No one can be surprised that President Obama voiced support for Net neutrality this week, since that’s been his position for years. But what was notable — and unfortunate — about his statement was how strongly he urged the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service as a public utility.

In other words, he wants Internet service providers regulated like electric utilities, or telephone service back before the breakup of Ma Bell.

Historically, government has jumped into such regulation — of the railroads in the 19th century, for example — when there was clear evidence that consumers were being shortchanged or exploited by existing arrangements. But that’s not the case with the Internet today. The business remains competitive and options for consumers continue to evolve.

Meanwhile, the parade of horribles cited by supporters of greater regulation — such as access to critical websites being blocked or throttled by ruthless providers — are mainly projections, not descriptions of reality.

The president was careful not to push for full utility-like regulation, asking the FCC to refrain from “rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.” But once the FCC has established its power to regulate broadband service as a utility, it’s inevitable that it will succumb to mission creep. In fact, it may be legally obligated to.

“More than any other invention of our time,” Obama said, “the Internet has unlocked possibilities we could just barely imagine a generation ago.” Who can argue? But that’s precisely why government should seek a light regulatory regime in achieving its objectives: so that it doesn’t dampen investment and innovation in this powerful force for progress.

Ironically, even FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, also a proponent of Net neutrality, recognizes the risks in reclassifying broadband providers as utilities and has pursued a middle road that might achieve similar goals in terms of access. And since the FCC is an independent agency, Wheeler is free to ignore the president’s advice.

In this case, he should.