Quantcast

The U.N.’s War on the Internet: Could the Web Lose?

Interview: The U.N. tax proposal is essentially “just a money grab”

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Technology]

A lot of speculation has been floating around about a proposal from the United Nations that could impose a global Internet tax on the world’s largest content providers. Based on leaked documents from the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) that are being made available at WCITleaks.org, the speculation is, in fact, true.

Although the language is vague, the documents indicate that companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and others could be tremendously impacted. When the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) meets in December, the proposal, if implemented, would amend the existing telecommunications treaty, the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

How would you react if the entire structure of the Internet changed? Would you still feel comfortable visiting your daily websites? Furthermore, what would it do to business and the economy? Please share your thoughts.

ETNO’s proposal calls for the “principle of sending party pays,” which, according to author and technology consultant Larry Downes, means that large content providers would be forced to pay fees, or a tax, linked to usage for the large amounts of bandwidth they use.

Larry Downes, Author and Technology Consultant “This changes the whole structure of really how the Internet works and has worked successfully up until now,” he said.

Up until this point, the Internet has operated on an unmetered or peered traffic system meaning that all user traffic is treated the same. The new proposal, however, would imply that the bits that are transferred from a Google search, for example, to a user from another country would charge Google, explained Downes.

The last time the International Telecommunications Regulations was updated was in the 1980s. It began with the telegraph and was revised to include the telephone system, and now, the United Nations wants to amend it again to incorporate the Internet.

As Downes explained to us, the current version of the treaty deals with international long distance phone calls. In essence, the telephone carriers of the member countries in the United Nations set a price for the international long distance calls coming into their countries. For example, a call placed from the U.S. to France could cost a certain amount of money per minute, based on the rate that the carriers set.

ETNO’s proposal indicates that foreign countries want to impose this same type of arrangement for the Internet. Since the process is extremely secretive and the information obtained thus far is only available through leaked documents, the price range for such a tax is unknown. However, based on the costs of the telephone charges, analysts expect them to run into the billions of dollars.

“In the 1990s, the United States paid a net of $15 billion dollars,” Downes pointed out. “That is to say U.S. consumers paid $15 billion dollars to place long distance international phone calls more than what was paid on the other end for calls coming into the United States.”

Since the current proposal involves data and bandwidth, chances are, the rates would be much, much higher if the tax were implemented. What’s more, the majority of the large content providers are based in the United States, which, of course, means the tax would impact them the most.

While it seems that this specific proposal puts the United States against the rest of the world, Downes thinks the impact is much greater. He told us that it would not only be very harmful to U.S. companies, but he believes that it would also be harmful to developing countries and the Internet as a whole.

For example, if companies such as Google were taxed, these fees would translate over to consumers. It could result in Google increasing its ad rates and also being forced to cut off developing countries from which the tech giant wasn’t gaining anything in return.

“The net effect may be that some countries, particularly in the developing world, get cut off all together from the most valuable content,” explained Downes.

Based on this proposal, it appears that other countries are jealous of the U.S. and the technological developments it has made. Since the U.N. is looking to make some revisions to its telecommunications treaty, the assumption is that they are using this as an opportunity to get a piece of the pie, as the old saying goes.

“Frankly, the Europeans are concerned that most of the successful content-based businesses of the Internet are all in the United States,” said Downes. “They see this [proposal] as one way of kind of getting their pound of flesh out of the very successful Internet industry… it’s essentially just a money grab.”

“They see the U.N. as the opportunity to put that in the form of an international treaty, and therefore with the law behind it, make it easily collectible,” he added.

Another alarming aspect of these circumstances is that this is just one proposal. As mentioned earlier, these meetings and negotiations are done in secret, which leads observers to believe that there are other proposals as well. Since the ITU is looking to rewrite the ITRs, Downes and others familiar with the proceedings suspect that countries such as Iran, China, and Russia will push to have the new treaty require all content to pass through a national government gatekeeper.

“There are many countries, as I said, that are unhappy with the Internet… they are unhappy because the U.S. and developing nations are making the most money off it,” explained Downes. “Or, they’re unhappy because of the way in which information flows outside of the channels that they can control.”

“Whatever the reason, there are a lot of countries who have a lot of interest in making sure that the Internet does not continue to operate as successfully from our standpoint as it has,” he continued, “and they’re gonna do whatever they can to make that happen.”

What Downes is saying and what other news publications have indicated is that this proposal, and others that are not yet public, could be the first step in the United Nations attempting to govern the Internet. At this point, the Internet is governed by multi-stakeholder structure. The Internet Society, which is made up of several engineers, also plays a role in establishing protocols and, most recently, was involved in successfully rolling out IPv6. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Worldwide Web Consortium are also involved in the governance and address issues like network and domain name administration. Through this process, the Internet has been able to evolve naturally and quickly respond to the ever-changing advancements in technology.

Robert McDowell, Commissioner at the FCC The White House, the State Department, and Congress have all expressed concern about this proposal and are working to raise awareness of the potential dangers it could pose since it would completely transform the existing and successful model of the Internet. Robert McDowell, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, has been very outspoken on the issue and wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal in February warning of the dangers. In part, he wrote:

“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. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.”

Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist and one of the Fathers of the Internet Late last month, at a U.S. House committee meeting, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and the White House expressed warnings of this initiative as well. During the hearing, Vint Cerf, the Chief Internet Evangelist at Google and who is also known as one of the fathers of the Internet, voiced his fears about the issue saying:

“As a result of these efforts, there is a strong possibility that this December the ITU will significantly amend the International Telecommunication Regulations – a multilateral treaty last revised in 1988 – in a way that authorizes increased ITU and member state control over the Internet. These proposals, if implemented, would change the foundational structure of the Internet that has historically led to unprecedented worldwide innovation and economic growth.

The open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”

This proposal and more than likely others are expected to be debated in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications. Each of the 193 country members of the U.N. will have 1 vote to decide on a new treaty. Once the vote is taken, the treaty will go back to the individual countries for approval.

There are lots of speculations that the United States will not reach the two-thirds minimum requirement to ratify it. However, if this is the case, the U.S. could still face problems since it has global business relations with countries who will likely approve it.

Incidentally, just this week, new leaked documents confirm fears that repressive governments truly are hoping to see the December WCIT meetings result in U.N.-sanctioned technologies for surveillance of Internet communications, which could essentially authorize censorship of the Web. Russia, specifically, is proposing an amendment that would give U.N. member states “unrestricted public access to international telecommunication services and the unrestricted use of international telecommunications, except in cases where international telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a sensitive nature.”

Eli Dourado, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University Eli Dourado, who is one of the two researchers at George Mason University that is running the WCITleaks site, wrote a blog post discussing these developments and stated that this current dispute is really a battle between all Internet users and their governments:

“Who benefits from increased ITU oversight of the Internet? Certainly not ordinary users in foreign countries, who would then be censored and spied upon by their governments with full international approval. The winners would be autocratic regimes, not their subjects.”

Also earlier this week, Rep. Mary Bono Mack introduced a bipartisan resolution that is especially critical of the U.N.’s seemingly growing initiative to govern the Internet. The goal of it is to unify efforts of opposition to the ITU’s endeavors. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to approve it very soon.

If the U.N. really is attempting to take over the Internet, is the U.S. doing enough to stop it from happening? Or, is it doing all it can at this point? What do you think? Let us know.

The U.N.’s War on the Internet: Could the Web Lose?
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.triple-delight-tt.biz CLAIRE ROGERS

    I’ve come to depend so heavily on the internet as my main source of self-improvement and learning. When I cannot afford to pay for face to face education or training, this is where I go! I also depend on it for communication – as a means of keeping my phone and fax bills down (by way of telephony, free faxes,, conference calling, emailing scanned documents), converting documents online, and I also use it to view live streams, and for entertainment, as I cannot afford to go to the movies, nor buy CDs and DVDs. I go to it for my spiritual enrichment and inspiration when I cannot go to church, or for bedtime inspiration. I cannot imagine life without it! The world would be boring and it will cost us too much to be without it. It’s the poor man’s wealth resource! Let’s keep it tax-free

  • Ron

    Again the UN is way out of bounds… we should abolish this useless organization.

  • http://frosh10.ru Юрий

    этого нелзя допустить

  • http://thespiritwithinpoetry.com/ Jan Tetstone

    This is interesting, since ‘we the people of the world’ deserve to be able to interact and share knowledge on exactly what the UN is doing on a daily basis. I can see no reason for this ‘internet taxes’ other than the fact that it will force many people in the world back into darkness on what is ‘really’ happening in this world of ours.

  • Bob Prichard

    Taxing the Internet is just the first step. Once it has the authority to tax, then it will assume authority to censor content. In 10 years, only content they deem politically correct will be allowed on the Internet. The Internet will then become as useless as the mainstream media in this country.

    The USA was founded on resisting the imposition of taxes. We should continue that tradition if we want to be free.

    • A. Weiner

      That’s funny. We may be resisting taxes, but they do not go away, they only increase. There isn’t any level of government (City, State, Federal) that reduces taxes. Mainly because they operate on these revenues and become so accustomed to operating within those perimeters and are always looking for increased revenues to operate an ever-expanding government.

      This is no different from the U.N. They have been losing revenue from regular channels of telecommunications as well. Because many of the countries are under dictatorships, police states or should I dare say family or mafia control, this is also a way to censor or filter information they do not want their countrymen (slaves) to know.

      In their perfect world, these countries should not allow internet in their countries if they do not want the flow of information to be obtained. However, realistically, if you don’t play you don’t get paid.

      The U.N. is the beast weighing down the great USA, and in my opinion it is time to sever ties and walk away. Our country funds close to half of the U.N., if we were to take our money and leave, you would see a different organization, if any at all, because if we left the table their operating revenue would fall apart. In the meantime, they use our money against us. Just like our government uses our tax dollars against “We The People”.

  • Christian

    Google is a monopoly that use its position as a global search engine, to influence politics that tries to contol this monster called Google.

  • leech

    the UN came to my attention in my current work to uncover worldwide networks of people who prey upon children. seriously, it started in adelaide, south australia, and i followed it to the most unlikely places. that people supposedly doing good things but working with vulnerable and isolated people, well, that was consistent and typical. but, the UN came into play in this. really, i never started out looking at that, but on a different issue. namely that people endeavoured to promote domestic conflict. they failed to do that with me, but then when i looked i found they had all these connections to people who were noted for abuses of children. quite perverse but very organised. and, the internet has very much helped in my work. so, the UN wanting to limit that, comes as no surprise. but, be noted, from white ribbon foundation which is very much about covertly promoting domestic conflict and being around to pick up the pieces, well, that was something i noted. and michael kaufman from white ribbon, he’s all over the united nations and working with vulnerable people. reality, neither he nor white ribbon were at all concerned about paedophile abuses of children that came to my attention. why not i ask? i dunno the full details on that aspect of it, i’m more busy working on issues in australia at the moment. whatever, have a look at some of this story if you like http://blackswan.byethost7.com.

  • http://WWW.GETFUCKED.COM HARRY

    THEY CAN ALL GO AND GET FUCKED
    THIEVES AND LIARS
    EXODUS 18-20
    WE WILL SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE NET AGAINST THESE PEOPLE
    HARRY

  • Ed Caputo

    This is just another attempt at a power grab, the money is secondary. EVERY country’s government wants to control the content of Internet, to be able to censor criticism. Just look at the recent examples of ACTA, PIPA, SOPA, and CISPA, all designed to curtail our rights to communicate freely. The USA will approve it, have no doubts, it will give those in power more complete control.

  • http://www.it-ech.com Teodor Bita

    We can penalize the law in ways more old or new. With each passing day democracy will end up becoming only a right to protest without being taken into account.
    Depends only on us whether we like it or not really. What would happen with this law if we did not use the internet for a while? I have an idea about what we could do.
    Let’s see where to go and how we affect each other. I have lived without the Internet.

  • Jon

    Large internet corporations are famed for their creative tax
    accounting when operating out of the US.

    As a non-US citizen it annoys me that when large internet corporations operate in my country they then dismiss their
    sizeable profits by “buying in services” from their parent company to the tune of the amount of profit they need to make “disapear” – well documented – no profit means no tax.

    I am fed up with US companies not playing straight on the international scene tax wise – Google is a dominant force, if it really wants to play at “globalisation” rather that “Americanisation” then start playing fair when it comes to tax and act truely globally.

    I am not sure if the UN proposed tax will be a sensible implementation but yes in principle I am in favour of changes that redress the balance.

  • Ordin Ashlie

    All forms of government should stay out of the internet.

  • http://www.leadershipsuccessnow.com Alex Dail

    My understanding of the purpose of taxes is to share the burden of the cost of use. What I mean is, if I use a road I contribute to the up keep through taxes. Another means is to support services that we believe all citizens ought to have access to like health care or education. I can’t see that anyone under the present system is asked to carry and unfair share of the burden, or that anyone is being denied access. So I really don’t get the purpose of the tax except as a grab for revenue.

    • Cj

      A grab for revenue – maybe. A grab for power – DEFINITELY.

  • Al Haffar

    First we must ask the question how can the ITU as body be taxing the US companies or for that matter how can they be taxing any one?. The ITU charter does not have and does allow for governing and enforcement as a taxing authority, the ITU is an organization that is not part of any GOV, therefore in order for them to tax US business on the INTERNET the US congress must ratify this treaty and enforce the collection of tax through the IRS.

    Having said that another question should be asked, is US GOV collaborating on this with the UN in order to say to the American public that the UN is this we can do anything about it????????? that will give the US GOV more control over (THE FIRST AMENDMENT) This a very slippery slop.

  • Freedom fighter

    This is absurd. Why does the Internet need to change at all. It is clear the UNITED Nations have an agenda and it’s scary to see so much control occurring on the Internet. The Internet is the last great bastion of freedom why mess about with it unless there are sinister motives. Right this all the way.

  • http://www.silverfoxescorts.co.uk/index.html Freddie Fox

    First reaction is of course “They Can’t Do That”!!!
    Truth is of course, they can do whatever suits their own interests, regardless of the rest of the world.
    Perhaps, Paper Advertising will become fashionable again.

  • http://www.captaincyberzone.com Cap’n Cyberzone

    “Just a money grab”.
    This org. needs a truth to power name change: United Corrupt Nations.
    Look at the IPCC money grab, the Oil For Food money grab (just to name two recent ones) … oh, and then there’s it’s peace-keeping missions which, in reported cases, turned out to be more rape and sodomize missions then peaceful … they’re doing a great job in Syria!
    I think that the peoples of the world should ban this org. from using the internet!

  • Robert in Canada

    So now the UN wants to tax the world for using the internet.

    They have been somewhat successful at taxing the world for using gasoline (carbon taxes/global warming), so why not try an internet tax.

    Such taxes never change or improve anything, they aren’t meant to.

    The tax amounts are purposely small enough to keep things from changing.

    Why?

    Because a small tax on everyone adds up to the $billions required to keep a lot of crooked UN bureaucrats and their associates living a life of luxury.

  • http://- Jeanne

    I think this would be disastrous for the Internet! Things are already very tight financially for every one, except for the 1%, of course, so if they imposed this tax, it would surely impact on all users of these big Interenet groups, as it would not take long for them to be wanting money from the 99% that would not be able to sqeeze that extra bit out so they could continue to use the facilities they currently use. In the end we would have another kind of domination of the people by those who have more money.

    I will pray that millions and millions of people oppose this!!!

  • http://www.BikerCushion.com Mark

    So, looks like the overwhelming majority feels that gov’t should stay out of taxing and regulating the internet to avoid the inevitable passing of this cost on to we, the people. As such, most of you agree that the internet should remain as fee free as possible and allow the “free market” to determine its path. That philosophy allows search sites like Google to provide you with free searches and generate their revenue from public and private entities via ads. Imagine, having to pay for each search like you do for 411 directory service.

    And, so it is the same with virtually every other innovation that has benefited mankind though history. As soon as the innovation gains momentum, governmental utopians see tax dollars for fixing all the ills of the people while increasing their control and converting our society from one of individualism to “dependentism”…the gov’t dole is a hard habit to break.

    So, for those of you that are thinking of casting a liberal vote this November, please don’t be surprised when those you elect eventually begin to tax your free internet and force service providers like Google to have no other choice but to pass this cost on to you.

    Keep gov’t out of running your life, making decisions for you and little by little taking away your freedoms. Reject the liberal agenda this November.

  • http://www.infowars.com Banatu

    What you tax, you control. Allowing the UN to tax our internet, or anything else, is to relinquish control to a foreign entity with no interest in our country other than dismantling it.

    Everything the UN touches turns into a spectacular disaster, with the severest consequences always for the poor, especially those in underdeveloped areas. Relinquishing control of the internet to the UN is to deny them that just as surely as they are now denied their plentiful energy and other natural resources.

    You can bet your bottom dollar within 5 years this tax would apply to every content provider, if not every internet user, and it’d be continually hiked in the name of those ridiculous carbon taxes the UN has been wetting its pants about for the last 20 years.

    Internet = Good.
    Taxes = Bad.
    United Nations = Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • Sabreen

    This is far more than just whether or not Google is a monopoly; its effect will reach far more than just Google. As was said previously, this will change the very foundation of the Internet, as we know it.

  • Cliff Newman

    If the UN [or any other organization] trys to change or take over the Internet, that entity [organization] will be eliminated [eradicated] from earth. Forever.

  • http://nexxterra.com Nexxterra

    First, the cost is borne by the companies that supply the infrastructure and passed to the consumers through our monthly bill ie: cable, phone etc.
    Also the U.N.s mandate for world peace, etc, etc. can only ever be met if the internet stays intact.
    This situation would also cause a multi level internet where poor countries get nothing, small businesses get secondary traffic and big corps get the premo traffic, after all if google pays billions, then shouldn’t their services be provided ahead of my private little search engine?
    Yet another situation where a simple pros and cons analysis would prove the stupidity of this proposal.

  • Cliff Newman

    Earlier I made the following post… “If the UN [or any other organization] trys to change or take over the Internet [world], that entity [organization] will be eliminated [eradicated] from earth. Forever.”
    It is the nature of this universe to eliminate leaders or groups of leaders who try and take over the world with greed and power. Every leader in the history of man who has done the power and greed thing has been done away with [and history has proved this over and over]. Once upon a time the Roman Empire tried to rule the world and today struggles to keep their own country afloat. The same with England in days past. Then Hitler and his failed attempt at power and greed. And it has been the same throughout history with each nation that has risen to power. Over two hundred [or so] years ago some very honorable men started America but today the men of honor have long gone and now the United States struggles under the tyranny of a few men intent on their own power and greed [and America is about to be no more]. Forty two years ago the United Nations was a failed organization that had never been able in all its years to get even one nation to agree to anything. Then in 1960 I produced the document for them that enabled them to get one hundred and seventy nations to agree to agree. But today the United Nations is being run by people seeking power and greed and struggles to keep the power base they once enjoyed. With words and thoughts I started them, with words and thoughts I will put them down.

  • http://www.designbyniall.com/ Niall

    Looking at the article and the comments above, I’m glad I’m not the only one who knows that the UN is a bad waste of time of money. If they spent their money and resources on what they’re supposed to do instead of wasting it on useless “meetings”, “forums” and “discussions” they may actually be of some use. And this proposal? Let me not go there.

    Thanks for the article!

  • Phil

    As with all “development”, missionaries are sent out to tame and civilize the new region, fired only by religious fervor, no thought of profit or manipulation beyond some holy vision. Behind them are the kings, queens and profiteers, who lack the ability to tame that land, but have designs on it anyway. Thus is the internet. Politicians and power players, control freaks and the creatively challenged are in the queue to claim this new internet land for their own wretched purposes. As easily stopped as a Spanish Armada or phalanx of B-52′s. Seems a done deal…unfortunately. The “Avatar” model is compelling but without much proof.

  • http://bit.ly/arnobie Arnobie

    It seems that they have to tax the Poor countries as many of website traffic are coming from North Countries and the South Countries are the victim of this Proposed Treaty. And one thing, if this could be happened, I’ll shift my servers and pull out my websites from “Tax Countries” and put them in a “Free Tax Country”… I think, we it is time to go in the road and stop this evilness…

  • Marcus

    What arrogance… why don’t I simply claim ownership of the internet and impose a tax on the world. … are these people for real? wasn’t this type of blatant greed a catalyst for the recent GFC? What’s next, claim tha air that we breathe? seriously…..

  • Troy

    I’m against it, they just want more control. They want to exclude the poor and elderly by pricing us out of the picture, just to try to fix there economy.

  • Ravikrishnan A K

    ICANN had put up its new policy of domain names which gave the go ahead for money power (only!) in this vital aspect of internet technology.
    Now, it seems others maybe having their say, so what is wrong?

  • http://www.booksie.com/KingGalaxius King-Galaxius

    I say leave these internet companies alone. Facebook alone has already changed too much.

  • http://www.booksie.com/KingGalaxius King-Galaxius

    I say that these companies need to be left alone. Sites like Facebook has already changed too much.

  • Ccolour Tour Georgia

    Such kind of regulation will harm mostly developing countries while developed countries like US, UK, EU and Japan has many different sources how to get information (TV, newspapers other sort of media sources) while in most of developing countries internet is only source to get temporary and clear information what is going in the world. All consumers already pay for their internet what UN demands more difficult to understand?! I would advise UN to take more attention to human rights failure in Syria+Russia and such kind of problems than to loose our money on such kind of regulations.

  • az ashraf

    UN can’t control any thing.. they start a war never finish it. UN are useless was of money. Internet is free speech, they want to tax us, try it.. certainly will not taxing any of our sites, we will use all means to communicate. UN are sounding more like the war lords Talaban..

  • az ashraf

    Taxing sites will stop development, I don’t see anything like Facebook under that control.. why would some one pay.. the trying and develop.. leave us alone..

  • Leland Griffin, Jr.

    All beginning businesses will fold due to increase cost and customer oversight will cause reduction of web traffic. An effective way to destroy any web-base information sources from being used and reduce the knowledge available to the world’s citizens. World governments way to enslave the world’s population? Seems very likely and a firm path to the next “Dark Ages”.

  • bbching

    I agree with Jon and Christian. Whose economy is gaining the most out of this World Wide Web? Obviously, the US. Smaller business around the world are badly affected, killed by these giant companies all from the US. Did they share or even pay tax in your country? This is monopoly, very soon the whole world will all be influence by US, do you really want that? Look seriously at all the content we are reading over the net now, be it News, politics, merchants products, musics, movies, games, everything, who is ahead of the other countries in the world, its the US. They are making all the money, FB, Google, MSN, Yahoo, Apple, Bing and many other giant. There ought to be a balance.

  • Brian C

    If this occurs – then the countries that go into this program need to (and most likely will) be boycotted by users across the world. And if the US adopts this concept for the Internet – then I personally am going back to a dial-up BBS system. There is no way that I will take part in a centralized government agent taking control over the data flow and profiteering – its just another way to mandate taxes on economies which are in peril. We already have an economic crisis – this will most certainly drop the bomb. But there is absolutely no way that I am going to use the internet if it is regulated by any government – this would infringe against both civil and constitutional freedoms which I am not about to give up.

  • bbching

    I agree with Jon and Christian. Whose economy is gaining from this World Wide Web? Obviously its the US. Smaller business in your country suffered and killed by all these giant websites from the US. Do they share or pay tax in your country? Look seriously at the content we are all reading today, be it News, Musics, Movies, merchants products, politics, majority are all from the US. Very soon every one in the world will all be influenced by US, do you really want that? Don’t you see, this is very clear monopoly, look at all the giant websites, Google, FB, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, Apple and many more, they are making all the money. Yes I am for it, there ought to be balance.

  • http://www.reverbnation.com/preyproductionsinc Sean Alton

    The Free World and the one for which the Internet community was designed will resist this… If they (the UN) and the elite don’t like the principles for what the Internet was devised for, then bugger off and make your own system and play “funny guys” and leave the masses alone… Enough said… this is Lunacy and negates all the positive aspects that people like Jobs, and innovators make happen daily…

  • http://www.absolutewebworks.com/ Absolute Webworks

    Simply put, this amounts to greed on a global bases. For those of us that make a living online many of us already deal with greedy entities.

  • http://www.nodeposit-casinobonus.info/ Gerald Thomte

    If it happens then the internet will become outernet and the United Nations better change it’s name to Divided Nations for reasons known best…

  • http://www.HGPublishing.com Peter J. Francis

    Is this an April Fool’s joke? The UN has no power to tax anyone. Taxation lies in the hands of sovereign governments. The US, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has veto power. Measures passed by the General Assembly have no teeth or Israel would have long ago withdrawn from the occupied territories. Even if a UN body proposes a treaty or agreement which imposes some kind of tax, individual nations can choose whether or not to go along. If the UN could impose taxes, then we would have carbon taxes already.

  • http://فارسی naser

    کلیه خبرها به فارسی

  • http://online-backup.stocklii.com Storage

    I think that as bbching says it’s all about balance, and we can’t denie also that will be a great help to have a look at what is going on internet because as you may know all are not just using the internet for fair activities and i think that even they do not publish that they control it i am sure that they do!

  • http://www.huax-printing.com Mr.Huax

    Huax,Professional supplier of inkjet printer spare parts,Domino filter,Imaje filter,Videojet filter,Willett filter and Linx filter.

  • Paul

    Its time to tell the U.N to take a s**t an get out of the U.S.A
    an stop telling us what to do here in the U.S.A

  • Robert in Canada

    By trying to control the internet, the UN is again proving they are just a radical left wing think tank.

    1. They appoint brutal dictators to head their human rights and women rights agencies.

    2. They make the ridiculous claim that Canada is as bad as North Korea regarding providing food to it’s citizens.

    …..and it goes on and on like that. Bunch of idiots.

  • http://kingstarprofitworld.blogspot.com King Samuel Benson

    Taxation, or no taxation. The UN, or the US. Something greatly unpleasant is definitely coming upon us. How can we tell who’s right and who’s wrong? How are we sure we are not being deceived? For all I know, all these could be nothing but feigned conflict. Arrangements may have already been fixed. These signs of conflict and so-called ‘battle’ could be nothing but acts of deception on the part of the US to make us believe they didn’t cave in so easily. We have to be vigilant and very careful else our freedom will be artfully taken away from us, right under our noses!

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom