Last week the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report (pdf) urging caution on the issue of net neutrality and asserting what we here at the Hands Off blog have been saying all along: net neutrality is a non-issue, competition in the broadband market is increasing, and the completely hypothetical concerns raised by neutrality supporters could be more than adequately addressed by existing laws.

On the prospect of net neutrality legislation, FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras noted in her statement that without evidence of “market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area.” We don’t think we could have said it any better ourselves.

If technology writer Sonia Arrison didn’t exist, we might have to invent her. Luckily, she most certainly exists and recently she penned a concise explanation of what’s behind the debate over so called “net neutrality.” Here’s one salient passage:

[FTC chair Deborah Platt Majoras is] right that market forces work incredibly well in discouraging online censorship and malevolent business practices. What critics need to remember is that consumers drive the marketplace, and companies, not the government, should be allowed to choose the business model that works best. Public demand has already driven the vast speed, openness and accessibility on the Internet, and will continue to do so without bureaucratic aid.

Now, as consumption of rich online multimedia grows, the next-generation Internet will require billions of dollars in investments to expand bandwidth capacity. With network providers taking significant risks in response to this demand, it would be a mistake for Congress to intervene and regulate in anticipation of problems. Politicians and public figures alike should realize the absurdity of advocating more red tape to keep the Internet free. …

If the loss of net neutrality principles was really a problem, advocates wouldn’t need to scare Americans in order to win their support. Using government regulation preemptively to shortchange business partners is a reckless abuse of the public policy process. New laws should be based on facts and reality, not fear and hypothetical situations.

The advocates of more regulation would have you think the Internet was not already free (as in speech, not as in beer). Their focus on hyping unrealistic scenarios has only made them less effective, and by now they’re overcommitted, and can’t change course — lucky for Internet users.

Yes, it was a few weeks ago now, but humor us: We just can’t get enough of that speech by FTC chair Deborah Platt Majoras, where she offered her considered opinion on whether new Internet regulations are necessary. (In sum: Not now.) Here’s one of her best bits:

“While I am sounding cautionary notes about new legislation, let me make clear that if broadband providers engage in anticompetitive conduct, we will not hesitate to act using our existing authority. … But I have to say, thus far, proponents of Net neutrality regulation have not come to us to explain where the market is failing or what anticompetitive conduct we should challenge.”

Got that? There are already government officials that Google, Amazon, Yahoo and their Internet allies could complain to if the telecom industry was acting unfairly.

More proof that they don’t have any serious complaint, they just want a handout. We hope that the Senate, when it reconvenes, takes Ms. Majoras’ thoughts into consideration.