Is the UN About to Take Over the Internet?

Some members of Congress worry that a new tech treaty would create an online “wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams, and opportunities.”

A couple of weeks ago, some conservatives were panicking that President Obama was going to use an executive order on cybersecurity to single-handedly take control of the internet. (Surprise: He wasn’t.) Now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers have banded together to stop the United Nations from pulling a similar stunt at this week’s World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. But if you think this is just more fearmongering, think again: Some of their concerns appear legitimate. 

Mobilization against the conference began after countries such as Russia and China submitted secret proposals (some have since been leaked) that would give the United Nations more regulatory power over the internet. A group of Arab countries is also advocating for universal identification of internet users. While the actual aim of the conference is to deal with issues like mobile roaming fees, cybersecurity, and expanding the internet into developing nations, with more than 900 regulatory proposals already submitted, there’s no saying what other ideas are out there. 

Another issue potentially at stake is internet fees. According to the Associated Press, there are “European-backed suggestions to change the pay structure of the web to force content providers—such as Google, Facebook Inc. and others—to kick in an extra fee to reach users across borders.” While proponents of this idea say it will help developing countries pay for internet access, critics told the newswire that the proposal would mean that foreign countries could tax large content providers, like universities and search engines, who want to send content overseas.

The House and Senate have passed resolutions taking a stance against increased international regulation of the internet in advance of the conference. The resolutions garnered support from Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who were concerned about the influence of less democratic countries on the treaty, and Republicans who shared their concerns (and were keen to join in on some good, old-fashioned United Nations bashing).

Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) said such regulation could lead to “an engineering morass” and a “dark and dysmal spector for economic freedom.” Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who introduced the House resolution aiming to “thwart takeover of internet by United Nations,” said that “if this power grab is successful…the internet becomes a wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams and opportunities.” Although some of the language used to describe the United Nations “takeover” is bombastic, few think increased international regulation of the internet is a great idea. 

Google, which has not made a peep about President Obama’s attempts to stop cyberattacks, is making some serious noise about the conference. The search giant started a petition against “some governments [that] want to use a closed-door meeting in December to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.” This is similar to the kind of action Google took during the uproar over the Stop Online Piracy Act. And Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, is speaking up about his concerns that some conference attendees are going to “push for a UN agency to ‘run the internet’ rather than leaving it to groups already ‘doing a good job.'”

The good news for lawmakers and concerned companies is that the United States doesn’t have to sign whatever treaty comes out of the conference, and as the New York Times points out, “it is extremely unlikely that the administration of President Barack Obama, which has repeatedly pledged a commitment to an open Internet, would endorse a treaty that permitted a crackdown on Internet communications.” Secondly, the UN conference is consensus-based, so “by definition, that will weed out extreme proposals,” experts tell Politico.

Finally, the United Nations has said repeatedly it doesn’t want to take over the internet. “It’s unfortunate that the Congress is spending so much valuable time on something that isn’t even on the table,” Hamadoun Touré, secretary general of the International Telecommunications Union (a UN agency) told the Times in June. “There is no single reference to Internet governance in the preparation document.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate