The ITU, ISPs need a punch in the dick.

[The Illusive Man]

Ladies and gentlemen, history is once again repeating itself. TL:DR in 1976 the ITU sought to have end to end communication controlled by controlled by state run telephone companies (x.25) vs Vint Cerf's team of academics + U.S.A.  military sponsors (ARPANET TCP/IP protocol). Vint and co won, the internet is decentralized and nations that engage in censorship today have to deal with hilarious things (ie Tor, VPNs, ect) punching a hole through their firewalls.

There is a heated international argument over who will control packet-switched communication networks--the carriers or the users... Many multi-terminal users believe they can maximize the benefit of packet service only by employing end-to-end communication protocols... This contention makes the carriers livid and helps explain why the argument was gathering heat at the Geneva [ITU] meetings.

Fast forward to December 2012, the ITU starts negotiating new international telecom regulations from December 3 to 14 in Dubai. ISPs see this as an opportunity to bilk everyone for MOAR MONIES via taxing the internet, especially content providers (Google, Facebook, Apple and Netflix). Such negotiations were being carried out in secret until the ITU Conference was hacked and documents were leaked. A wiki leaks like suit has emerged, http://wcitleaks.org/.

Two document are of the most concern: Document 1, document 2. All of the documents linked here were drafted by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association.

Document 1 has the most news attention so far because:

3.2 Administrations* Operating Agencies shall endeavour to provide sufficient telecommunications facilities to meet requirements of and demand for international telecommunication services. For this purpose, and to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays.

Less opaque version: let’s charge Google for our customers visiting YouTube. This is the "principle of sending party network pays", the same model used to determine charges for international phone calls. This would have ended unmetered, uncapped internet access.

The European Parliament passed a resolution to prevent such. Special thanks to Amelia Andersdotter of the Pirate Party among many others. Relevant parts:

(click to show/hide)

3.  Believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralised international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either internet governance or internet traffic flows;
5.  Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU itself could become the ruling power over aspects of the internet, which could end the present bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model; expresses concern that, if adopted, these proposals may seriously affect the development of, and access to, online services for end users, as well as the digital economy as a whole; believes that internet governance and related regulatory issues should continue to be defined at a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder level;
6.  Is concerned that the ITU reform proposals include the establishment of new profit mechanisms that could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the internet, driving up prices, hampering innovation and limiting access; recalls that the internet should remain free and open;
7.  Supports any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate of the ITU; opposes any proposals that would extend the scope to areas such as the internet, including domain name space, IP address allocation, the routing of internet-based traffic and content-related issues;
8.  Calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large;

The House of Representatives stopped squabbling among themselves long enough to stop regulation of the internet by the ITU. Because:

• MOAR MONIES for the USA! All the companies being bilked are based in the USA.
• That is what the Republican Party wants to do! Never forget SOPA.
• A number of nations *cough* Russia, China, Middle East Nations *cough* want to replace ICANN with their own individual state systems for profit and censorship. Web tax anyone?

Pictured above: Luigi Gambardella, the head of a European network operators association, chairman of the executive board of the European Telecommunications Network Operators, in need of a cock punch.

An interview was conducted between him and CNET.

Q: How would this work? If someone in Europe rents a movie from a U.S.-based service, then part of that fee would go to ISPs in Europe? Isn't this pretty similar to a tax?

Gambardella: No. Because, first, as I said, we don't want to touch the Internet of today. We don't want to touch the services that are offered today.

But what can happen? A service provider -- can be European -- wants to sell a film, a movie. It wants to be sure the movie has a quality of service and has a certain kind of speed. So, therefore, we make an agreement and we allow them to offer this service. From the point of view of the service provider, he can have an additional revenue that he cannot have today because of the limitation of the network and best-effort. Sometimes the quality is not guaranteed. The customer has something that is today not yet offered. And we can add revenue.

Q: Why not propose it somewhere else that's more neutral?

A: Gambardella: First, ICANN is not easy to work with. Second, ICANN is linked more to the Internet governance domain. They don't deal with such (topics).

The problem is that we want more choice. In the end, the customer will have more choice. It's like if you travel in economy. But why don't you also allow business class, a premium class, to differentiate the service? There is more choice. The customer decides what is better for him.

In any case, we'll not touch the Internet. Nothing will change. We'll just add new services that will be done with better quality.

[largeham]

Why am I not surprised. The internet is a scarce resource, like any other, and obviously the more control people have over it, the more they can squeeze out.

Though I guess part of the problem would be, like any other product specific consumption tax, that in the long run people might* be stop using the internet.

* Might, I don't know how large a possibility, considering how important the internet is, but if it gets too expensive, and I'm sure usage will drop.

[Yumeji]

Guaranteed this will be highly unlikely to occur. While the idea alone is threatening enough to cause alarm, there is too much pull from Microsoft, Apple, Google and a number of other entities that will prevent it. Of this, there is no doubt.

This doesn't mean we should ignore it, but I fear the amount of redundant articles with authors showing their lack of reading comprehension in our not so distant future over this.

[Material Defender]

Yeah, we don't have to worry too much about losing net neutrality in capitalist countries. Too much pull from big businesses for net neutrality and very small against. We have the big money and the wide support. It seems like anyone who supported this would have to eat a major loss next election.

[largeham]

I disagree, just because companies and organisations like the MPAA, other copyright groups, etc have not been able to restrict the internet to their own uses, it doesn't mean companies like Google and Microsoft won't. They simply are clashing with other industries, that's as far as their defence of the internet goes.

[Yumeji]

I disagree, just because companies and organisations like the MPAA, other copyright groups, etc have not been able to restrict the internet to their own uses, it doesn't mean companies like Google and Microsoft won't. They simply are clashing with other industries, that's as far as their defence of the internet goes.

I'm sure that's possible but related to this, it's not a worry. This would encroach on their profits and possibly their use causing companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like, to throw their weight in opposition. Which is more than enough to have it crushed.

[largeham]

But that's my point. The reason the major IT companies are against this is because it hurts them, but were they (Google, Microsoft, so and so forth) found a way to restrict the internet which didn't hurt them, they would support it.