White House Threatens Veto Of House Vote Against Net Neutrality
Jillian Rayfield | April 5, 2011

The White House Office of Management and Budget said Monday that it "strongly opposes" efforts by the House of Representatives to invalidate net neutrality rules, and threatened to veto any bill that would do so.

"If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution," the OMB said in a statement.

In March, the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee approved a resolution that says that "Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices." The Subcommittee, passed the resolution by a vote of 15-8, and House Republicans are now pushing for a full vote.

The FCC voted in December for the "Open Internet Order", which would seek to prevent internet service providers from using their control of broadband networks to favor certain web content platforms while blocking access to others.

The White House said the House resolution "would undermine a fundamental part of the nation's internet and innovation strategy - an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open."

Republicans (and the Tea Party) have long opposed the FCC's efforts, arguing that the FCC is overstepping its authority by looking to expand its control over regulating phone and cable companies.

The threat of a veto represents another hiccup this week for net neutrality opponents. On Monday, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed two challenges to the FCC rule by Verizon and MetroPCS --- though its reasoning was that the companies could not challenge the order until it is published in the Federal Register.

I don't want the FCC anywhere near the internet. Once they have authority to regulate anything here they will eventually regulate everything here.

Access to the internet certainly is not a right (you know, since rights aren't real), but the informational revolution brought on by the creation and spread of the internet is something that should be protected. That's what I think and my votes will be in support of that.

Saying that internet regulation is a result of anything other than companies not wanting people using so much bandwidth, or a terrible attempt at combating piracy is a farce.

Define regulate. They also have a small country, where more than 50% of the population lives in one city. People complain about the unfairness of the companies in the US, but I'd really like to know the honest to god business side of why they do anything, before deciding that the government needs to be involved. The internet is not a right or needed for most people. If you are a construction worker, you do not need the internet to get a job.

You really don't see the problem in ISPs being able to select what data you can and cannot access? That's like a license to print money. Enjoy your new 2GB bandwidth cap for $100/month, while I block any website that gives my service a bad review or offers alternatives so you think you're getting a great deal.

You really don't see the problem in ISPs being able to select what data you can and cannot access? That's like a license to print money. Enjoy your new 2GB bandwidth cap for $100/month, while I block any website that gives my service a bad review or offers alternatives so you think you're getting a great deal.

Canada hasn't invaded America yet because they lack the man power at the moment.

This way of arguing is fun.

The only thing "liberal techies" want to protect is an open internet that doesn't let internet service providers charge for tiered access to websites.

Access to the internet certainly is not a right (you know, since rights aren't real), but the informational revolution brought on by the creation and spread of the internet is something that should be protected. That's what I think and my votes will be in support of that.

Saying that internet regulation is a result of anything other than companies not wanting people using so much bandwidth, or a terrible attempt at combating piracy is a farce.

You really don't see the problem in ISPs being able to select what data you can and cannot access? That's like a license to print money. Enjoy your new 2GB bandwidth cap for $100/month, while I block any website that gives my service a bad review or offers alternatives so you think you're getting a great deal.

Elm, do you recognize that markets in some industries can be inherently imperfect/inefficient due to "natural monopoly" features?