MPs bash broadband tax

Grr....

Why should people who can ill afford it have to pay for rich people to have broadband in their country homes?

BT Top-Up Fee.

Please, the broadband tax, from day one, has stunk to high heaven of nothing more than MPs jockeying for directorships in BT when they're left jobless in May/June. Why else would we be forced to pay a tax on our landlines to provide funding for maintenance on a privately-owned infrastructure?

We've been taxed to the hilt under this disgraceful attempt at government, and yet, in their dying hours, they come back demanding their final pound of flesh.

No problem here

I have no problem with a small tax of 50p a month to enable broadband to be rolled out into non-profitable rural areas. However, what I do have a problem with is that it will effectively be a tax to support and enable a private company (British Telecommunications) to extend their coverage with no extra cost to them.

If the tax is used to extend broadband to rural areas, then the ducting/copper/fiber laid down with public money, should be publicly owned, and open to all broadband providers for a small nominal charge.

Definitions please

"a majority who will not, or are unable to, reap the benefits of that charge,"

What does that mean? Does it mean that people who are forced to pay the levy are in areas that will be covered by fast broad band and thus will pay for something they already enjoy? Or, does it mean that people in remote areas who pay will never reap the benefits because they are too far from the exchange? Finally does it mean that people who have no interest in using the internet, 10 million, by some accounts, will have to pay regardless of the fact that they don't want broadband fast or otherwise?

I am in the second category, I have broadband, of sorts, but will NEVER get 2Mb/s as I am too far from the exchange. So why should I pay when there is no likelihood of me benefitting?

Lots of questions, any answers gratefully received.

Rubbish concept

The concept of having equal broadband provision everywhere in the country is illogical and stupid. If you live in the country, you accept certain downsides (having to drive everywhere, no busses, no local shops etc.) for the upsides (less noise, good views etc.). Why shouldn't lower broadband speeds or none at all be part of that same equation. If it makes sense to keep broadband the same everywhere, shouldn't everyone get a good view wherever they live as well? Shouldn't everyone have peace and quiet like the countryside as well? By the same logic, we should tax everyone who breathes an amount per month to fund fresh air in the cities? Surely, everyone should have the same fresh air.

Luddite

@Howard Cole

Do you have gas and mains sewer out in the sticks?

Not everyone does. Some people have to pay for bottled gas and a lorry to take their shit away. That is their choice. Live in the countryside: don't expect all the amenities. Broadband is not as essential as gas or sewers.

If you a really going to change the way you vote over this you shouldn't be allowed a vote, but I suspect you are red through and through anyway.

Rural No Longer?

Has anyone thought how long the rural areas within easy reach of major conurbations would remain rural if they got anything like reliable broadband, even 2Mb?

There's enough companies getting staff to work from home now, for one reason or another, companies with existing infrastructure to support substantial numbers of workers accessing internal systems via the likes of Citrix etc, 2Mb is more than adequate for that.

So what happens to the price of rural houses when they start getting bought with working like this in mind? There's outcry now about affordable housing for rural communities, get anything like reliable, reasonable speed telecomms links and watch what happens.

Why can't

those folks living in rural areas not subscribe to mobile broadband if broadband access means so much to them. Or is that NIMBYs have prevented access to the mobile phone networks by protesting against phone masts?

Yeah, but...

What's to say that the money will even be used by the Government to implement broadband in the manner they describe? Look at the Road Fund License - created to pay for road building and repairs, but in reality just goes in to the treasuries coffers. Evidence? The state of our roads that more resemble the surface of the moon...

I already subsidised Internet access

Down the years I've pumped £1000's (literally) into Internet access, as a perpetual early adopter I've already subsidized broadband at levels the 50p tax will never reach here in the city. £90+/month right at the start of dial-up ;(

If rural areas want it they need to do the same, pay the premium needed to bootstrap supply themselves. And give up on this fixation on fibre, if they can afford to run a mobile they can afford to run mobile broadband. The towers will deploy a hell of a lot faster than BT will act.

Rural Life....

@David Edwards - well said, way to many people think life in the country is some hybridisation of Emmerdale and River Cottage, is it buggery!!

As for the Web tax - here's a proposal: Make it a sliding scale of 25p for each 1Mpbs you get. Good for those being digitally excluded by BT et al's attitudes to anywhere green, bad for you city types with 50Mbps cable!!

As I regularly check my speeds using speedtest.com I'll be happy to shell out 12.5p a month (yes my average downstream is 600Kbps - before you ask I live 3km from an exchange and cable is not available)

Geography

Firstly, the numbers already bandied about are very unclear - I don't think there is quite such a clear divide in England, but in Scotland around 95% of the population live on only 5% of the land, ie approx 90% live in the two biggest cities. On that basis, talking about "one third of the country" may mean 33% of the people, or it may mean about 3% of the people - which is it?

The Government seems to want to have it both ways as usual - the tax won't cost much (for now) which quite clearly means that it will barely raise enough money to cover the cost of administering the new tax, leaving nothing significant to actually spend on infrastructure.

No-one seems to be raising the issue of obligation: the post office are obliged to provide the same service to everyone, regardless of location, and I believe that BT are obliged to provide a landline phone service in much the same way, so why not internet access over much the same infrastructure?

Remeber it's 50p/line to *begin* with.

And as others have pointed out it's *not* ring fenced. In true NuLabour style push the bayonet in, if it meets fat, push harder.

But the bottom line is it's a *bribe* to BT to get them to do this work. alternatively how about letting their competitors take over *all* responsability for a local loop if they agree to provide broadband.

And the competitor keeps all the revenue. Pre-privatisation BT had an 18-24 month backlog in telephone installations. The arrival of Mercury dropped that quite a bit.

I think HMG bungs enough bribes to BAe already (You *have* to buy our UK made choppers, otherwise (sob) we'll just have to fire all those helpless workers).

Yes they are totally different companies. Both have a *very* substantial position in UK markets and both seem to play the helpless victim at every opportunity. These are multi *billion* pound PLC's, not some battered spouse. some parts of both of them have provided significant benefit to the UK economy. Others seem totally useless.

And remember for *any* of this to be real it would have to pass the election.

I imagine that...

many people like myself will simply do away with a landline. What it currently costs me to have a BT landline will be switched into my mobile plan and I'll not really be any worse off.

Taxes

The problem with all taxes is that nobody can ever agree on them and they are always unfair to someone and there's always a logical argument (or two) for every angle people come up with. Progressive taxes that tax according to your wealth (or perceived wealth) are considered good by people who have little (and therefore won't pay much). They argue the more you have, the more you should pay. Some sense there. Regressive taxes at a fixed level regardless of wealth are always preferred by the wealthy as they will pay less. They argue why should they pay more for their services than anyone else when they use them the same. i.e. Why should an ambulance ride cost more (effectively) to a rich person than a poor person etc. Again, some sense there.

So, the issue here is that Labour (and most other parties and politicians) always think the answer to everything is taxation. It isn't and it's devisive. People nearly always vote on these matters according to the cost to them. Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant. Why should a rich person pay more in tax? What's the logic there? If they use the same services to the same levels as a poor person, why should the cost be different? Social conscience? Maybe, but why should that be enforced in law?If they have a social conscience, maybe they should simply give to charity.

The point here is that taxation is normally the wrong answer to everything. Let's challenge the politicians to come up with something really radical....................a solution that doesn't involve tax!!

Rural?

I could reel off a list of TOWNS which can't get decent broadband.

A whole area inside of the York ringroad - not even ten minutes from the city centre - is in a "slow spot". I even know people inside of the M25, not in the posh burbs, whose broadband stutters along at under 512kbps.

If it wasn't for wireless operators and smaller more innovative telecoms providers, the Medway towns, the Portsmouth area, and anywhere beyond that which is lumbered with TPON, would STILL be suffering from "crap broadband if you're lucky, no broadband if you're not".

South Yorkshire has subloop unbundling projects and Digital Region. Again, we're not talking "arse end of nowhere" areas but WHOLE TOWNS.

Why are they bothering? Because if it was left to BT and Virgin, they'd never get anywhere.

Virgin and BT have spent tens of millions of pounds digging up inner city streets to give people living there, giving city dwellers a choice they often take for granted. So, let's have less of the dog-in-the-manger attitude.

With a bit of proper thinking, >8mbit broadband could be rolled out nationwide for a fraction of the cost of giving city centre dwellers a smorgasbord of choices for headline-grabbing speeds - a choice which the market's going to give them whatever happens.

A natural but unanticipated consequence?

Time was: GPO/BT the one and only telephone service provider in the country (we may overlook Hull as an anomaly for the moment yes?)

Then government could say: roll out telephony services nationwide, tell us how much it will cost and the bill will be paid out of taxes.

Some brighter analysts would predictably predict within margins of errors incomes anticipated.

It was the old model.

The newer models depend upon private enterprise and they will always look at profit margin. They have to.

So under the newer models some areas are not going to be worthwhile in sense of potential returns generated against cost of providing those services.

And that is that hard, sad fact. Where income revenues are unlikely to reach expectations then private enterprise will give those areas a solid body swerve and a great big NO!

The question then revolves around how to commission services with loss leading.

There are ways to tackle that. It is not an impossibility.

One way is by taxation funded services another might be: so-and-so made XYZ million GBP in profit from its catchment areas and so needs to make x% of those profits available to non-profit making or loss making regions.

These things are not impossible to solve but do raise further questions as a consequence.

For example, why should the service users of particular areas have a component of their charges used to provide services in a loss making area?

Truth is: someone has to pay and it is better if there are generally, acceptably fair methods accountably used to address full nationwide service.

Private enterprise will always cherry pick and head for greatest returns on its investment yes?

AC@00:54

"Virgin and BT have spent tens of millions of pounds digging up inner city streets to give people living there, giving city dwellers a choice they often take for granted. So, let's have less of the dog-in-the-manger attitude."

I'd *strongly* doubt Virgin have done *any* digging in town *except* where they have new build to cable. AFAIK they inherited damm near all of it from the upteen cable TV ops that Telewest and their ilk bought up, after HMG had given them plenty of cash assistance.

An interesting option *might* be that *any* operator commits more of their profits (demonstrably) to rolling out broadband (with a *minimum* service level agreement, like real companies have) they can offset that against part of their profits and pay less tax.

But *not* indefinitely.

Why 2mbps?

I still don't understand why people need a 2mbps internet connection to be included in society.

Surely all that is required is a reasonable POTS or ISDN connection to a remote desktop hosted elsewhere.

@Howard Cole

"It is short-sighted not to invest in fibre. Other countries will do it and their economies will overtake ours as it becomes more apparent to business that the internet is critical to their survival. For example, why would an international company invest in a country which cannot provide the ability for its employees to work remotely."

Which begs the question why BT and Virgin say they can't *afford* to do it.

Or do they claim that the profit they make from their *existing* fibre is *so* low they cannot afford to roll it out to others sites in their network. AFAIK cross-subsiding *within* a division (BT Openreach) is allowed.