The Federal Communications Commission passed a set of rules Tuesday “to preserve basic Internet values,” but advocates of net neutrality say the new rules do not go far enough. Sen. Al Franken called the measures “simply inadequate,” while Republicans have vowed to push to repeal the new framework.

Under the new rules, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow to their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

Under the rules, telecoms can only manage their data in that manner if there is network congestion or spam, and they must disclose their policies should they plan to manage the data.

“The FCC’s action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet,” Sen. Franken said in a statement following the FCC vote. “I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

Franken did give the commission some credit, however. “I’m particularly encouraged by the inclusion of language cautioning that the FCC’s silence on certain kinds of discriminatory behavior by wireless carriers doesn’t tacitly condone it. While this is far from adequate, it stops us from taking a step backward.”

Hours after the vote, Republicans in Congress vowed to repeal the new FCC framework saying it could hurt profits for telecoms.

The letter to acting FCC chair Michael Copps — signed by Klobuchar and Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) — doesn’t name iPhone, but the language makes it clear that the phone’s exclusive contract with AT&T is a concern: It asks Copps and the FCC to “examine this issue carefully and act expeditiously should you find that exclusivity agreements unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition in the commercial wireless marketplace.”

At the committee’s hearing yesterday, Paul Roth, an AT&T president, defended the exclusive deals like the one they have with Apple.

Exclusive handset distribution arrangements encourage the necessary collaboration that optimizes handset performance and accelerates the delivery of next-generation features. They increase a carrier’s incentives to make purchase commitments and to invest in promotions, network improvements and special training of sales staff. They lower manufacturer entry barriers and serve as a key tool to maintain brand value. And, as an important form of competition, they encourage other carriers and manufacturers to do better, by improving their own handset portfolios or the prices, features and other characteristics of their existing offerings.

BoingBoing’s Joel Johnson says it’s an issue of consumer choice: Cellphone customers should have the option of using the phone they choose with the provider they prefer — say running an iPhone on T-Mobile or Sprint. But he wonders about the technical aspects.

“It’s certainly fair to consumers to have the most choice, especially when carriers have created a false economy to force customers into long-term contracts through the sale of ‘subsidized’ phones,” he writes. “But it might be sticky for the manufacturers of the phones — would Apple, for instance, be forced to make different models of iPhone that worked with other wireless standards like Verizon’s CDMA?”