Will they ever stop trying to control the Internet?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...et_664018.html
Keep it free and untaxed. Fuck the authoritarian regimes and the money hungry socialist regimes.
- Guest032516
- 11-26-2012, 06:27 PM
- i'va biggen
- 11-26-2012, 06:59 PM
Must be working I couldn't get the link to work...
- Jackie S
- 11-26-2012, 07:42 PM
Maybe we can get them all in one place and President Obama will pull off a Drone Strike on the entire lot.
Keep the internet free and open.
Keep the internet free and open.
- Chica Chaser
- 11-26-2012, 07:49 PM
Must be, me either
- I B Hankering
- 11-26-2012, 08:22 PM
U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet
2:48 PM, Nov 26, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.
"Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations," reports the Wall Street Journal.
2:48 PM, Nov 26, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.
"Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations," reports the Wall Street Journal.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-26-2012, 09:28 PM
Drone? You wanna talk drone?
Read some of the posts by you and your teabagging pals!
That's DRONING!
It's getting so fucking boring that I'm considering taking IBPissingmyself off ignore just so I can fuck with him!
LMAO @ boring dipshits!
Read some of the posts by you and your teabagging pals!
That's DRONING!
It's getting so fucking boring that I'm considering taking IBPissingmyself off ignore just so I can fuck with him!
LMAO @ boring dipshits!
- Jackie S
- 11-26-2012, 09:56 PM
Drone? You wanna talk drone?Damn, man, chill out a little.
Read some of the posts by you and your teabagging pals!
That's DRONING!
It's getting so fucking boring that I'm considering taking IBPissingmyself off ignore just so I can fuck with him!
LMAO @ boring dipshits! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
- Seedy
- 11-27-2012, 12:55 AM
We need to kick all those worthless cocksucking pieces of shit the fuck out of NYC. And turn that valuable piece of dirt, into a high dollar hotel. Fuck all those USA hating motherfuckers.
- i'va biggen
- 11-27-2012, 07:36 AM
Are you talking about republicans ?That is harsh...
- Guest032516
- 11-27-2012, 12:20 PM
The link works fine for me. But here it is in any event:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.
Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations," reports the Wall Street Journal.
"Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. ...
"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."
Arthur Herman explains "The UN's Internet Grab" here.
And even Google has already come out against the ITU.
"The ITU is the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet," says Google. "Only governments have a voice at the ITU. This includes governments that do not support a free and open Internet. Engineers, companies, and people that build and use the web have no vote."
"The ITU is also secretive. The treaty conference and proposals are confidential," adds Google.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the Arthur Herman link, too. It spells out a lot more detail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.
Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations," reports the Wall Street Journal.
"Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. ...
"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."
Arthur Herman explains "The UN's Internet Grab" here.
And even Google has already come out against the ITU.
"The ITU is the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet," says Google. "Only governments have a voice at the ITU. This includes governments that do not support a free and open Internet. Engineers, companies, and people that build and use the web have no vote."
"The ITU is also secretive. The treaty conference and proposals are confidential," adds Google.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the Arthur Herman link, too. It spells out a lot more detail.
- Texas Contrarian
- 11-27-2012, 03:12 PM
- Guest050715-1
- 11-27-2012, 04:10 PM
We are in complete agreement that the UN is worthless and with SEEDMAN that it's anti-American.
The European lobbying group says that without the new fees, there will be no money to invest in the network upgrades needed to deal with a surge in traffic. Regulators have required European telecommunications operators to open their networks to rivals, and the market for broadband is fiercely competitive, with rock-bottom prices.
There is only a limited amount of broadband. Something about the spectrum only being so big; I neither understand it nor do I care to. Nonetheless, once we reach the limit, that's it until some other kind of technology is reached.
Interesting article:A quote from the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/te...l?ref=business Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
The European lobbying group says that without the new fees, there will be no money to invest in the network upgrades needed to deal with a surge in traffic. Regulators have required European telecommunications operators to open their networks to rivals, and the market for broadband is fiercely competitive, with rock-bottom prices.
There is only a limited amount of broadband. Something about the spectrum only being so big; I neither understand it nor do I care to. Nonetheless, once we reach the limit, that's it until some other kind of technology is reached.
- Texas Contrarian
- 11-27-2012, 04:24 PM
We are in complete agreement that the UN is worthless... Originally Posted by OliviaHowardAny organization that would consider putting Syria on its "human rights council" should never again be taken seriously by anyone.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ouncil/259516/
Or how about Cuba, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...claudia-rosett#
Is there no limit to shamelessness?
- Guest032516
- 11-27-2012, 07:05 PM
A quote from the article:
The European lobbying group says that without the new fees, there will be no money to invest in the network upgrades needed to deal with a surge in traffic. Regulators have required European telecommunications operators to open their networks to rivals, and the market for broadband is fiercely competitive, with rock-bottom prices. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
There is only a limited amount of broadband. Something about the spectrum only being so big; I neither understand it nor do I care to. Nonetheless, once we reach the limit, that's it until some other kind of technology is reached. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
Don't confuse wireless with wireline (cabling).
Radio spectrum is limited because wireless transmissions are unbounded and can interfere with one another. So, two cell phone companies cannot transmit on the same frequency near each other. Each cellular provider is provided with assigned frequencies in each geographical area. That's why it is limited. Just think about AM/FM radio stations. You can't have two radio statoins broadcasting on 98.7, otherwise you will just get noise.
On the other hand, fiber optic communications are virtually unlimited because the light never leaves the cable. You can have two cables sitting side-by-side and transmitting data on the exact same frequencies and the two cables will not interfere with each other.
- Texas Contrarian
- 11-29-2012, 02:13 PM
Just received an email with a link to this rather provocatively titled article:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...Yuamr4kMZ9APWL
I find it difficult to disagree with any of that.
By the way, the author wrote the recent book Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II.
For anyone interested in the history of the industrial mobilization leading up to the war, it's an excellent read.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...Yuamr4kMZ9APWL
I find it difficult to disagree with any of that.
By the way, the author wrote the recent book Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II.
For anyone interested in the history of the industrial mobilization leading up to the war, it's an excellent read.