Another step may be taken towards the possibility higher government oversight of the internet. The deadline for public comments on “net neutrality” is tomorrow, July 15, 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempts to step up regulation of the internet. This is in response to complaints surrounding the difficulties of streaming Netflix content. But has much more and far reaching implications. The creator of this movement, Columbia law professor Tim Wu, has unfortunately proved to be popular. And he has suggested regulations that contradict the already established “neutrality” of the internet.

The Net has been open since it was privatized by the Clinton administration. It grew from a mere 88,000 users in the late 1980s, to more than 3 billion today. But “net neutrality” regulation has been sold for a decade as a way to keep the Internet open. The regulatory advocates have argued that ISPs have an incentive to act in their own best interests when dealing with consumers and competitors. The ISPs would slow, or buffer, traffic for businesses like Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “internet off ramps,” and better quality of service. By keeping Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or degrading Web sites, the internet will have additional freedoms.

In truth, nothing is broken. The Internet does not need fixing. Market failures like these have never happened. And if consumers were being harmed by ISPs, laws already exist to fix any problem. Major broadband providers have already pledged in their terms of service to keep the ‘Net open and free simply because it is good business to do so. The complaints and desired regulations stem from Netflix, which can produce 34 percent of the Net’s traffic at peak times. That volume of traffic can quickly clog buffering capability, creating costs that Netflix could pass on to ISPs and consumers. But the free market is sorting out these growing pains, just as it has successfully from the beginning.

In short, the Internet is the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. And this simple fact confounds those seeking new and potentially unnecessary rules.