Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Court Overrules Government On ‘Net Neutrality’

April 12, 2010 by  

Court overrules government on 'net neutrality'The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has backed the cable company Comcast in its dispute with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which accused the company of slowing some Internet traffic on its network. The ruling is seen as a blow to the government’s efforts to push through "net neutrality" regulations.

The proposed regulations would prevent companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from restricting access to Internet content, applications and services offered by competitors. Analysts say applications such as Google, Skype and Facebook would be among the biggest beneficiaries of such regulations.

In the court’s opinion, the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for preventing some subscribers from using peer-to-peer file-sharing services to download large files, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The ruling was welcomed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, whose public sector co-chair Representative Bill Hamzy (R-Conn.), said that "the FCC’s order was an unprecedented attempt by government to patrol private broadband networks."

However, the FCC has vowed to continue to push for net neutrality, with its spokeswoman Jen Howard saying that the court did not "[disagree] with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," quoted by the Journal.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19711453-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Court Overrules Government On ‘Net Neutrality’”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    Aside from the fact that ‘net neutrality’ is an extremely misleading and pc non sequitur, Jen Howard is using code words to make her point. Could it be that Jen Howard is yet another big government cheerleader? Maybe Howard is a czar wannabe.
    When goverment thugs and political hacks talk about using ‘other methods’ and ‘important ends’ in a free speech issue, it means more unconstitutional attacks are being planned. I can understand why dictatorial utopians are afraid of free speech, but at some point they should realize that enough people will see through their Hitlerian dreams and react accordingly.
    How the heathen rage when their unilateral definition of ‘free speech’ is crystal clear. It is so sad that some people never learned what free free speech means. These ‘big government forever’ losers are obsessed with re-defining free speech until there will be no such thing as free speech (unless your politics are utterly “correct,” that is).

    • Jana

      sc, You know she is a big government cheerleader. Just another lefty Socialist Radical that wants to control the populace at large.
      They won’t give up till they are out of control and I am ready for them to be out of control NOW.

  • 2 sides

    not sure the two of you read the article correctly. maybe you should read it again!

    • Ellen

      Oh GET REAL!

  • Bob

    They read it right! Just another back door attempt at censorship is what the goal really is.

  • James

    I must agree with 2sides.

    The question is whether the FCC is in fringing on the rights of Comcast and others to bascially censor or restrict the free access of their customers to information on the Internet. Comcast was the one practicing censorship.

    Basically, the court sided with big business, implying that they had the right to block people’s access to certain websites and services. What if they said you couldn’t call certain numbers, blocked an entire area code, would that be okay?

    The “net neutrality” regulations are about users (“we the people”) being allowed to access information on the Internet. I support that effort. The only restrictions should be about “age approriate” material.

    One way to deal with excessive file downloads is to charge a customer based on the volume of their downloads (common outside the USA). Of course is could also be argued that such an approach would also infringe on free speech.

    • Loren

      Federal regulation opens the window for government abuse, and in regards to dissemination of information, this is especially perilous. The free Market allows for consumers to choose. Comcast is not the only choice consumers have. You don’t like it, find another carrier who better suits your needs. Pls rethink your philosophy, as net neutrality will lead to eventual government control in the name of “fairness” (that ring a bell? Let me help you– punitive tax code, health care takeover). This end and inevitable stifling of dissension/speech is the stated goal of Obama’s internet czar. The internet is the LAST bastion of freedom, and they must keep their hands off!

    • American Citizen

      I don’t see it as an infringement on free speech. After all, we have to pay for our daily newspaper. Why should everything be free? I’m glad it is, but that’s a gift.

      • ted crawford

        You must be a progressive plant!

      • JC

        AC, I pay a monthly premium for the internet as I imagine you do.
        So, which part are you saying is free?

  • CJ

    Five simple paragraphs… and so much confusion??!! My understanding was Comcast (and others) were “controlling” the use of their network when users went through it to access other networks. NO censership, but creating inconveninece and incumberances. Paying a “speed toll” on those who didn’t use their service. I’m glad the court left open a way to tell the cable companies they can’t take steps to monopolize on their market.

  • James A Graham

    George Soros, Open Society, Shadow Party
    2008 Market Crash Should be Investigated
    By Jeff Lukens Wednesday, April 7, 2010

    Almost two years after the mortgage crisis and stock market crash, no one seems to wonder about the “September surprise” that shifted the 2008 presidential election to an unknown leftist politician who had been elected to the Senate only two years before. A pulp-fiction writer could hardly have created a more contrived and bizarre story. But this was not make-believe. No, it is now our own gritty reality show that we only wish we could turn off.

    The week of Sept. 15, 2008, was a debacle of huge proportions. On Monday, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy while other lending institutions lined up like dominoes teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. But the week was hardly over. On Thursday, an electronic run on the banks occurred. In an unprecedented move, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve had to act together to stop what had become a full-fledged panic. On Saturday, Sept. 20, The Wall Street Journal recounted events of that previous Thursday:

    “Instead of lining up at bank windows, investors were unloading financial assets on their PCs. Credit markets had seized up, to the point that even routine daily settlements had stopped until banks had the actual securities or cash in hand.”

    “Investors were rushing out of these [Treasury and Federal Reserve] funds—$105 billion out of $1.8 trillion on Thursday alone—which in turn caused the funds to redeem their commercial paper investments.”

    “Issuers of that paper then had to find new funders, which in a pinch are banks. But jittery banks were refusing to accept paper from even worthy companies amid the panic, creating a larger credit breakdown. In response, Treasury will now insure nonbank money-market fund deposits for the next year, to slow money-fund redemptions.”

    For such a large and coordinated exodus of funds to occur in U.S. markets, something more than individual “investors” at their PCs had to be in play. Large and well-managed hedge and mutual funds were undoubtedly behind much of the move.

    A few months later on a C-Span interview, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, House Capital Markets Subcommittee Chair, described that day:

    “On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States , to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.”

    The $550 Billion withdrawn in an hour or two that Rep. Kanjorski refers to in his statement has never been independently confirmed or refuted.

    In mid-September, John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama in some polls by about 3 percent. By Oct. 10, the S&P 500 Index had lost 25% of its value from what it had been a month before. The crash was a major calamity for the McCain Campaign. And now, with Obama in the White House, it has become a calamity for us all.

    The fact remains that the identities of those who withdrew their money that week were never disclosed. And, knowingly or not, they created a panic that altered the course of the election. One can only wonder whether something more than normal market forces was at work.

    Courtesy of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the crisis came about by the uncertain value of subprime securities held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banks, saving and loans, and other lending institutions. A declining market in itself is not noteworthy, but to induce a panic in the midst of a presidential campaign, if ever proven, would be reprehensible and an outrage to the American electorate.

    While the stock market collapse was a disaster for your average IRA or 401(k) account, some investors benefited handsomely. It is widely agreed that hedge funds profited by selling short the collapsing market in 2008, and chief among them was George Soros’ hedge fund. Soros may have personally had the motivation, method, and opportunity to trigger the crash.

    Soros’ overseas-based hedge fund evades much scrutiny, and its activities that week left almost no trail. Could Soros and his hedge fund be behind many of the withdrawals of that week, and particularly on that Thursday? We need to know. The massive outflow of U.S. funds to offshore accounts that critical week during the campaign could be a coincidence, but it is doubtful.

    George Soros is a multi-billionaire answerable to no one. Hastening a market meltdown to give the election to Barack Obama would fit his pattern of profiting while destroying the social order of his target country. Triggering a crash in 2008 would also serve his political investments.

    Soros is obsessed with power. He wants a One World Government, redistribution of wealth, open borders, and universal health care. He is determined to change America forever by deconstructing its sovereignty and ability to defend itself. Soros was a huge backer of Barack Obama, and now his anointed president is determined to change America to their mutual view.

    Soros made his fortune by short selling currencies and then pouring substantial amounts of his private wealth into organizations to subvert various nations. He nearly bankrupted the Bank of England by shorting the pound in 1992. He wrecked the Malaysian economy in 1998, and subsequently that of Indonesia as well. He is responsible for stirring-up instability in Africa, the Balkans, Eastern Europe , and the former Soviet republics.

    Over the years, Soros has positioned himself to take control of the Democrat Party through the hundreds of 527 organizations he has helped financed. These organizations have become a “Shadow Party” unto themselves, and manipulate public opinion for their own end.

    Among them: the National Education Association, ACORN, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, The Media Fund, the Open Society Institute, Planned Parenthood League, the Sierra Club, America Coming Together, the Huffington Post, If a left-wing organization is in the news, it has probably received money from George Soros.

    Why have the identities never been reported of those who withdrew funds that week? Shouldn’t there be even some curiosity about an event that wiped out the jobs and life savings of so many people? And why has there been no follow-up inquiry by into Rep. Kanjorski’s statement? There needs to be a public investigation concerning the amounts and offshore destinations of the funds withdrawn from U.S. markets that precipitated the crash.

    Did an unwritten partnership exist between George Soros and Barack Obama? Could Soros, through Obama, be seeking a “velvet revolution” in the dismantling of our nation as he has done elsewhere? These questions need further investigation. With the Alinskyite tactics employed by Team Obama, none of this is beyond the realm of possibility.

    Americans recoil at the thought of having their elections manipulated by outsiders. As long as Democrats control Congress, there surely will never be an effective inquiry into this affair. Perhaps a GOP victory this November will allow a thorough examination finally to begin. Add this to the many investigations the GOP will need to make when they finally take back Congress.

    • James A Graham

      Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

      From: James Graham

      From: S STEELE

      As a widow of a military retiree, who stood with her husband for over 20 years while he served this country (which was the greatest in the world until this Congress and President took over), I have to say I agree. Shirley

      As a retired military man that have given over twenty-seven years of my life to my country, I truly feel that what this
      Country needs most is a new amendment to the Constitution . I am recommending that we add the 28th amendment to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

      For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

      This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

      Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

      “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Congressman, Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Congressman. Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”.

      This 28th amendment to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES Will apply to all passed, present and future
      Congressman, Senators And Representatives.
      Just think of all the money this would save the tax payers!!!!!

      I think the Senators, Representatives or Congressman that comes out strongly for this will be our next President.

      HTCM USN Retired James A. Graham E-Mail address is ( ) Please forward !!!!!!!

  • Judy

    The bottom line? Like everything else, government wants to take over the internet. Regulate us, control us. That is the agenda. If people can’t see that then they are either blind or very, very ignorant.

    • dougfoot

      I have a sister who works for the federal government and seems to not get it… she (and others like her) are sucking at the teat of government and are unable to see they are being used.

      She gets angry with me when I point this out that.

      • TIME

        Thats due the possible loss of her job, when the nazis set up the same basic programs everyone got in line in a heart beat or it was off to the camp to listen to your NAZI owned NORA radio.

  • http://verizon kbab777
  • http://verizon kbab777

    Check out the link above btw’s feet need to be held to the fire on this.

  • Dan Burke

    Do I want government “regulating” the internet for net “nuetrality?” No way! How would you know if traffic were being handled with “nuetrality?” Easy, you monitor the traffic. Yes, monitor it. You sample everything. Was that a jpg (picture) transmitted? Email? Video? Streaming Glenn Beck? I follow some of the IT related stuff even before I learned of net neutrality. Ironic that those who object to how their company can filter network traffic to try and prevent company secrets from leaking out or to keep you from “unauthorized” websites, some of these same people are all for government being able to do this to the whole internet. And here’s something for you, the technology exists that these can be filtered in real-time. In other words, you wouldn’t even see your internet slow down and someone could be blocking certain content or copying all your communications. If you were worried about government having all your medical records, imagine if they could gather all the rest of this stuff too.

  • Dan Burke

    Here’s another thought. If you didn’t know that cable/internet companies could regulate which traffic got priority on the internet until net neutrality was brought up? How do you expect to know if government is do their own selective regulating (less bandwidth for opposition viewpoints such as Glenn, Rush, Fox News, etc.)? Many of us didn’t realize this was possible and was being practiced until net neutrality. I may have known a little in advance, but I did not object because I happen to believe in the “free” market. In other words, if you don’t like the quality of your netflix instant play, then you would go with another ISP. Not government regulation. See, it was invisible to most of us until those favoring government intervention told us it was there. Once government gets involved it will become visible? Not likely. It will still be invisible. The only difference is that what is being done is endorsed by your ever “benevolent” government. Ever heard, “Power corrupts…?”

    • Dan Burke

      And, thinking of the corruption of government, I was excited when I heard of the court ruling only to be slammed back down in the next few days when I heard that the FCC is supposedly going to go ahead with net neutrality despite the court ruling anyways.

  • Bud Grounds

    What is the FCC going to do if net nuetrality is ignored when the court has ruled; place an illegal fine on Comcast? I think they will back off because they they know this will affect future rulings by the court.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.