PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S183-185)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 25, 2011
Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011 - Amends title II (Common Carriers) of the Communications Act of 1934 to add the following provisions (commonly referred to as net neutrality provisions) prohibiting a broadband Internet access service provider (B-IASP) from unreasonably: (1) interfering with an end user's ability to use or offer lawful content (including fair use), applications, or services (CASs), or to use or connect to harmless legal devices; (2) interfering with competition among network or CAS providers; (3) discriminating against lawful CASs, or service providers, or preferring affiliated CASs, as specified; (4) charging for access to end users based on differing levels of quality of service (QOS) or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol (IP) packets (pay-for-priority); (5) prioritizing among or between CASs unless requested by the end user; (6) installing functions or capabilities that interfere with compliance; and (7) refusing to interconnect on reasonable terms and conditions.
Defines a B-IASP as a person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide an Internet access service directly to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free, and whether provided via wire or radio, except when such service is offered as an incidental component of a noncommunications contractual relationship.
Prohibits B-IASPs from requiring end users to purchase other specified services as a condition of purchasing broadband Internet access service.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires B-IASPs that allow end users to request QOS assurances for the transmission of IP packets associated with its own (or its affiliates) CASs to permit QOS assurances for all IP packets chosen by the end user, without regard to the chosen CASs. Prohibits QOS assurances from blocking, interfering with, or degrading any other end user's access to CASs.
Allows B-IASPs to engage in reasonable network management practices determined by specified factors. Prohibits a B-IASP's practices from being considered reasonable if it charges content, applications, or other online service providers for differing QOS levels or prioritized delivery of IP packets. Permits B-IASPs to offer interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and multichannel-video programming distribution services regulated under title IV of the Act on transmission capacity also used by broadband Internet access services.
Sets forth requirements for: (1) public disclosure; (2) participation in any broadband universal service fund established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and (3) FCC enforcement, private claims, and state actions.
People & committees
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S183-185)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S181-183)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.74 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.74 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.74 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.74 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.