Net neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be carried across network infrastructure in a neutral manner. In the early days of the World Wide Web, when the Internet had few users and uses, this tenet served consumers and commerce well. But as online activity has soared, the rules have changed. Internet service providers now must direct traffic from old dial-up dirt roads to high-speed international highways, ensuring a fast and open Internet for more than 1 billion online users today.

Without heavy-handed government mandates, Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon have increased investment to keep pace with rising consumer demand, building out billions of dollars worth of fiber-optic cable and other high-speed access “lanes” so that consumers can view any page they wish. Remarkably, congestion on the information superhighway has been rare, as the traffic flow has been effectively managed through market forces, benefiting some online users more than others.

Certain Internet-based businesses such as Google and Amazon.com have gobbled up bandwidth over the years to make billions of dollars, creating rich content and media services that have pressed the need for an even greater bandwidth supply.

But bandwidth is a finite, limited resource, and ISPs may one day need to prioritize Internet traffic to sustain bandwidth access for every American. Content companies have balked at the idea that they should ever pay more to help maintain the lanes they’ve been a primary beneficiary of, and if some lawmakers get their way, the control of these lanes will be wrestled from consumers and thrust into the hands of Washington Beltway bureaucrats. That would bottleneck traffic on the network’s digital lanes.

Democratic supporters of net neutrality have made numerous attempts to regulate the traffic flow methods of ISPs, but they haven’t been successful. That could change with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

By employing federal bureaucrats to monitor and control the traffic lanes, the Internet Act undermines the market forces that have served consumers so well, discouraging future investment. With fewer incentives for ISPs to adopt new technologies and build more lanes for high-speed Internet access, online traffic will crowd up onto overworked infrastructure, slowing and degrading the user experience of every American.

We’ve come too far as a nation to revert back to our 56K modem days, and the future of the Internet is too important to be held up by a spat between business partners that should be resolved privately, like all commercial transactions. It’s only prudent that ISPs adopt economic methods to facilitate traffic flow and Internet access for all.

As for the claim that free speech is at stake, everyone should remember that since a business’ reputation may make or break future earnings, ISPs always have a strong financial incentive to ensure fair and equitable treatment of data delivery across their network.

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act is unduly burdensome, and government intervention in the online marketplace is unwarranted and unnecessary. Rather than layer the Internet in new bureaucracy and red tape, Congress should encourage responsible business practices that will secure the future growth and prosperity of the World Wide Web. Failure to do so may permanently detour America’s Internet traffic.

Vince Vasquez is a policy fellow in technology studies at the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank based in San Francisco.