WHY, exactly, does America have regulators? The idea is that regulatory agencies are better able than legislatures to keep up with innovation. Regulators, in theory, are more expert than politicians, and less passionate. In reality they are imperfect (as is all of government, and for that matter, all of life) but that we have any regulators at all is a testament, on some basic level, to the idea that companies left to their own devices don't always act in the best interests of the market.

Yesterday afternoon the FCC announced that negotiations with several large companies over proposed internet-service regulatory changes had broken down. Also yesterday, the New York Timeswrote of the possibility of a deal between Google and Verizon to allow Verizon to charge for faster service over its network. This would be a clear violation of the single, limited goal of the FCC's proposed changes. Let's leave aside for a second the question of just how terrible of an idea this is, and just how likely it is to throttle innovation by small actors on the web as it prioritises the work of better-capitalised companies. Let's focus instead on a more basic question: why does America have regulators?

If companies always agreed with regulators' rules, there would be no need for regulators. The very point of a regulator is to do things that companies don't like, out of concern for the welfare of the market or the consumer. In its Brand X decision in 2005, the Supreme Court upheld this discretionary power, arguing that it's better to give wide latitude to the expert opinion of a regulatory body. But in that case, the FCC had decided on a light touch with internet service providers. And back then, most ISPs agreed that the FCC had the authority to decide to regulate them lightly.

Woody Allen has won several Academy Awards for his films, but has consistently refused to show up to collect them. If he agrees with The Academy when it likes him, he reasons, he would have to agree when it doesn't. Google and Verizon seem to be deciding that they can opt out of the FCC's approach; I would suggest that they apply the same rigour to regulatory authority that Mr Allen does to the judgment of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. And I have two questions for anyone who agrees with what Verizon and Google are reported to be planning.

1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Brand X to defer to the judgment of the FCC?

2. If you do, on what basis do you contest the FCC's judgment now?

To be clear, if the New York Times is to be believed, Verizon and Google aren't just contesting the FCC's plan; they're deciding to pre-emptively disobey it. There's a democratic check on the FCC: America can vote out the president who appoints its chairman. And Google and Verizon are welcome to spend their media buys on ads that will help that happen. Until then, however, I'm sceptical of the idea that companies can pick and choose which proposed regulations they plan to follow.

More from The Economist: