A noteworthy mention regarding this annotated bibliography concerns the types of sources used. Compared to my first annotated bibliography, this one is much more extensive and covers a wide range of sources, including some very extensive/ exhaustive papers. This second composition incorporates scholarly opinions from the likes of Dana Bagwell, Amanda Leese, Thomas Hazlett, etc., whose ideas are complex in their own right. Some of these sources extend beyond 20 pages and involve a momentous amount of case analysis! In this sense, I believe a comparison between Composition 2's annotated bibliography and Composition 1's, paying special attention to the sources used, elucidates a growth in both my ability and confidence in researching, assessing, and incorporating scholarly sources.

 

Works Cited

 

Ammori, Marvin. “We’re about to Lose Net Neutrality – And the Internet as We Know It.” WIRED.com. Condé Nast, 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Marvin Ammori, a lawyer and cofounder of Wearab.ly (a startup company that facilitates the distribution of content to wearable devices), warns the audience of the uncertain future of the Internet, in regards to the network neutrality and the ever looming case, Verizon v. FCC. Furthermore, in his article, Ammori also provides a brief history of the debate and debacle of network neutrality, including the previous 2008 case of Comcast Corporation v. FCC. The lawyer’s article essentially exudes the essence that the Internet as consumers know it today may soon be lost forever, depending upon whether network neutrality will stand the appeals court’s inspection. It is important to note that the article does contain bias, in the sense that the author’s support of network neutrality is rampant throughout the article—present in both title and content. I will most likely employ this source as additional background information in the discussion of network neutrality and the surrounding debate.

Ardia, David. “Will Your ISP Stand Up for Your Free Speech Rights?.”  Digital Media Law Project. Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 9 Oct. 2008 Web. 1 Dec. 2013.

David Ardia is a faculty associate of the Berkman Center for Internet & Sociey and an associate professor at the School of Law at the University of North Carolina. He publishes an inquiring blog through the Digital Media Law Project, previously Citizen Media Law Project, which is a project aimed at providing “free legal advice and information” on topics such as media law and intellectual property. In his blog, Ardia inquires whether Internet service providers would protect one’s free speech through an anecdote involving Ronald Riley and John Dozier. In this specific example, Riley experienced multiple ISPs refusing to host his website in the face of Dozier’s legal threats of “contributory infringement.” Their refusing to host the website emphasizes Internet service providers as private entities and therein their lack of obligation in protecting the First Amendment guarantees. This source will probably be utilized as an introduction to

Associated Press v. U.S. FindLaw. 17 November 2013. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&page=1>.

This Supreme Court case in 1945 deals with Associated Press and its network of 1200 newspapers. AP did not allow any of its members to disseminate its news to non-members; furthermore, the 1200 newspapers could prohibit outsiders from entry into AP. Essentially, AP had become a print network that controlled content. The United States filed an injunction against AP under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, citing that AP had essentially attempted to monopolize the commerce of news. The Court ruled in favor of the U.S. with Justice Black writing the Court majority opinion. Most importantly, Black asserts that “freedom is publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not.” This case will be utilized as one of the three legal bases from which network neutrality draws upon in my advocacy. The idea of print networks not being allowed to prohibit content from flowing can be extrapolated to ISPs throttling specific Internet content.

Bagwell, Dana D. An Open Internet for All: Free Speech and Network Neutrality. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012. Ebook Library. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

Dana D. Bagwell elucidates an elaborate history of Internet regulation and its “predecessors,” including regulation over radio broadcasting, telephone, and cable, while also exploring the FCC’s outlined “Network Neutrality” doctrine and its implications to free speech. Bagwell outlines her assertions within a nonfiction book of law and society through LFB Scholarly Publishing, a publishing company that specializes in providing academic, political works. In order to establish credibility, Bagwell cites a tremendous number of evidence, ranging from court rulings to other scholarly opinions to laws. A few examples include the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC’s Wireline Broadband Order, Reno v. ACLU, and Jerome Barron’s assertion, a law professor at the George Washington University of Law, upon mainstream media versus the Internet.  Bagwell addresses mainly those who are proactively interested in law, or specifically Internet regulation, and free speech. In Republic 2.0, Sunstein addresses the implausibility of the “Fairness Doctrine” as it applies to the Internet. Because this source also addresses the doctrine, Albertson’s book could bridge the two sources and then transition into exploring the history of network debate and regulation.

Buskirk, Eliot Van. “Here’s The Real Google/Verizon Story: A Tale of Two Internets (UPDATED).” WIRED.com. Condé Nast, 9 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Eliot Van Buskirk explores the concept of the Google-Verizon dual Internet proposal and its possible repercussions. Essentially, the article explains the proposal and how it would two Internets—one fast and one slow. The fast lane would be reserved for content providers that choose to pay a premium for their content to reach consumers. The slow lane would ultimately become a free, open Internet. Moreover, the article goes forward and questions “what would happen” if this proposal went through. In order to establish his credibility, Buskirk heavily populates his article with expert opinions, including Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of Media Access project; Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge; and Joel Kelsey, Free Press Political Adviser. I will employ this source as one of the primary alternatives to network neutrality before advocating for a single solution.

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Internet Regulation." CQ Researcher 13 Apr. 2012: 325-48. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

Marcia Clemmitt, former editor in chief of Medicine and Health and staff writer of The Scientist, authors an extensive report on Internet regulation, documenting its background, current situation, and future outlook. The report addresses communication disputes, copyright disputes, the converging of media as a result of digitalization, and net neutrality in its background. Furthermore, in the current situation section, in addition to net neutrality, Clemmitt’s report also addresses both SOPA and PIPA bills, both promoting strict online copyright enforcement; as a result, the report offers another potential focus, outside of net neutrality, for Composition 2. It is also important to note that Clemmitt provides one “Pro/Con” opinion each: Pro from Gigi B. Sohn and con from Larry Downs. Thus, the report not only garners additional knowledge from each side of the argument but also provides external commentary supporting the side I will advocate. Throughout her report, Clemmitt cites a vast number of different sources varying from expert opinions, laws and bills, and many other sources as listed by her use of references.

Fish, Stanley. “The First Amendment and Kittens.” New York Times. New York Times, 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Stanley Fish, a professor of humanities and law and prolific author on the subject of higher education, expresses extreme dissent at the first amendment’s allowance of “crush videos” and investigates the history of the first amendment in order to explain to the audience how such a surreal “exception” is a reality. Fish voices his opinion in an online blog through a distinguished newspaper company. In elaborating upon the allowance of “crush videos,” Fish utilizes various Supreme Court cases and their respective court opinions, varying from Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell to Texas v. Johnson. The primary audience is New York Times readers; however, scholars in academia, proactive citizens involved in politics, and even animal rights activists are targeted by Fish’s blog. The blog serves to provide one man’s insight, Stanley Fish’s, upon the First Amendment and its current regulatory practice, and perhaps to incite discussion and thought upon the subject. For composition 2, I will employ this source as very short background information to, in essence, link the prior ideas in Composition 1 to Composition 2.

Federal Communications Commission. “FCC ACTS TO PRESERVE INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS: Action Helps Ensure Robust Internet for Consumers, Innovation, Investment, Economic Prosperity.” FCC, 2010. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

This article is the Federal Communications Commission’s unofficial order of network neutrality. The order outlines the FCC’s belief that the “Internet has thrived because of its freedom and openness” and the commission’s aim to continue protecting this openness. Thus, the FCC lays out its motives in restricting broadband providers before proceeding. Next, the order establishes its legitimacy by citing certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Act that ultimately allow the FCC to enact “open Internet rules.” The article concludes with its three rules for broadband providers: transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. I am presented with several options with this source. The FCC’s beliefs can serve as an expert opinion of sorts and can be employed to communicate with others on the issue of net neutrality. In addition, because the FCC lists the 1996 Communications Act to explain itself, this source may also be employed in elaborating the historical implications of my issue, net neutrality. More specifically, I can begin with the 1934 Communications Act, followed up by the 1996 variant, and finally transition to the FCC’s four freedoms and network neutrality order.

Hazlett, Thomas W., and Joshua D. Wright. "The Law And Economics Of Network Neutrality." Indiana Law Review 45.3 (2012): 767-840. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Thomas Hazlett and Joshua Wright, both professors of law at the George Mason University School of Law, author a peer-reviewed paper exploring the legal and economic standings of network neutrality. The paper is published through the Indiana Law Review. In one specific portion of their paper, the two professors evaluate the legitimacy of the FCC’s network neutrality order, especially paying meticulous attention to “fair discrimination.” The paper asserts that in this regard, network neutrality is illegitimate as the Internet has always had an entanglement of preferred deals and relationships between ISPs and/or certain websites. Furthermore, the paper continues on to address antitrust’s position against net neutrality and elaborates upon its basis. Ultimately, this source provides a viewpoint engrained in economics and law that opposes network neutrality. If I so choose to advocate against network neutrality, this source would prove to be immensely useful as it provides insight from many argumentative viewpoints, e.g. historical and economical.  

Healey, Jon. “Backgrounder on ‘net neutrality.’” Los Angeles Times. Tribune Publishing Company LLC, 2011. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Jon Healey, an opinion writer and member of the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, provides a brief history of network neutrality and then discusses its current standings. Healy authors an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. His citations mainly involve government policies such as the FCC’s policy statement on net neutrality; his main method of citing involves directly linking the policy publications from the FCC website. His article expresses that network neutrality originated as a result of several ISPs (AT&T, SBC, BellSouth) seeking to charge popular websites extra, in order to reach consumers. Network neutrality aims to prevent this “bias,” as it outlines three basic requirements: ISPs cannot block legal sites, apps, services, or devices; ISPs cannot withhold information regarding management of their networks; and ISPs cannot discriminate among the lawful sites they transmit data to. Ultimately, Healey’s piece seems more catered to those of the generic public with an interest in the Internet and/or its regulation because his article provides a simplified and brief overview of the issue. This source provides a very concise history of network neutrality and its root causes. Thus, Alberton’s book could be used to reinforce the outlined history and enhance it with more sophisticated knowledge. However, Healey’s article does also pose a question for the future for my future research, mainly the decision made by Verizon to challenge the FCC.

Kang, Cecilia. “Court rules for Comcast over FCC in ‘net neutrality’ case.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

This article from The Washington Post, written by Cecilia Kang, a Washington Post writer who frequently reports upon tech and Internet policies from the FCC and FTC, concerns an appeals court ruling over Comcast v. FCC. The case first originated in 2008 when Comcast purposefully slowed down traffic to BitTorrent in order to reserve bandwidth. FCC issued a sanction against Comcast for “violating the [FCC’s] open Internet guidelines,” specifically the “fair discrimination” clause described in other sources. Comcast appealed. The appeals court ruled that FCC lacks “the authority to keep their networks open to all forms of content.” The latter half of the article elucidates others’ opinions on the repercussions of the ruling. These opinions include Michael Powell’s, former FCC chairman, and Michel J. Copps’, a Democractic FCC commissioner. Ultimately, this source provides a tangible case in which I can invoke to help guide my claims or fall back upon as an historical implication.

Leese, Amanda. “Net Transparency: Post-Comcast FCC Authority to Enforce Disclosure Requirements Critical to ‘Preserving the Open Internet.’” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 11.2 (2013): 81-101. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.

This paper, published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology, concerns the repercussions of Comcast v. FCC. Amanda Leese asserts that the D.C. court ruling may pose a lesser threat to Internet openness than previously thought; she argues that the ruling only impedes upon the FCC’s Order of net neutrality in the form of content regulation. However, Leese asserts that the transparency clause remains secluded from the other two rules (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination). In order to establish credibility, Leese incorporates a momentous amount of works through the use of references and footnotes. More importantly, the most significant citations usually involve provisions of certain laws or acts, such as the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and 1996. Logically, I will probaby employ this source to communicate with Comcast v. FCC; this source emphasizes the notion that FCC’s ability to maintain an “Open Internet” remains largely intact, which in turn will allow me to directly relate to Sunstein’s arguments in Republic 2.0.

McCullagh, Declan. “Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls.” CNET.com. CBS Interactive Inc., 3 Mar. 2005. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

The author, Declan McCullagh, writes a brief report of a North Carolina telecommunications blocking VoIP in WIRED, a magazine primarily concentrated on emerging technology and its effect on the economy, politics, and culture. The report entails details of the FCC issuing a sanction against Madison River Communication for blocking VoIP and how the teleco has agreed to cease the practice. The source will only serve as precursory details in order to emphasize the problem that led to the FCC’s network neutrality, as a policy. It will be best employed with Ed Whitacre’s statement and Comcast’s practice of blocking BitTorrent to achieve this emphasis.

New York Times v. Sullivan. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 October 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39>.

Prior to New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times published an ad which claimed that the arrest of Martin Luther King, Jr. had an ulterior motive; it claimed the arrest served to hinder King’s endeavors at racial integration and promoting blacks to vote. Consequently, Sullivan, Montgomery’s city commissioner, claimed the ad personally tarnished his reputation. To make matters worse, four black ministers had endorsed the newspaper ad. Sullivan won his initial case; however, The New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court. The Warren Court, ruled that speech regarding public officials, even if false, warrants absolute protection under the First amendment, unless proven to be “made with actual malice.” Therefore, Sullivan no longer had a case, leaving the Court to rule in favor of NYT. As relevant to Composition 2, this source essentially only serves as a lead in, as an introduction to Stanley Fish’s piece, “The First Amendment and Kittens.” As a result, this court case will be used to transition towards Stanley Fish, which also consequently will transition into the Internet and network neutrality.

“Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry.” Federal Communications Commission, 8 Feb. 2004. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

This document represents Michael Powell’s, the FCC chairman at the time of this document (2004), speech as prepared for delivery. Powell delivers his speech, regarding the four Internet freedoms at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium on “The Digital Broadband Migration” at the University of Colorado School of Law. The speech embodies most of Powell’s beliefs upon the Internet and how consumers are “entitled to ‘Internet Freedom,’” more specifically the freedom to access content, use applications, attach personal devices, and obtain service plan information. Powell also mentions the key benefits in protecting these freedoms especially noting the potential promotion of innovation and “insurance policy” against abusive market powers. Ultimately, this source is required to both introduce and elaborate the origins of network neutrality.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_2_2>.

The issue in this this Supreme Court case concerned “must-carry” rules or, in this case, the issue of the fairness doctrine as applied to radio and television broadcasting. The fairness doctrine required radio and television to broadcast both sides of the debate regarding public issues. Red Lion Broadcasting took the FCC’s fairness doctrine to court on the grounds that the policy violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, as led by Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the fairness doctrine “enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment.” In addition to Reno and Associated Press, this case is another argument in my advocacy of network neutrality. Because the Court ruled that the fairness doctrine supported rather than impeded free speech, I will compare it to the reasonable discrimination rule stated by net neutrality. Hopefully, through this comparison and analysis, the benefits of reasonable regulation will become clear to the reader.

Reno v. ACLU. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511>.

This is a 1996 Supreme Court case dealing with the Communications Decency Act; specifically, whether the broad and vague definition of “indecent” material violated the First Amendment. The Rehnquist Court, with Justice Stevens authoring the majority opinion, decided yes. The justices assert that the Communications Decency Act created “content-based blanket restrictions” and by not defining “indecency,” or even defining limits to who the Act affects, the act violated the First Amendment. Also important is that the case represents the first time the Court directly dealt with Internet regulation. Consequently, Justice Stevens reflects on the digital medium in his majority opinion—calling the Internet “wholly free” and how “no single organization controls any membership in the Web.” This source represents one out of the three cases I draw back to in order to emphasize net neutrality’s legitimacy. Consequently, the case is a crucial component in my advocacy.

Sunstein, Cass R. Republic 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007. Print.

For Composition 2, Sunstein proposes several policies that may or may not aid in the regulation of the Internet. Of these, the most relevant ones that he mentions are disclosure, must-carry, and self-regulation. Sunstein mentions that disclosure, as applied to television and radio broadcasting, has been largely productive and beneficial. For must-carry laws, he proposes a return to this concept in which a broadcaster must provide information on both sides of a public issue. And as for self-regulation, Sunstein discusses how self-regulation can incite informal regulation and thus bypass the need for legal legislation; he cites the current ratings system implemented in television as a byproduct of self-regulation. Ultimately, many of these policies overlap with the three rules enlisted by network neutrality. Therefore, I will probably utilize Sunstein’s proposals as additional scholarly commentary to guide my analysis of network neutrality.

Travis, Hannibal. “The FCC’s New Theory of the First Amendment.” Santa Clara Law Review 51 (2011): 417-513.Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Hannibal Travis, an associate professor of law at the Florida International University College of Law, analyzes the lengthy FCC’s history of First Amendment theory and the commission’s corresponding regulatory practice throughout history. Travis publishes his arguments through the Santa Clara Law Review. In order to establish his credibility, Travis inundates his paper with a momentous amount of footnotes, referencing law, court cases, and other scholarly works throughout most of his 96 pages. The ultimate conclusion to Travis’ meticulous analysis involves the current network neutrality and its representation as a theory of the First Amendment that “had all but [been] abandoned in deregulating the broadcast space.” This source will most likely be employed in conjunction to my discussion of ISPs and their potential impediment of free speech through “blocking” Internet content.

Verizon, and Google. “Google and Verizon Joint Submission on the Open Internet.” Federal Communications Commision, 2010. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Verizon and Google, a major phone and broadband company and a multinational corporation that is, arguably, leading the forefront in providing Internet services and products, respectively, issued a joint submission to the FCC declaring their belief in self-governance. The joint commentary lists topics, one-by-one, that Google and Verizon both agree upon. Most notable, as stated above, the two companies agree that “self-governance has been the hallmark of the growth and success of the Internet.” This source represents another voice in opposition of the FCC’s network neutrality and will probably be employed in such a way if I choose to advocate against neutrality.

Wyatt, Edward. “Verizon-F.C.C. Court Fight Takes On Regulating Net.” New York Times. New York Times, 8 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

Edward Wyatt, a financial reporter previously for The Times and Barron’s Business and Financial and Weekly, reports on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia and the repercussions of the case it will soon address—Verizon v. FCC. Wyatt authors a report, aimed at a more general American public, for the New York Times. Thearticle first provides information surrounding the case and then moves to emphasis the case’s repercussions. In order to do this Wyatt cites an expert opinion: Susan Crawford, co-director of the Berman Center for Internet & Society. This source represents sort of supplemental information to my paper. I probably won’t use it as a primary argument; however, the source can be used to insinuate the gravity of the situation and the repercussions of Verizon v. FCC to the audience.