Annotation for source 3

Source:
United States. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF   COLUMBIA. , 1994. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5334675097720961353&q=net+neutrality&hl=en&as_sdt=20000002>.
This document is the case file of the 1994 Supreme Court case of Turner Broadcasting System Inc. versus the Federal Communications Commission which resulted over TBS suing over their belief that the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 was unconstitutional. The induction to the case serves to describe both the differences between network and cable television while the B section notes on the increasing popularity of cable networks as the primary source of televised content. These factors noted in the case pose several parallels both to the current system of the Internet and the consequences of not taking action to maintain net neutrality. Notable among these consequences is the difficulty associated with attempting to enact maintenance legislation after allowing providing corporations to act freely as seen in a lawsuit by TBS to prevent the CTCPCA. The case further explains how cable networks who generate revenue through paid subscriptions rather than through advertisement based revenue as free broadcast networks are. The parallel with the inquiry comes when the document in section C explains that increasing vertical integration resulted in cable networks forcing broadcast networks off the air resulting in large conglomerates being the sole content providers. Thus, the consequences of allowing content to be provided by the few is that it forces other voices off the air. In this way, large corporations are able to maintain their role as the powerhouse in the parlor room by prevent other content providers from entering.
Thus I could use this document to note that if we allow what has happened to television to happen to the Internet, in which there become few content providers (possibly as a result of the end of net neutrality and the introduction of two-sided pricing) then corporations who can pay a premium for access to consumers can force out smaller budgeted voices from the parlor room.