FCC's McDowell Stokes Fears of Commie-Controlled Internet > Like always

reply to ctceo

Re: Like always

quote:

---

And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas.

Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest.

---

That's why it was followed by a "?".

Let's take a look here and determine what his motivations truly are. Just like you are what you eat...

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

reply to Linklist
In my opinion, the heavy handed tactics of the USA in recent years has fueled the world opinion that the USA has "too much power" over the internet and ability to exercise control and pressure over foreign sites and even Governments. (Bully)

As a result this opens the door for "control" to be "wrested" away from the US supported bodies and handed over to the auspices of some "U.N. Governing Internet Commission".

Which of course would be a disaster, IMHO, but again we have ourselves to blame.

Some of these proposals are truly very detrimental.... and the sad thing is the US doesn't even act like it's too concerned about this idea, it appears. Worse could be that some of our "Security" forces may support the idea of increased regulation, and some of our big telecom companies certainly wouldn't mind finding new ways to "generate revenue" so I'm wondering how strong our opposition to this really would be.

If anything, the Internet should remain as is, and the US should actually BACK OFF and stop trying to over police it. IMHO, anyway. You want to showcase freedom and liberty, try leading by example instead of practicing "Do as we say, not as we do."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Linklist

reply to KrK

reply to Rekrul

reply to Rekrul
They wouldn't have a choice in this case!

Correct, If the majority of countries in the UN participate in a vote that sanctions the US or determines that it needs to do something and they don't, bad things would happen, guaranteed.

reply to viperlmw

No, but it does nothing to prevent barry from issuing an executive order in the name of "national security". Since he and his appointed cabinet support a "global order" he said himself that he was willing to effectiovely "create an appropriate legal framework from scratch", essentially to hell with current laws.

reply to Crookshanks
I'll see your Reid vs. Covert and raise you 1 x Continuity of Operations Presidential directive 51 (NSPD-51) & Raise you by 1x HSPD-20, FCD-1 and FEMA CGC-1.

Also Executive Order 12803 has some importance when looking at the bigger picture here.