U.S. Senate rejects attempt to overturn FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules

The Senate on Thursday voted to keep in place the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial rules aimed at preserving open Internet access,” Jim Puzzanghera reports for The Los Angeles Times.

“Republicans had pushed to overturn the so-called net neutrality rules, and a resolution to do so failed 52-46 in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The White House this week had threatened to veto the action if the Senate approved it,” Puzzanghera reports. “The vote ends a months-long attempt by opponents of the rules to get them wiped out. In April, the Republican-controlled House voted 240-179 in favor of a similar resolution of disapproval.”

“Nearly all Republicans oppose the new rules, arguing the FCC overstepped its authority and that regulation of the Internet will stifle its growth,” Puzzanghera reports. “‘Over the past 20 years, the Internet has grown and flourished without burdensome regulations from Washington,’ said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who led the push in the Senate to overturn the rules. ‘If we’re going to keep an open and free Internet and keep the jobs it spawns, we should reject the FCC regulation on net neutrality.'”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Free Press sues U.S. FCC over so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – September 29, 2011
FCC takes steps toward implementing ‘Net Neutrality’ rules – July 1, 2011
Al Franken: Big corporations are ‘hoping to destroy’ the Internet – March 16, 2011
Speaker Boehner rips FCC bid to regulate Internet; likens ‘shocking’ national debt to Sputnik threat – February 28, 2011
House passes amendment to block funds for FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ order – February 17, 2011
Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet – December 28, 2010
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Tim Lee on ‘network neutrality’: Libertarian computer geeks should forge a third way – December 16, 2010
Google and Verizon propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules, but exempt wireless’ – August 9, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 6, 2010
Google and Verizon said to be close to deal that may jeopardize ‘net neutrality’ – August 05, 2010
Big win for Comcast as US court rules against FCC on authority to impose ‘Net Neutrality’ – April 06, 2010
Did the FCC’s National Broadband Plan kill ‘Net Neutrality?’ – March 26, 2010
Steve Jobs: Google’s ‘Don’t be evil’ mantra is ‘bullshit’ – February 01, 2010
Will ‘Net Neutrality’ go wireless? Google and the telecommunications industry gird for battle – October 01, 2009
AT&T: Any new ‘net neutrality’ rules should apply to Google Voice, too – September 25, 2009
AT&T calls FCC neutrality plan a ‘Bait and Switch’ – September 22, 2009
Senate Republicans move to block FCC’s proposed ‘net neutrality’ rules – September 22, 2009
Opposing Net Neutrality – August 10, 2006
U.S. Senate committee rejects net neutrality proposal – June 29, 2006
House rejects H.R. 5252 Net neutrality amendment – June 09, 2006
Google posts call to action on ‘net neutrality’ – June 08, 2006
FCC Commissioner backs Net Neutrality – May 30, 2006


  1. This is good news for iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.

    The telcos and cable companies don’t need monopolies over pay-per-view. The worst offender may be AT&T U-Verse. They’ve started capping access to competing services, but exempt their own pay-per-view service from the IP traffic limits. The FCC and USDOJ should start an inquiry on that.

    1. The idea is good, but this specific rendition was coined with help of bribes Google and Verizon to include exemption from the net neutrality rules for wireless internet access.

      While such measure is certainly profitable for these large businesses like Google so they could pay to Verizon and get for their traffic special treatment, this is obviously grand abuse of the concept and such rules do not have the right to be called “net neutrality” — since these are totally opposite to the concept.

      This is funny since Google issued special alarming PR back in 2006 how net neutrality was in danger in the front of then-discussed initiatives — only to attack net neutrality four years later.

    2. …yeah, because the government did such a GREAT job regulating the financial industry.

      Before you go blaming the republicans for everything, it was Barney Frank (D) that was screaming everything was fine with FreddieMac and FannieMae – right up to the point they tanked.

      Industry will buy politicians on BOTH sides. The big companies will push for rules to ensure profit, limit competition,and squash any upstarts. In order to keep profits up and prices low, they will delay innovation.

      The government use to heavily regulate the telephone industry – Ma Bell. How far and fast do you think the internet and dial up service would have progressed?

      1. I’m with you. Everything the Republicans do is right, good, intelligent, and will benefit the USA as a whole.
        Everything those Democrats do is wrong, bad, stupid, and is Bad for the USA!

    3. Net neutrality, as I’m sure we both envision it, is not a bad idea. What _I_ mean by net neutrality is that the carriers function as “dumb pipes,” and just move packets from one place to another, putting all user traffic at the same priority.

      Unfortunately, what the FCC is hyping as “Net Neutrality” is not this, in that it permits prioritization of certain types of user data packets in certain media, notably wireless. This is the “foot in the door” to actually ELIMINATE real net neutrality on an incremental basis in the future.

      Just because the FCC is calling it “Net Neutrality” doesn’t mean that it is. It’s generally a bad idea to trust any labels that the government applies to something. (For example, somehow I don’t think that our current national situation is what most people envisioned when they considered the label “hope and change,” nor did they envision the length of time we’ve STILL been in Iraq when they saw Mr. Bush under the unfortunately-placed “Mission Accomplished” banner all those years ago.)

  2. Good. The last thing we need is Pay Per Surf style Internet —where free users get a small box of shiatty content and throttled speeds while paid tier users get “premium” internet content and priority bandwidth from ISPs

  3. Yes, Senator Hutchison, we have already seen how the feverish pace of broadband innovation by AT&T, Comcast, Mediacom, TimeWarner, Verizon, etc. has been chilled by the threat of FCC net neutrality regulations.

  4. I would like to ask Hutchison just how giving control of the internet to a few companies will promote growth. A lot of people failed to learn a lesson when the Republicans deregulated the cable TV industry. It did the oposite of what the Republicans promised. It drove up prices and instead of encouraging competition, it insured each carrier kept control of its area. This is “deja vue all over again!”

    1. Sorry, but you are wrong. It opened up more opportunity for what cable offered.

      There is competition in most markets for phone, video and ISP.
      There is limited room on power poles and right of ways for hard-line, which means LTE and Wi-Fi will be surpassing 6Mbps reliably in many markets.

      If you want more choice in video via hard-line, talk to your city council. They set the rules for cable negotiations.

    1. Well, in the case of Republicans, it lets them tell the corporations they work for that they can continue to bend over everyone in this country that is struggling to make a paycheck.

  5. While in most things I consider myself a conservative and lean toward the right, I think we need some kind of ‘net neutrality’. I’m just afraid that the one currently going into effect is flawed and will not solve the problems that it is supposed to address. Wireless should not be exempt.

  6. Leaving aside all the arguments against net neutrality (of which there are many), the bill was intended to reiterate the fact that the FCC has no authority to enact such regulations — something the senators who voted “no” conveniently ignored. Next stop — U.S. District Court, which told the FCC precisely the same thing in April 2010.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.