The power grab has begun. On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made it official:

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today announced the Commission will vote during its April Open Meeting to restore Net Neutrality, which would bring back a national standard for broadband reliability, security, and consumer protection. If adopted, the Chairwoman’s proposal would ensure that broadband services are treated as an essential resource deserving of FCC oversight under Title II authority.

Let’s be clear. This is just about the power to regulate. Nothing is broken that requires net neutrality rules and the FCC is not promising to use the powers that come with Title II authority to regulate rates and dictate how companies manage their networks. Instead, the FCC is simply giving itself the option to regulate at its first whim in the future. It is this power that the FCC covets.

The fact that the FCC is not yet promising explicit regulations does not mean that this vote is costless. As Jeffrey Westling put it:

To justify this change, the FCC argues that reclassification is necessary to promote an open Internet, as well as to promote public safety and national security. In both initial comments and reply comments regarding this rulemaking, I explained why the FCC’s plan would not fulfill either of these justifications. First, the light-touch framework that has largely governed broadband since its inception has led to the most robust Internet economy in the world. Second, by reclassifying broadband as a utility, the FCC would add additional costs and risk to any new investment decision. As BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] providers invest less in their networks, both public safety and national security would be diminished, not strengthened, as the FCC claims.

Put bluntly, the evidence is that it will reduce investments in the deployment and improvement of broadband – precisely at a time when closing the digital divide is a policy priority.

There is one new twist. Since the Obama-era net neutrality rules were issued, wireless companies have developed “network slicing,” a technology that lets them offer “virtual” dedicated networks to big customers. The current FCC proposal leaves companies in limbo by neither restricting the technology nor explicitly protecting it.

So, the FCC power grab is underway. The president is fond of defending his policies by claiming “I’m a capitalist.” But governance that respects the private sector would not adopt an obsolete, 1930s telephone regulatory framework without any evidence of a market failure. Maximizing the coercive power of the state is hardly a capitalist approach.