Obama Threatens To Veto Senate's Anti-Net-Neutrality Resolution
After hemming and hawing (and probably a heck of a lot of backroom dealings), the FCC finally passed a basic – if very limited – version of net neutrality late last December. As could be expected, net neutrality opponents began frothing at the mouth and threatening to sue the day the law went into effect (which happens in 12 days, actually). This week, Senators are voting on S.J. Res. 6, a simply worded resolution that aims to defang the new net neutrality rules. The White House released a statement today saying, basically, “Don’t even try it.”
As we said, the resolution itself is waaaaaaaay more straightforward than any other bill you’d ever see in Washington:
That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices (Report and Order FCC 10-201, adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2010), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The White House statement is a bit longer – it spends a long paragraph defending the Obama administration’s position – but the “Getting down to business” part is just as straightforward:
If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.
The White House even went so far as to underline the sentence. That way, you know the administration is serious, you see. Expect to see even more opposition to the net neutrality laws once they actually go live.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
bling581
November 09, 2011 at 10:55am
Peoples, before you post garbage about net neutrality actually go out and read what the law says before you claim that it's restricing our freedom or "pro big business". It's just the opposite so get a clue.
![]()
thechipper
November 09, 2011 at 1:43am
To put it frankly the government doesn't want you to be free. By policing and scrutinizing absolutely every freedom that people have we lose every right we have. You can say they are trying to protect us but really they aren't out there to get the pedos or the terrorists. They are backed by Hollywood and the music industry. And with this money they just want to get rid of piracy in a lie to say its for our own good. Yup, Tom Cruise you deserve another $40million for yet another mediocre movie that cleans up in the box office. Then they want you to pay for it on a dead media format? LULZ
![]()
bling581
November 09, 2011 at 10:51am
I think you're completely missing the point to net neutrality and why it's a good thing. Net neutrality is an anti-big business law so your post deserves a *facepalm*. If there was no net neutrality ISP's would throttle traffic and give preferential treatment to companies that paid the big bucks for their website traffic to be fast. Companies like Netflix would hurt with the dollars it would have to pay to keep decent speeds for streaming and guess who that additional cost would be passed onto?
![]()
Holly Golightly
November 08, 2011 at 8:48pm
We need to treat all websites equally! Just because one company gets more attention than another shouldn't mean that they should own most of the bandwidth. At some point, all businesses start small, so we need to allow smaller broadband companies the same amount of access as the bigger ones. Make things nice and equal.
![]()
Nimrod
November 08, 2011 at 4:50pm
Im afraid Roll Tide is correct. Your looking at the fairness doctrine 2.0 under corporate fascism.
![]()
Roll Tide
November 08, 2011 at 3:26pm
your missing the point completely.. is not about neturality its about limiting data to websites based on content and popularity... Netflix takes about a third of streaming traffic right now.. under net neutrality, their data will be slowed down or de prioritized destroying quality and killing netflix's business. In a seperate angle, compare two web site with differenty idealogies. Huffington and Drudge. Each site is at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Whoever is in political power of the FCC could then dictate theoretically which site received the most, least latent traffic.
![]()
whelderwheels613
November 11, 2011 at 9:41am
No, thats not neutrality. The presidents statement is about... neutrality. What you said right there, is the exact opposite of neutrality, neutrality which the FCC is trying to promote, and neutraility which the senate is trying to deter.
![]()
someuid
November 08, 2011 at 3:11pm
Meh, as far as I'm concerned the net neutrality rules the FCC is putting into place are pretty corrupted and pointless. President Obama not only needs to stand up to Congress, he also needs to call his FCC chairman and say "wtf get some real regulations on the books and stop pandering to the big businesses that are raking in massive profits."
The FCC should be barring broadband companies from entering into any kind of service agreements that leave them in a position to abuse their monopolistic positions. No business should be allowed to own the pipes and the data that flows over it. They should be given an either-or choice - provide infotainment and data, or provide a pipe.
We don't see airlines owning airports, giving them a chance to squeeze out competing airlines from offering flights to that city. Should be the same with our data services.
![]()
Slurpy
November 08, 2011 at 1:01pm
It always makes me happy on the rare occasions when Obama at least pretends to keep his campaign promises.
![]()
thetechchild
November 08, 2011 at 11:51pm
Let's not kid ourselves, most of those were unrealistic. We should be happy that he hasn't screwed up (too badly) yet.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















