I once met Representative Roscoe Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, in 2002 during the state Republican convention. The subject of the U.S. Constitution came up. That’s when Mr. Bartlett informed us that he always walked with a copy of the document for quick reference.

I wish some of my net neutrality friends would do the same. Arguing that the Federal Communications Commission can just go and reclassify broadband access as Title II without the authority of Congress is political suicide. In addition, it’s administrative waste.

Two things would come from such a move. First, the FCC’s decision to reclassify would be reversed. The FCC would be required to show, pursuant to Comcast v. FCC, that there was some change in how consumers view Internet access. In other words, do consumers view Internet access as more than just an information service? Do consumers still separate telecommunications from the provision of e-mail? If yes, the Congress and the courts will reverse the FCC.

Second, the FCC will look ridiculous. The credibility they need for other areas such as merger review, universal service reform, and inter-carrier compensation reform will be damaged. Their brazenness will make them a laughing stock on K Street, Wall Street, and Main Street. Bourbon Street may be the only place they’ll have as a legitimate home if they pursued the ill-advised course of reclassification without congressional authorization.

The Federal Communications Commission has been asked to determine whether Nicktoons is violating the Children’s Television Act. of 1990 with its planned airing next month of the show, Zevo-3. The show is based on three characters developed by the shoe manufacturer, Skechers USA.

The advocacy group, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, alleges that show is nothing but a program-length commercial for the shoe manufacturer.

One of the goals of the Children’s Television Act is to increase the quantity of educational and informational broadcast television programming for children. The Act is based on Congress’ belief that market forces had not produced an adequate amount of children’s educational and informational programming on commercial television and that government action was needed to increase availability of such programming.

In their paper, “Net Neutrality is Bad Broadband Regulation”, Robert Litan (Brookings Institution) and Hal Singer (Navigant Economics) present a concise and cogent argument against net neutrality. In short, net neutrality does nothing for the economy in terms of job growth. Net neutrality will only lead to consumers paying higher rates for Internet access. Net neutrality means that a significant portion of an estimated $30 billion per year for five years in infrastructure investment will be lost.

Net neutrality proponents may not have noticed, but we are still experiencing an unemployment rate close to 10%. For the companies sitting on $2 trillion of hard cash, they are willing to make up for not hiring people by employing advanced technologies. For those companies willing to hire, more than likely job applicants will have to show that they are adept with using the computer starting with the application process itself and possibly training on line as well.

Question is, can we afford to pursue a broadband policy that would lead to unaffordable broadband access for those who need it most, given this economic environment?

In addition, $30 billion per year in investment is nothing to sneeze at, either. Applying the most conservative of multipliers, we are looking at $45 billion to $60 billion dollars of economic growth moving through the economy just from broadband facility deployment.

Can net neutrality produce that type of impact? If so, proponents would not have been quiet about its economic impact.

I’m no fan of Larry Summers. Personally, I think, along with a couple other departed economic types, he is responsible for what might be the third one-term presidency in the last thirty years. Yes, good riddance and I do feel for Harvard University.

However, I will have to put an asterisk next to my displeasure with Summers based on a comment made by Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Ms. Taylor holds Mr. Summers in low regard because he allegedly blocked President Obama’s net neutrality initiative. If that’s the case, then I say kudos to Professor Summers for getting one right.

Persuading the administration to allow net neutrality to blow in the wind was probably based on good old microeconomic policy. If the market for broadband access isn’t broken, then don’t try to fix it. Mr. Obama who allegedly, at least according to former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, is a defender of free markets probably bought into Professor Summers’ argument.

If the president did by the argument, at least he has disallowed another criticism from the

right that he is too interventionist. This leaves FCC chairman Julius Genachowski blowing in the wind with no backing in his now discontinued talks with the industry. It gives Mr. Obama, however, one less headache thanks to a little help from Mr. Summers.

Enjoy Cambridge, Professor.

Jason Rosenbaum’s suggestion that Congress not pass any legislation at all regarding the Internet, thus allowing the FCC to assert its authority over broadband reminds me of an observation made a couple weeks ago by Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois. “The FCC’s role is to implement not legislate.” It’s not the FCC chairman’s place to try and replace Congress and Congress, according to Mr. Rush, is not about to let that happen.

I’m no fan of Henry Waxman, but I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution. There is no existing statutory authority for what Mr. Rosenbaum is recommending. Asking Genachowski to assert jurisdiction is like asking him to toss up a Hail Mary pass while all of his receivers are still in his backfield.

Waxman is, for one of the rare moments of his career, being openly pragmatic. Codify the existing principles which industry has been abiding by for twenty years while giving them the freedom to manage their networks as they and their investors see fit.

As we move closer to mid-terms and the 2012 presidential campaign season starts full swing, it will be this type of pragmatic approach that settles this debate.