Annotated Bibliography
description
Transcript of Annotated Bibliography
Connor Tomshack
Dr. McLaughlin
WR 13300
24 March 2015
Annotated Bibliography
My interest in this topic stems from my interest in information on the Internet as a whole.
I am interested in how the regulation of the Internet could happen, and the consequences of its
implementation. Possible research questions could consider the regulation of the Internet, both
arguments for and against it, and details about whether it significantly decreases online piracy, or
whether it would meaningfully increase the income of artists and others whose content is
regularly stolen on the Internet. Another interest in Internet regulation is the importance and
meaning of net neutrality and the importance of digital privacy.
Gargano, Anthony R. "Net Neutrality." Broadcast Engineering 53.2 (2011). Print.
The author, Anthony Gargano, is a consultant and former industry executive. The article
is direct toward broadcasts engineers and others in the communications. The article is written
about the situation and controversy in Congress over net neutrality, and the politics surrounding
it. It briefly describes net neutrality and its significance, describes the leaders in the House and
Senate, quoting them and describing their stance on the issue. The information is presented in a
way that would be most beneficial to broadcasters, and discusses the importance of the net
neutrality question in relation to new emerging media. The article is limited, however, in that it is
fairly short, and, due to being written in 2011, does not actually describe any outcome of the
controversy, but instead only sets the scene.
Lenard, Thomas M., and Randolph J. May. Net Neutrality Or Net Neutering: Should Broadband
Internet Services Be Regulated? New York, NY : Springer, 2006. Web.
This book is edited by Thomas Lenard and Randolph May. Lenard is Senior Fellow and
Vice President for Research at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, and has a long history in
economics, working in a number of different boards and firms. May is Senior Fellow and
Director of Communications Policy Studies, and has a long history in communications. This
book is a collection of papers originally presented in a conference in 2003. The book is primarily
targeted toward those involved in economics and communications, and describes arguments for
and against net neutrality, but mainly advocates net neutrality. It puts an emphasis on policy of
government organizations and how that policy could change in the future. It is useful, indepth
source, but is limited in that it could be biased to one side, and is becoming somewhat dated for
such a quickly evolving topic.
United States. Network Neutrality and Internet Regulation: Warranted Or More Economic Harm
than Good? : Hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred
Twelfth Congress, First Session, February 16, 2011. Washington : U.S. G.P.O., 2011.
Print.
This source is a wordforword transcript of a congressional hearing before the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
in the House of Representatives in 2011. The intended audience of the speakers is the other
representatives present, and so the source offers insight into what lawmakers think on the issue,
and results in a debate between opposing views. As such, it is a good resource for understanding
the arguments of both sides. It is also a good resource for understanding government policy.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Internet Regulation." CQ Researcher 22.14 Web.
Marcia Clemmitt is a veteran socialpolicy reporter, and has previously been a writer and
editor for a number of academic journals. This article gives a strong background of the issue,
giving an overview of the current situation, background into what both sides are advocating, a
chronology of relevant events, graphs and statistics, describes how Internet piracy and regulation
work, and even offers of bibliography with potentially relevant sources. The article is directed at
people who are looking to learn more about Internet regulation and the controversy surrounding
it, but only have a limited background in that area. It is a strong resource in that it offers a wide
look into the issue, describing it in clearly. It also offers a fair view of both sides. However, due
to how wide it it is, it is limited in that it does not go very deep in any particular facet of the
issue.
Firth, Andrew C., and Natalie H. Pierson. The Open Internet, Net Neutrality and the FCC. New
York: Nova Science Publishers, 2011. Print.
The authors of this book both have histories in communications and policy. This book is
directed to those that who can have an input on policy. The book examines the open Internet and
the role of the Federal Communications Commission, and its authority to regulate net neutrality.
It primarily forms an argument in favor of an open Internet, as opposed to the Wall Street
Journal article. It creates this argument by saying that networks need equal competition and that
the Internet must be free in order to continue to thrive. It also comments on how broadband
industries work and how they and the FCC can change net neutrality, and what influence they
have. This source is useful as a resource in favor of net neutrality.
Cambron, Keith G. “Net Neutrality: Good for Google, Not Consumers.” Wall Street Journal.
2014. Web.
Keith Cambron is the former president and CEO of AT&T Labs and an author on global
networks. This source is a newspaper article, mostly directed at consumers, people who are not
necessarily specialists in the area, and puts particular emphasis on the ramifications of net
neutrality and Internet regulation on consumers. It provides an argument against net neutrality,
saying the it benefits certain companies, but not consumers. Its arguments are opposed to those
found in the book Net Neutrality or Net Neutering, as described above. Although this source is
fairly short and broad, and is opposed to my argument, it is useful to use to understand how to
form a counterargument. Despite its brevity, it is easy to understand and gets its point across
clearly and succinctly.