1. For a discussion of the consolidation of the telephone industry at the turn of the twentieth century, see Jason A. Hoida, American Telephony (1997); Robert W. Garnet, The Telephone Enterprise (1985).
2. For articles noting the centrality of end-to-end to the debate, see Marjory S. Blumenthal, End-to-End and Subsequent Paradigms, 2002 Law Rev. Mich. St. U.-Detroit C. L. 709, 717 (describing end-to-end as the current paradigm for understanding the Internet); Lawrence Lessig, The Architecture of Innovation, 51 Duke L. J. 1783 (2002) (arguing that end-to-end establishes the Internet as a commons). For an overview of the debate about the perceived values at stake in end-to-end arguments, see Yochai Benkler, e2e Map (Dec. 1, 2000) (unpublished paper from the Policy Implications of End-to-End workshop at Stanford Law School), http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/e2e/e2e_map.html. For arguments in favor of the preservation of end-to-end neutrality in network implementation, see Written Ex Parte of Professor Mark A. Lemley and Professor Lawrence Lessig, In re Application for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp., No. 99-251 (F.C.C. 1999), available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/cable/fcc/fcc.html; Mark A. Lemley & Lawrence Lessig, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 925 (2001); David D. Clark & Marjory S. Blumenthal, Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End to End Arguments vs. the Brave New World, 1 ACM Transactions on Internet Tech. 70 (2001), available at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/e2e/papers/TPRC-Clark-Blumenthal.pdf (describing the benefits of end-to-end and how those benefits are in tension with security concerns); Paul A. David, The Beginnings and Prospective Ending of “End-to-End”: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Internet’s Architecture 26 (Stanford Econ. Dept., Working Paper, No. 01-012, 2001), available at http://www-econ.stanford.edu/faculty/workp/swp01012.html (arguing that end-to-end openness is a public good, the cost to society of its potential loss must be included when considering more extensive security solutions); David P. Reed et al., Active Networking and End-to-End Arguments (Dec. 1, 2000) (unpublished paper from the Policy Implications of End-to-End workshop at Stanford Law School), http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/e2e/papers/Saltzer_Clark_Reed_ActiveNetworkinge2e.html (arguing for the preservation of end-to-end and using end-to-end openness as an organizing principle against which to measure programmability and active networking).
3. For more about the value of amateur content creation, see Yochai Benkler, Wealth of Networks 190-96 (2006); Dan Gillmor, We the Media (2006). For further discussion of amateur technological innovation, see infra Ch. 3.