No, US Net Neutrality Will NOT Allow UN Control of the Internet

Daniel Sepulveda has a very long title that basically says he’s a US Ambassador over all things technical at the UN. His message to the American public this week is simple and to the point: if enforcement of net neutrality becomes the law of the land, it will not be an open door for the UN to slide in and seize control of America’s Internet access.

As we see it, the only strong arguments remaining against FCC Title II rules are: ongoing legal uncertainty due to the almost certain legal challenge that the rules will face from the cable companies; and concerns that the FCC will be tempted to give itself too much power by not removing (forebearing) enough clauses from America's outdated communications legislation.

Click to expand...

OH NOES.. MUH NEW WORLD ORDER

If people do think this, whether right or wrong, it could be bad
Ignorance

When you start addressing criticisms like this, it is because you don't want to address more genuine criticisms.

So a career academic/politician says, "I'm from the government, and we're here to help," and suddenly everything is okay.

Right...

The man's bio on the State Department website if anyone is interested: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/209063.htm

I know, personally, that I don't trust the word of anyone that has advised and worked for Barack Obama and John Kerry the last 11 years.

Saw that Faux News reported net neutrality was "Obamacare" for the internet, and that if net neutrality was kept, it'll give control over to the world... Typical misinformation for political/corporate purposes from them to scare misinformed Americans, glad to see people are speaking up against it, sad they had to in the first place however. It's doubtful many that are glued to Faux News will even see the correct information, but hopefully some will or else we all will pay for their arrogance if net neutrality falls.

We barely listen to UN's advice against imposing sanctions, so I don't know why anyone would think we would listen to them for internet advice. If anything the US would want to keep it all in house to keep on spying.

Chunder said:

Saw that Faux News reported net neutrality was "Obamacare" for the internet, and that if net neutrality was kept, it'll give control over to the world... Typical misinformation for political/corporate purposes from them to scare misinformed Americans, glad to see people are speaking up against it, sad they had to in the first place however. It's doubtful many that are glued to Faux News will even see the correct information, but hopefully some will or else we all will pay for their arrogance if net neutrality falls.

Click to expand...

Yeah their news program is the only reason half the nation actually even partially believes this. It's why we still have so many conservatives. I swear their news programs must have subliminal messages in them or people are really just this gullible.

Fearmongers gone wild.

^^^ What a well informed group. I hate to interrupt your group think, but you are obviously far too well informed (stipulated... by sources other than Foxnews) to notice The Department of Commerce has stated it will relinquish control of ICANN in 2015 to unknown parties. Announcing that the US is giving up control of DNS before the details of who is taking the reigns are finalized sounds like a great plan. And by "great", I mean along the lines of "you gotta pass it so you can see what's in it"... what could possibly go wrong?

It's obviously good for some agendas to keep a "well informed" army of drones talking about Net Neutrality and bashing Foxnews.. or as I like to call it.. Smoke-n-mirrors. Please do carry on....

What could go wrong with a Title II government take-over of the Internet? Well, let's see...the last time the government used Title II it created the AT&T long-distance phone monopoly and ruined long-distance for decades for consumers, under the guise of "consumer welfare," of course--and we didn't get past that until the government deregulated long-distance, also for "consumer welfare," of course, but this time the government got it right. Now that we have a somewhat sane Congress installed, and the insane executive branch is on the way out next, prospects for a robust Internet sans "well-meant" government tyranny continue. What the Democrats actually want is to weasel themselves into a position of ultimately regulating speech on the Internet...free speech and the Democrat party don't mix well, if you hadn't noticed.

Evil Scooter said:

^^^ What a well informed group. I hate to interrupt your group think, but you are obviously far too well informed (stipulated... by sources other than Foxnews) to notice The Department of Commerce has stated it will relinquish control of ICANN in 2015 to unknown parties. Announcing that the US is giving up control of DNS before the details of who is taking the reigns are finalized sounds like a great plan. And by "great", I mean along the lines of "you gotta pass it so you can see what's in it"... what could possibly go wrong?

It's obviously good for some agendas to keep a "well informed" army of drones talking about Net Neutrality and bashing Foxnews.. or as I like to call it.. Smoke-n-mirrors. Please do carry on....

Click to expand...

Fearmongering again. What happens with ICANN - regardless of actual outcome - has no relation to these pro-consumer regulations. The telco lobby and its shills are throwing everything and kitchen sink at the FCC, and this is a hilarious example.

That said, I don't have much faith in the FCC doing this really, one can only hope they don't follow the telco money as usual - FCC chairmanship is a revolving door of telco executives, so no rurpsie.

Nooo, that's all liiies! If this happens, there'll be black helicopters, cattle abductions, and them daggum gubment people with suits (because suits are totally evil) on the Internet who all work for the UN -- even the abducted Internet cows!