Well, first off, anything that Fox News says can usually be counted on to be an exercise in hyperbole.  There is little chance that the US would become a signatory to any treaty that reflected a move for greater governmental control as pushed by the Russians, Saudis, and Chinese.  Think about it, the Senate just rejected the treaty on disabled persons that was literally modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act, because a significant number of people live their lives in such fear of the UN that they saw evil in the effort to treat disabled people with dignity.  These Senators and many of their constituents live in a dark fairy tail land of fear and conspiracy, and even if what comes out of ITU is the greatest treaty ever (which it won't be) there is almost no chance that those people would ratify it because, horror of horrors, it is an international treaty.  Also, the White House has said that it would reject the proposed measures, so it wouldn't even be submitted to the Senate for Ratification.   

Even so, the interwebs don't stop at the border.  So it could conceivably make a difference to users in the US. On the other hand, as most people know, borders don't mean a lot in how internet traffic is routed.  Even blocked URLs are pretty easy to reach though proxy servers, as people in countries with restrictive policies are well aware.  

New America Foundation has a solid policy brief, What's at Stake at WCIT that addresses many of the concerns.