[diego_moita]

Actually it looks like the opposite: Internet controlled by the United Nations.

> India’s spokesman, Mr Dushyant Singh, argued that the proposal “should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’ the Internet.”

If a politician says it isn't, then it probably is.

If the Internet is to be ruled the way Indian, South African and Brazilian governments work, expect to pay bribes to be able to do anything (I am Brazilian, I know what 3rd world "governance" means).

[yummyfajitas]

It would be easier to believe claims that India doesn't want to censor the internet if India didn't already censor the internet.

(As one example, I needed to use a VPN to get my dose of Savita Bhabi while I was over there.)

[SingAlong]

> If a politician says it isn't, then it probably is.

Feel bad that I can upvote you only once.

With India's definition of broadband still at 256kbps and they are 'aiming' to increase it to 2mbps by 2015, I would say the govt already has a lot on it's plate. More than it can deal with. They should just let someone else care about this kind of problems.

[random42]

I is simply not true. 2 MBPS is _easily_ available for home connections from all the vendors, and is pretty popular plan.

[SingAlong]

You seem to have misunderstood. I did not mean the availability of speeds. I meant the definition as per TRAI. As per what I checked just now, TRAI's definition of "broadband" in India has been updated to 512kbps since Jan-2011.

According to Google, the page here http://www.trai.gov.in/broadbandpolicy.asp was updated/cached last in 2006 so maybe thats why it still says 256kbps