goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 26, 2012, 02:47:14 PM
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/un-seek-control-internet_664018.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/un-seek-control-internet_664018.html)
"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."
-
jfc what a joke
-
Not sure I agree with the thread title, but this is a terrible idea.
-
The U.N. is anti-American.
-
Conservative media is rough ridin' hilarious. You dumbasses are killing yourselves with that garbage. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Conservative media is rough ridin' hilarious. You dumbasses are killing yourselves with that garbage. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Agree on your first point. But the UN is still completely worthless
-
Conservative media is rough ridin' hilarious. You dumbasses are killing yourselves with that garbage. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Agree on your first point. But the UN is still completely worthless
It's awfully inefficient, but it's less worthless all the time.
-
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.
-
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.
Probably too late to keep those bureaucrats in Doha (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart-20) from rough ridin' the American way of life right in the ass like it was there organizational purpose.
-
Seems like what Google is saying is not damning of the U.N. Is it possible that conservative media has overreacted? :dunno:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ (http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/)
-
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.
you should def. buy it
-
Seems like what Google is saying is not damning of the U.N. Is it possible that conservative media has overreacted? :dunno:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/ (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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
I'm not sure, but I think you may be wrong regarding the ITU. I don't think the US has any veto power with their votes, which only requires a simple majority of the 193 members.
-
Here is a New York Times commentary from one of the biggies in the development of the internet (not Al Gore) that explains the UN's ITU internet power grab. This is a very big deal if you are for a free and open internet. This could severely limit the amount of information available in much of the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html)
-
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 recommendations
The 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.
It's not a veto issue like the Security Council, it's about 1. whether the treaty gets passed by the 192 nations, and then 2. whether we decide to sign/ratify it. A good number of U.N. treaties are non-binding, so you can sign it then violate it with no repercussions. The mandatory application means that the U.S. would be fined for not following it. Again, we would have to sign it first.
http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-internationaltelecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet (http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-internationaltelecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet)
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/opinion/keep-the-internet-open.html)
Yes, you are right that this has the potential to be very harmful to the free exchange of info and that governments should not be the ones making decisions about the future of the internet. But that outcome seems very unlikely. I doubt the proposals you(we) fear get adopted(the EU doesn't like 'em either). If they are adopted, the U.S. won't sign because that would dick Google and Google is the best company in the world. The U.S. refuses to sign U.N. treaties all the time. And Google will do everything it can do circumvent the censoring efforts of any nation that does ratify.
-
LOL at some of you.
-
The UN is pretty worthless, but I'm pretty sure they can't actually dictate US tax policy. So, nothing to worry about here.
-
The 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.
-
The 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.
-
The 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.
Liberals will incrementally try to tax the internet and it's use in the US, and they'll be pointing to international usage fees as a model. California has a good start.
-
lol. its called the bilderberg group guys.. its purely about gaining control in everyway possible.. zombies.
-
:zzz: :zzz:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-approves-resolution-to-keep-internet-control-out-of-un-hands
-
:zzz: :zzz:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/271153-house-approves-resolution-to-keep-internet-control-out-of-un-hands
I'm more satisfied about this being settled than I am about being proven right.
-
I wish the U.S. would just hand ourselves over to the U.N. and let them run our country