So we'd rewrite this to be: 'US ambassador: Internet double charging proposal gaining momentum'.
We all know that we pay for our internet access to websites. Those websites shouldn't be charged again. We should have that fact built into the language we use discussing these issues. I think it's easier to oppose this type of thing when stating the problem states your argument.
EDIT:
Actually I've just reread the article. This is just FUD being spouted by the US government to scare it's citizens. They want the US to retain control of the internet (which is totally understandable) and are saying bad things will happen if they let the UN take control. It's building a justification for not going along with the rest of the world if all the other countries agrees to something it doesn't like.
It's possibly not worth worrying about as long as you live in a country with a competitive telecoms market.