Congress certainly can't agree on much, but we've now discovered what it will unite for: opposing a United Nations "takeover" of the Internet.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted unanimously (397-0) against the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the United Nations’ efforts to push “increased government control over the Internet" that would "undermine the current multistake-holder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish and under which the private sector.” The same resolution passed the Senate back in September, also by unanimous vote. (Even their European counterparts passed a similar resolution in November.)

So why now? This week is the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai (or, WCIT-12, for short). At the conference, a new set of International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) are being negotiated—regulations that haven’t been updated since 1988.

As we've noted before, the United Nations can't just unilaterally obtain control of the Internet even if it wanted to. But don’t take our word for it. Take it from the guy who would know, Secretary General Hamadoun Touré of the ITU. Back in June, he put it this way: “I do not see how WCIT could set barriers to the free flow of information.”

Sure, many countries at WCIT-12 want to push their own agenda. Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet (in the form of the US-based ICANN). And authoritarian states want to further legitimize their already existing censorship and surveillance regimes. After all, as we reported earlier this year, Touré rightly pointed out the ITU recognizes all of its member states' rights to impose various types of restrictions on freedom of speech. The list includes prohibitions on copyright violations, pornography, defamation, and political speech among others.

“Such restrictions are permitted by article 34 of the ITU’s Constitution, which provides that Member States reserve the right to cut off, in accordance with their national law, any private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the State, or contrary to its laws, to public order, or to decency,” he added.

In short, countries are free to impose essentially whatever policy they want on their own domestic Internet—and already they do with impunity. (As always, we’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and most recently, Syria.)

Another issue getting a lot of attention is that telcos want more money by instituting a "sender-pays" regime that would force online service providers, many of them based in the United States, to pay more to deliver their content to the world's consumers. Fortunately for all of us that know and love the Internet the way it is, the UN can't unilaterally impose changes to that setup either.