The Internet is one of the wonders of the modern world. It has dramatically transformed society, disrupted numerous industries and has put information, entertainment, connectivity and myriad consumer and business applications at our fingertips — anywhere, anytime.

Certainly, negatives and positives are associated with this dramatic technological revolution. But, overall, the Internet has improved productivity, created jobs, boosted standards of living and has been an enormously positive force in the national and global economies.

Most of the innovation and development resulting in amazing products and services associated with the Internet have occurred without heavy-handed government regulation. In fact, it can be argued that much of the technological revolution has flourished precisely because of freedom and lack of regulation.

Today, however, that freedom is being threatened by a Federal Communications Commission proposal to regulate the Internet as a “common carrier” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Such a classification would allow the FCC to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting rules to determine practices and pricing.

Proponents of the FCC action argue the FCC must ensure “net neutrality” to prevent large Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast from creating Internet “fast lanes” and charging high-bandwidth customers like Netflix higher prices to use them.

Comcast argues, of course, that activities like streaming movies and playing online video games swallow up enormous chunks of bandwidth, so it is proper to use different pricing models based on bandwidth consumption.

I won't argue the details of bandwidth pricing, but I do believe resorting to an 80-year-old law to regulate the Internet makes no sense. While this issue deals with the most modern of technologies, the age-old principles of capitalism and free markets should prevail.

The history of technology and the Internet demonstrates conclusively that every time it appears a company or technology is becoming monopolistic, or is charging too much for its services, some other entrepreneur, sometimes working out of his or her garage, steps in and disrupts the established business or industry.

That is, unless government intervenes with onerous regulations that protect incumbent businesses and reduce incentives for entrepreneurs to invest, innovate and disrupt.

In the net neutrality debate, the issue is Internet traffic and how capacity should be divided up and paid for. I believe the market will easily take care of that matter, without the FCC taking sides and propping up select businesses while stifling innovation and investment.

Certainly, bandwidth was once scarce, finite and expensive. But smart businesses have made it expansive and ubiquitous. We’re seeing further exciting bandwidth improvements with WiFi expansion, and some of the world’s largest companies are investing in telecommunications balloons, drones, and low-level satellites.

If Comcast charges Netflix too much to deliver its movies, that’s a great opportunity for other companies to step in with new technologies. Government doesn’t need to intervene. And if the FCC unwisely interferes with pricing and regulations to ensure “fairness,” less incentive will exist for investment and innovation to disrupt Comcast.

The history of the Internet shows that if a market need exists, smart entrepreneurs will figure out a way to deliver goods and services to meet that need. Innovation has resulted in lower prices, more choices and better quality.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch has called the FCC’s plan to regulate the Internet “both unwise and unnecessary. It is unwise because it would place the Internet under the thumb of faceless bureaucrats using antiquated rules designed for the age of rotary telephones. … (It is) an outdated answer to a largely imagined problem.”

As a banker, I know firsthand how innovation and investment are stifled by the heavy hand of government. Certainly, proper regulations are necessary in the financial services industry. But overregulation is terribly counterproductive.

The magic of the marketplace will regulate the Internet just fine.

A. Scott Anderson is CEO and president of Zions Bank.