The American Conservative Union (ACU) has filed a statement with the Federal Communications Commission calling net neutrality "a 'solution' to a non-existent problem "

"There are so many problems with so-called net neutrality that it’s difficult to know where to begin," J. William Lauderback, Executive Vice President of the American Conservative Union, wrote to the FCC on May 2nd, "but probably the most obvious is that it is completely unnecessary."

Lauderback's are among the first serious comments submitted to the Commission in response to its Notice of Inquiry on the net neutrality question. The FCC launched the proceeding on April 16th, with a comment deadline set for June 15th and a reply to comments deadline set at July 16th.

Although the FCC's Notice did not use the term "net neutrality," it asked to the public to comment on whether the agency should establish a new set of guidelines for "nondiscrimination."

Popularly known as net neutrality, the principle calls for broadband providers to offer the same access and charge the same rates to Internet content companies serving up comparable voice, text, and video services.

The FCC proceeding seeks public feedback on whether the agency should "incorporate a new principle of nondiscrimination and, if so, how would 'nondiscrimination' be defined, and how would such a principle read."

Lauderback says it should not read at all.

"There is not a single instance of online discrimination anywhere in the country today!" his emphatic statement argues. "No provider is blocking or degrading unaffiliated content. . . . In short, consumers are enjoying unfettered access to the legal content of their choice and the Commission has every reason to accept the success of its policies!"

The ACU filing contends that the best way to protect consumers is by adding more bandwidth.

"America needs increased network deployment and the only realistic way this will happen is through massive private investment," it says. "But adding a massive laver of bureaucracy and stifling regulation to the Internet’s fast-changing architecture will just slow down the very deployment that Americans increasingly need."

Lauderback also argues that net neutrality will burden companies with unnecessary costs and will have to be "continually updated as changing technologies require newer, even more complex oversight."

The FCC's non-discrimination proceeding has been flooded with pro-net neutrality comments—mostly short emails generated by Web forms. But only five parties have filed longer statements.

The lack of participation may stem from the cynicism with which the Notice has been met, even from some of the FCC's commissioners.

“Let's be frank. Putting out a notice of inquiry is not the way to sail boldly forth,” said Commissioner Michael Copps in response to the Notice announcement. “History shows that notices of inquiry like this have a way of disappearing into the regulatory dustbin, putting off decisions that need to be made now.”

Pro-net neutrality groups argue that the FCC should act before big telecommunications outfits like AT&T start playing favorites with broadband content providers. In its successful bid to acquire BellSouth, AT&T has promised to uphold net neutrality principles for several years.

On August 5th, 2005, the FCC issued a statement declaring that the agency has the "jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner." The agency also outlined four principles to guide this goal.

But in his own comments on the statement, FCC Chair Kevin Martin held back from endorsing any kind of direct intervention on the matter.

"I remain confident that the marketplace will continue to ensure that these principles are maintained," Martin said. "I also am confident, therefore, that regulation is not, nor will be, required."