seen tremendous technological evolution over the past few decades. In a relatively short period of time, we’ve gone from primitive computer games to e-mail to streaming video with billions of dollars of investments in the absence of strict net neutrality regulations. Take the wireless industry, for example. In December of 1995, there were only 33.8 million wireless subscribers. In December 2007, there were 255.4 million. At the end of 1995, wireless penetration was only 13 percent, but 12 years later, penetration has reached 84 percent. The wireless industry serves as an example of what can happen when Congress allows the free marketplace to operate. Similarly, robust competition among network operators provides a powerful incentive, since any network that abuses its power would quickly lose customers.

There is no gain to the public in saddling the Internet with unnecessary regulation. Net neutrality legislation would put a chill on future investment in broadband networks; it would also strip away the authority of network operators to mange the broadband networks they have already built at their own expense. And most Americans don’t realize the importance of network management in connecting them with the broadband services they use today and the ones they anticipate in the future.

Today’s broadband networks are dealing with an explosion of traffic. The number of users is increasing, as 10 million new Internet users come online worldwide each month. Meanwhile, there’s the phenomenal growth of online videos and movie downloads over peer-to-peer networks. The Internet is basically a conglomeration of highways in the form of broadband networks, and traffic on those highways has to be managed. Otherwise, we would have Internet gridlock.

Just a few weeks ago Internet pioneer Sir Tim Berners-Lee told the BBC that the World Wide Web is still in its infancy. This may be true but we will never know if we impose harmful mandates as some are proposing.

Pending neutrality legislation and regulations will stunt the development of the Internet and the innovations of the future will remain only in our imagination.

Stearns is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.