Posted on 10/13/2012 11:40:06 AM PDT by yoe
U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer warned on Friday that a proposal to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet is gaining momentum in other countries.
Proposals to expand the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) authority over the Internet could come up at a treaty conference in Dubai in December. European telecommunications companies are pushing a plan that would create new rules that would allow them to charge more to carry international traffic.
The proposal by the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association could force websites like Google, Facebook and Netflix to pay fees to network operators around the world.
Kramer said the idea of an international Internet fee is "gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states."
He said the United States delegation to the conference will have to redouble its efforts to convince other countries that the proposal would only stifle innovation and economic growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Obama wants the UN to control our Internet , tax us and for the UN to take away our guns.
Obama wants the UN to control our Internet , tax us and for the UN to take away our guns.
That’s what International socialists like Obama want.
The UN and Obama must be stopped.
Let’s just cut the Africans and Arabs out of the Internet then. Slap those hands reaching in to our pockets. We created it, it’s ours and we let others use it. The US should be the one charging the fees if anyone.
Fees, taxes, restrictions, regulations, and controls are always popular or “gaining momentum” among communists, tyrants and power hungry lefties.
We all know the fate of MARXISTS. But, you go homey!
The parasites of the world have created nothing useful or productive. Destroy all parasites!
Very dangerous territory we are wading into here: (1) fees above and beyond what we pay for service already, (2) of course it will be monitored by government oversight and used as a spying mechanism and propaganda instrument, (3) it will be used to promote ideaologies, social stances, and religious or cult like messages to the public for the purpose of controlling their behaviours and quell social unrest. Once
consent is given to the government to do this, an incremental assault will begin to erode the rights to privacy, freedom of speech and rights to protest . In addition it will facilitate control of the people on a worldwide level and assist in the establishment of a new world order.
Ironically the term "rogue organization" aptly describes the federal government, in which the three branches recognize the Constitution only when convenient.
-- The executive actively violates such as the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments (the War on Drugs [WOD] is all that's needed to both illustrate and prove that point, although it certainly isn't limited to the WOD).Then there's Fast & Furious, which is Constitutionally Treason... yet nothing is going to come of it.
-- The legislative now routinely passes contra-constitutional "laws" like Obamacare, but has done so for a long time (GCA/NFA anyone?).
-- The Judiciary however is particularly bad, because they wrap their pronouncements up in 'precedence' *spit* and truly warped "reasoning" [read troll-logic] to (a) show their position to be constitutional, and/or (b) justify current government practices. A good example is the Supreme Court decision Raich v. Gonzolas wherein they upheld the Federal Government's ability to regulate home-grown drugs with the following sort of reasoning: the WOD is predicated on the ability to regulate commerce, Wicard proves that privately grown substances impact interstate commerce, even though no commerce exists [because it is illegal under WOD laws] if it did the it would be commerce, therefore the government has the ability to regulate privately grown marijuana. (And there's the Kelo decision wherein they held that imaginary numbers [projections] are enough of a "public use" to satisfy the 5th Amendment... even if the suppositions of the projections are never met.)
Therefore, it must be asked: what is the consequence of violating the Constitution?
Apparently nothing.
Explain again the difference between established governments and shakedown/protection rackets, besides the fact that the mob bosses actually deliver and leave you alone?
/johnny
I want the UN to just go away.
Alternately, we bring up a tank batallion and level their building, so we can reclaim that prime real estate for AMERICANS.
The UN was created by Americans, in part, as a "get around" against that pesky Constitution.
Obama has ALREADY given away partial control of the Internet to the U.N. with barely a word mentioned of it in the press. ICANN was the American run non-profit group that controls the Domain Name Servers that connect the whole Internet world-wide. The U.N. and the left constantly pressured Bush to allow International control of ICANN stating that it was unfair to the world that the U.S. had such significant control of a world resource. Of course Obama gave it to them.
“Proposals for international governance of the Internet have been particularly popular with authoritarian regimes and countries - particularly in the Middle East - where freedom is not a core value. The Bush administration time and again rebuffed these power-sharing proposals. However, the Obama administration, consistent with its view that the United States has too much influence in the world, has sought to give foreign countries their say.”
“In October 2009, the Obama administration concluded an agreement with ICANN that increased international input on Internet governance. ICANN now has a foreign advisory board representing 100 countries, and the Obama administration is pushing for them to have veto power over the introduction of new top-level domains to which they may object. “If foreign governments do not trust the Internet governance systems,” Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling explains, “they will threaten to balkanize the Domain Name System, which will jeopardize the worldwide reach of the Internet.” The notion at work here is that if the regimes that censor, bully and block the Internet simply have a place at the table, they will be more likely to behave.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/4/obama-to-the-internet-no-icann/
This scheme appears to be newest version of the former carbon tax. It’s another way for the UN to gets its sticky paws on money. But, alas, that money gets siphoned off for the beaurocrats and never ends up for its intended purpose. Well, it sounds good, and everyone means well . . .so that is what is important . . .right?
As they get older, they do need to be introduced to rope and lamp-posts.
/johnny
Well, as soon as the UN develops their OWN Internet, they
can do what they want with it!! This one was developed by
algore (insert laugh track) and doesn’t belong to the UN
nor do they have any domain over it.
To paraphrase Charlton Heston, “from my cold, dark keyboard”!!
I wasn’t clear, I meant charge fees to everyone else but Americans. They wan to use our invention, they should pay for it.
>>”gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states.”
This is the definition of chutzpah! The two most primitive areas on Earth want to charge us money when they access our internet—the one thing that could bring them into the 21st century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.