Works Cited by pengxuebo


									Robert Mahieu
Sept. 25, 2009
English Pd. 8


Bachula, Gary R. ―Internet2.‖ Congressional Digest Feb. 2007: n. pag. Pro & Con Online. Web.
      17 Sept. 2009. <>.

       Pro & Con Online is an internet resource database established to provide an ―impartial
       view of controversial issues.‖ The site reports the opposing viewpoints of a debated topic,
       giving the details for either side through a collection of published articles. One of the
       database‘s primary focuses is Economic and Environmental Policy, covering debates
       such as Net Neutrality. This article, written by the Vice President of ―Internet2,‖ a not-
       for-profit partnership of 208 universities, 70 companies, and 51 affiliated organizations,
       expresses their hopes for an open internet in the future, allowing for innovation and
       growth the likes of which we have only imagined. Looking back upon the very
       beginnings of the internet, they make the observation that ―The World Wide Web, the
       web browser, the search engine, instant messaging, and many other technologies were
       innovations by users of the network. Not one of these innovations was developed by
       telephone or cable companies.‖ If the entrepreneurs and the little-guys of the past wave of
       internet growth were forced to pay the ―tolls that telephone companies today are
       imagining,‖ we may never have seen Amazon, eBay, or Google. In comparison to other
       nations around the world, who are ―adopting high-bandwidth, open, simple, low-cost
       designs for their networks, [the United States] is the only nation looking at making the
       network more, rather than less, complex and expensive.‖ This article provides essential
       information to support the future of the internet being free, or neutral, asking for the
       United States to realize all that the internet still has to offer, and not to restrict this
       opportunity. This article details the important possibilities as to how, exactly, we can
       make further ourselves through the internet, as long as it is kept free. Based upon the
       Internet2 Vice President‘s experience with new high-bandwidth connections and with
       students who have been working with this advanced technology for years, it is clear he is
       biased towards the pro side of the argument for net neutrality.
Chester, Jeff. ―The End of the Internet?‖ The Nation. N.p., 1 Feb. 2006. Web. 25 Sept. 2009.

       This paper is a report on the implementation of network neutrality policies and what we
       will be forced to experience if we do not accept them. Jeff Chester writes this article
       under the authority of ―The Nation,‖ which is an online news database providing so
       called ―unconventional wisdom‖ about current event news and analyses. The site focuses
       on politics and books and the arts. Net neutrality, under that topic of politics, is reported
       upon by Chester and is supported by looking at the discriminatory measures that would
       be put in place without the policies. He says that the big telecom corporations would
       work to charge fees, or ―tolls,‖ for virtually everything people do online. And in addition,
       ―those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major
       advertisers--would get preferred treatment,‖ which would altogether begin to weed out
       the smaller businesses trying to get started. If we do not decide to take action against a
       future without neutrality, Chester makes it clear that ―the values and issues that we care
       about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections--will be further
       threatened by this push for corporate control.‖ Also, Chester brings up the worry of data
       inspection, using the process of ―deep packet inspection,‖ which allows telecom
       corporations such as AT&T or others to readily know and analyze any of the data you
       receiving online. This again raises the seriousness over the debate to keep our internet
       freedoms safe, including our privacy. This article raises a number of good points on what
       threats telecom companies are presenting upon the population and what limitations they
       could easily put in place—both being important for supporting the pro side for net
       neutrality by showing the frightening outcomes that are possible without it. The
       information of this article is presented in a way that makes telecommunication companies
       seem naturally evil and wrongdoing, giving a clear indication of bias from the author. For
       example, when Chester explains their plan to change the internet, he describes the
       outcome as a ―turbo-charged digital retail machine.‖
Dysart, Joe. ―The Quest for Net Neutrality.‖ American School Board Journal May 2008: 52-53.
       Web. 23 Sept. 2009.

       This article was written by Joe Dysart for the American School Board Journal, a
       magazine published by the National School Boards Association dedicated to providing
       educational resources to school board members and administrators. The publication
       offers advice on a ―broad range of topics pertinent to school governance and
       management, policy making, student achievement, and the art of school leadership.‖ This
       article gives advice to educators as to what the outcome of the net neutrality debate could
       mean for school systems. For instance, the idea that telecom companies can decide to
       charge expensive rates for faster internet speeds, means that certain schools may not be
       able to afford it, causing browsing the school site or keeping data like attendance records,
       student transcripts, and other vital information, to become terribly troublesome,
       frustrating tasks. This also goes for the hopes for development of any school social
       networking sites, because, having the slower connection speed, they would lose visitors
       to ―top-tier‖ sites such as Facebook or MySpace. The article makes note that through the
       decision by the Department of Justice disagreeing with the Federal Communications
       Commission‘s (FCC) concept of net neutrality, ―reveals that extremely powerful special
       interest groups are currently in the process of helping decide just how fast your school‘s
       Web-based systems will run, just how fast your high school website will download, and
       just how popular your school‘s social network may or may not become.‖ This piece is
       interesting and important in the sense that it gives insight into diverse effects of net
       neutrality extending to the operation of school systems. Because of the importance
       stressed on education in the United States today, the argument that denying net neutrality
       will impair educators‘ abilities to teach to their full potential, should be a terrific
       argument in support of the neutrality act. Bias of this article includes the position of the
       author, Joe Dysart, being part of the American School Board Journal, under the National
       School Boards Association; this may sway him to sympathize with the educators
       throughout America.
Eggerton, John. ―Obama Commits to Net Neutrality.‖ Multichannel News. Reed Business
       Information, 1 June 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2009. <

      Multichannel News is an online news database compiled partially from material print
      archives or television broadcasts but also from new web media coverage of news stories.
      As the media and publishing branch of the ―Reese Businesses,‖ they appear to seek to
      cover primarily business and technology related stories or events. This article entitled
      ―Obama Commits to Net Neutrality‖ reports plainly what the title denotes, that Obama
      has expressed his support to keep the internet‘s future free and open with opportunity for
      growth in innovations. But truly, the focus was put upon the growing need for
      cybersecurity and President Obama‘s initiative to introduce a new office to the White
      House led by a cybersecurity coordinator—who will also be a member of the national
      security staff, working together with the new chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra.
      Obama promised that the government ―will collaborate with industry to find technology
      solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity,‖ not ―dictate security policy.‖
      And importantly assuring that the new security methods put in place will not impede on
      new internet freedoms, Obama clearly states that the organizations‘ ―pursuit of
      cybersecurity will not — …will not — include monitoring private-sector networks or
      Internet traffic.‖ This report, coming from the President himself sets forth a view that will
      influence further organizations‘ actions in the future, giving lead to a stronger and more
      direct following for internet based freedoms. This assures that even with any
      implementations of the future, the United States government will work to fully secure
      personal privacy and civil liberties through the World Wide Web. As the news report is
      mainly a collection of quotations and summarization of Obama‘s ideas, there appears to
      be no bias from the news-writer‘s perspective; although the little bias there may be could
      come from Obama himself, obviously being a strong democrat.
Federal Communications Commission. ―Internet History.‖ Congressional Digest Feb. 2007: n.
       pag. Pro & Con Online. Web. 22 Sept. 2009. <>.

       Pro & Con Online is an internet resource database established to provide an ―impartial
       view of controversial issues.‖ The Congressional Digest reports details of the opposing
       viewpoints of a federally debated topic. A primary focus topic is Economic and
       Environmental Policy, covering debates such as Net Neutrality. This article, ―Internet
       History,‖ is a selected piece from ―The Internet: A Short History of Getting Connected,‖
       which was a project compiled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
       Subtitled, ―From ARPANET to Broadband,‖ the piece gives light to the very beginning
       of the internet, the motives for its creation, the hopes for its development, and the long
       process for the multitude of connections to evolve and embellish into the basis for what
       we see today. ARPANET was the world‘s first means of computer networking, whereas
       nowadays it has evolved to connections all over the world sending countless data packets
       by the second. The internet‘s original thesis of becoming the envisioned, ―‘intergalactic‘
       community that could emerge from a single computer time-sharing system,‖ has become
       much, much more. ―How ARPANET created the foundation upon which today‘s true
       ‗galactic‘ network, the Internet, is built is a story about using common standards and
       protocols to implement vision,‖ explains the FCC. This article provides important
       background information on the subject of the internet, the center focus of net neutrality
       arguments. This explains the opinions and ideas of the very founders of the internet we
       have today and thus can be used to compare to what we see today or want to see today.
       Bias may come from the authors of this piece because, being members of the FCC, they
       have a background with U.S. telecommunications including internet communication.
Genachowski, Julius. ―Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation,
      Opportunity, and Prosperity.‖ Federal Communication Commission,
      21 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Sept. 2009. <>.

      This speech, as given from the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission
      (FCC), is hosted on the ―beta‖ website, a so-called ―connection‖ point
      to upcoming issues and the FCC‘s actions and ideas toward them. The main focus of the
      site is to be a place for open discussion about the future of the internet. This speech was
      presented yesterday to express the position the FCC will be taking on the subject of net
      neutrality. Chairman Julius Genachowski addresses the fact that the internet is a vital
      asset to the world as we know it today and this is possible because of the absolute
      original decision to make the internet an open system. He goes on to explain the problems
      that combined to form this current-day threat on the future of openness. Genachowski
      notes the dynamic network of the internet and the idea that technology will grow and
      evolve, ideally giving rise to a new ―vibrant marketplace of ideas.‖ He also lays down
      two new principles of net neutrality, strongly detailing it: ―non-discrimination…against
      particular Internet content or applications‖ and that ―providers of broadband Internet
      access must be transparent about their network management practices.‖ This stance taken
      by such an involved individual, and his represented organization, supports the importance
      of keeping the internet ―neutral,‖ backing the pro side of the argument. He leads the
      American people to know what can and must be done to assure a successful, innovative
      future and most importantly, the ways in which it will work. It is to be noted that the
      Chairman of the FCC is reasonably biased by his background of experiences in the
      Communications Commission including his authority position over the communication
      technologies in the United States.
Richman, Dina R. ―The Shot Heard Round the World Wide Web: Comcast Violates Net
      Neutrality.‖ Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 20.3 (2008): 17-21.
      Advanced Placement Source. Web. 24 Sept. 2009.

      Published in the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, Dina R. Richman‘s
      article is backed by the journal‘s popularity and reputation as an informative and
      resourceful source ―providing important trends in patent, trade secret, trademark, and
      intellectual property law.‖ In this case, the article provides a strongly legal view into the
      debate over net neutrality. The paper is essentially a report about how Comcast had been
      ruled in violation of the net neutrality rules, reportedly interfering ―with [data] transfer by
      using technology that allows it to pose as another user‖ which ended up throttling
      BitTorrent Peer to Peer (P2P) traffic. It also describes relative legal bills or acts in which
      internet freedom and freedom from discrimination are supported through legal action,
      whether or not they were actually passed into law. The article continues on the discuss
      how network neutrality applies to the First Amendment, stating that ―The Internet has
      been lauded by many as a bastion of free speech,‖ marking it as a central point to uphold
      these constitutional rights to free speech. This is a strong effective source which can
      assist in arguing against the con side of the argument using the actions taken by Comcast
      and their unlawful behaviors. The same situation can be used to support the pro side as it
      can be used to put belief in the idea that net neutrality is the way to satisfy our
      constitutional right to free speech. Bias in the article clearly sways the author towards the
      pro side as can be seen by the description of Comcast‘s actions being compared to the
      actions starting a war, as if they chose to take a shot at net neutrality advocates on
Taipale, K. A. Is Net Neutrality Bad for National Preparedness? N. pag. Center for Advanced
       Studies Research. Program on Telecommunications Policy, June 2006. Web. 25 Sept.
       2009. <>.

       This research report was put together by the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and
       Technology Policy, which is a private research and advisory organization seeking ―to
       inform and influence national and international policy…in particular by identifying and
       articulating issues that lie at the intersection of technologically enabled change and
       existing practice in public policy, law, and industry.‖ This article is a report of findings
       from a study done to see how policies of net neutrality would hold up against certain
       extreme circumstances in internet usages versus the telecom companies‘ proposed
       policies. The main point of the study came to be that besides all the freedoms of a neutral
       internet, ―there‘s a downside to enforced net neutrality – skewed incentives and no
       capability to prioritize critical services in times of national emergency.‖ Taipale refutes
       the pro argument that neutrality maintains fair business practices because net neutrality
       ―skews innovation towards bandwidth wasting applications…and is premised on
       unlimited capacity.‖ The point is also brought up that in times of crisis where everyone is
       online awaiting updates on a breaking news story, neutral internet servers would be
       completely overwhelmed by the incoming traffic, whereas prioritized systems would
       allow for a much larger ―surge‖ capacity. This source provides important information on
       the arguments against net neutrality, or rather the sore spots of the pro argument, leading
       to the idea that more research must be done on these certain topics to be able to
       successfully counter-argue them. It appears that bias can be obvious from the title of this
       report, which from the beginning asks the question ―is net neutrality bad…,‖ immediately
       creating an initial perspective point on the topic, rather than titling it ―how does net
       neutrality work with national preparedness?‖
Tanner, John C. ―VoIP Takes Net Neutrality Mobile.‖ Telecom Asia May 2009: 10. Web. 23
       Sept. 2009.

      John Tanner is an author for Telecom Asia, a magazine which covers news and updates
      about telecommunication-related material, including business activities, ―white papers,‖
      developing analyses, case studies, and opinion articles and blogs. Tanner is Global
      Technology Editor for the Questex Asia, has two degrees in telecommunications, and has
      been covering the Asia-Pacific telecom industry for ten years. This therefore also brings
      up his bias, which includes his residence in Asia and his inclination to write by the
      policies of that nation, in addition to his authoritative position as Global Tech. Editor.
      This article provides a discussion of the condition of telecom industries as affected by the
      new market of iPhones, wireless fidelity connections, and mobile development of the
      voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). It explains that AT&T in the US allows Skype on its
      iPhones only under the circumstance that they design the app so that it only works on Wi-
      Fi connections, not the 3G network. Other nations such as Hong Kong‘s OFTA and
      Singapore‘s IDA consider VoIP to be nothing more than an internet application, leaving
      it out of their scope. ―That makes it a net neutrality issue, which is why neutrality
      advocates have asked the US FCC to determine if AT&T forcing Skype to cripple its app
      violates the net neutrality doctrine‖ (5). The issue encountered here provides insight into
      the future advancements of the net neutrality argument itself. It also provides a strong
      example of corporate restrictions over a ground-breaking technology, leaving the
      opportunities simply to collect dust due to the fear of radical change to business strategies
      and revenues.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. Policy Statement. By Marlene H. Dortch.
       Federal Communications Commission. N.p., 23 Sept. 2005. Web. 24 Sept. 2009.

      This government publication is a piece presented to the Federal Communications
      Commission (FCC) regarding the policies of the organization, written by Secretary
      Marlene H. Dortch. Established in 1934 by the Communications Act, the FCC is an
      independent U.S. government agency devoted to the management and regulation of
      communications through radio, television, wire, satellite and cable within the United
      States. This policy statement first mentions the importance of the internet and how it is
      utilized today and how it plays such a role in speedy communication, in educational
      resources, as a forum for political and cultural development, and in the economy of the
      United States ―as an engine for productivity growth and cost savings.‖ This publication
      discusses the (amended) Communications Act of 1934 and how it is the policy of the
      United States ―to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists
      for the Internet‖ and ―to promote the continued development of the Internet.‖ Specifically
      towards the management of broadband networks, the FCC explains the principles it
      promises to adopt, all generally involving the main objective, ―to encourage broadband
      deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public
      Internet.‖ The FCC declares it to be their ―duty to preserve and promote the vibrant and
      open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the
      broadband age.‖ The paper presented here is legal documentation of the purpose,
      progress, and importance of a neutral internet, including the law of the United States that
      can be used to argue that it should remain neutral. This can add to a formal argument
      towards the actual legality of the policy of net neutrality. While this is a government
      publication, potential bias may come from the FCC‘s extensive background with the
      internet and how it is governed now, due to personal experience, swaying them towards
      the pro side of the neutrality argument.

To top