0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU's long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a 'sender-party-pays' rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google and Facebook. The idea is technically impractical because unlike phone networks, the Internet doesn't recognize national borders. But authoritarians are pushing the tax, hoping their citizens will be cut off from U.S. websites that decide foreign visitors are too expensive to serve."
Conservative media is rough ridin' hilarious. You dumbasses are killing yourselves with that garbage.
Quote from: bubbles4ksu on November 26, 2012, 06:42:03 PMConservative media is rough ridin' hilarious. You dumbasses are killing yourselves with that garbage. Agree on your first point. But the UN is still completely worthless
I heard Glen Beck selling his Agenda 21 book this weekend. It's apparently pretty scary, but I have to buy the book to find out why.
Seems like what Google is saying is not damning of the U.N. Is it possible that conservative media has overreacted? http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/
That says Google wants all governments out of the internet business, and the UN represents governments and wants power restrict content. Seems pretty damning.
Governments alone should not determine the future of the Internet.
Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 26, 2012, 08:41:59 PMThat says Google wants all governments out of the internet business, and the UN represents governments and wants power restrict content. Seems pretty damning.QuoteGovernments alone should not determine the future of the Internet. It says that. And also that the proposals are coming from third world dictators.also PROTIP: This is a re-negotiation of a treaty. Unless America ratifies whatever comes out of this little conference, it won't rough ridin' apply to Americans.
The ITU has historically disclaimed any authority to regulate domestic telecommunications, clearly recognising in the ITU Constitution the “sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunication.”While the ITU has a limited scope of regulatory authority over international radio-communication issues, it also adopts recommendations on a wide range of topics and facilitates the adoption of international treaties. ITU recommendations do not have the force of law, but rather set forth suggested regulations and requirements for national regulatory authorities. These recommendations address standardisation, economic and technical issues. By distinction, international treaties are generally binding law for all nations that are signatories to the treaty.....Mandated application of ITU recommendationsThe ITU has issued non-binding recommendations on topics ranging from accounting rates and tariff issues to the construction, installation and protection of telecommunications cables, to the power flux density of wireless transmitters. While these recommendations are only advisory at the moment, some proposals could transform some or all of these recommendations into mandatory treaty provisions with the force of law.
Some countries have expressed sympathy for these proposals. They are concerned about the outsized role they perceive that the United States plays in the direction and development of Internet policy. Some believe the status quo favors the interests of large, global Internet companies. Others believe the I.T.U. can help speed Internet access in the developing world.The decisions taken in Dubai in December have the potential to put government handcuffs on the Net. To prevent that — and keep the Internet open and free for the next generations — we need to prevent a fundamental shift in how the Internet is governed.
The UN is pretty worthless, but I'm pretty sure they can't actually dictate US tax policy. So, nothing to worry about here.
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on November 27, 2012, 11:12:57 AMThe UN is pretty worthless, but I'm pretty sure they can't actually dictate US tax policy. So, nothing to worry about here.This isn't about tax policy, it's about the future of freely disseminated information over the internet and who is going to control the information. Many in the UN want this control. The money aspect is a way to gain this control by making it too expensive for google and other information outlets to allow their information into certain countries or regions (ie., google would have to pay for access to these countries). The fact that the UN is even putting this to a vote is ridiculous.
Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 27, 2012, 11:36:45 AMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on November 27, 2012, 11:12:57 AMThe UN is pretty worthless, but I'm pretty sure they can't actually dictate US tax policy. So, nothing to worry about here.This isn't about tax policy, it's about the future of freely disseminated information over the internet and who is going to control the information. Many in the UN want this control. The money aspect is a way to gain this control by making it too expensive for google and other information outlets to allow their information into certain countries or regions (ie., google would have to pay for access to these countries). The fact that the UN is even putting this to a vote is ridiculous.If those other countries want to restrict the internet, more power to them. It will continue to be free in the US, which is all I really care about.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-approves-resolution-to-keep-internet-control-out-of-un-hands
in the end, EMAW will always win.
