Broadband tax of £6 per year next year?
17 June 2009, 01:39 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadband tax of £6 per year next year?
Broadband tax of £6 per year to fund rural fibre rollout ? The Register
Currently I'm wondering why I'm paying for this? I guess there is an argument to say that everyone should be entitled to broadband (I guess it's a bit like the PO delivering 1st Class letter everwhere regardless of the location - far off Scottish island for example), but why specifically charge those people that have phone lines and broad band now? Why not just get this from central government to ensure that Britain, as a whole, has a better comms network? IE the whole country pays.
My county council must pay out loads to get the whole of it's literature translated into obscure languages that no one reads. I'd get real pissed off if they said that I was specifically to be charged for English language courses for immigrants, just because I can already speak English (while their council tax was lower because they couldn't).
They think it will disapper into competative pricing - my BB is not much more than £6 anyway (and has been for a few years), no doubt my provider will try and hand most of this onto me. OK it's only £6, but its a significant % of the current price. I doubt very much it will just disappear.
Currently I'm wondering why I'm paying for this? I guess there is an argument to say that everyone should be entitled to broadband (I guess it's a bit like the PO delivering 1st Class letter everwhere regardless of the location - far off Scottish island for example), but why specifically charge those people that have phone lines and broad band now? Why not just get this from central government to ensure that Britain, as a whole, has a better comms network? IE the whole country pays.
My county council must pay out loads to get the whole of it's literature translated into obscure languages that no one reads. I'd get real pissed off if they said that I was specifically to be charged for English language courses for immigrants, just because I can already speak English (while their council tax was lower because they couldn't).
They think it will disapper into competative pricing - my BB is not much more than £6 anyway (and has been for a few years), no doubt my provider will try and hand most of this onto me. OK it's only £6, but its a significant % of the current price. I doubt very much it will just disappear.
Last edited by Miniman; 17 June 2009 at 01:41 PM.
17 June 2009, 01:50 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northampton, Xbox GamerTag - Neanderthal1976
Posts: 6,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone that still has to pay £17 due to my exchange not being LLU?!? I welcome the roll out, however, if it takes them 5 years (extra tax revenue seems to slow councils into doing anything whilst they're coining it in) then I resent having to pay more!
17 June 2009, 02:53 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah will hopefully be a big jump in speed for those of you far from your exchanges. Fibre to the home would be even better............but imagine the extra they'd have you pay then
Hopefully then they will offer VDSL to the house
Hopefully then they will offer VDSL to the house
Last edited by mike1210; 17 June 2009 at 02:54 PM.
17 June 2009, 03:04 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Preston, Lancs.
Posts: 2,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think anyone dislikes the thought of having to pay yet more tax.
If it means a faster and more stable broadband connection at home (we were pushing the line length limit when broadband launched), there is at least a benefit to be seen from it.
If it means a faster and more stable broadband connection at home (we were pushing the line length limit when broadband launched), there is at least a benefit to be seen from it.
17 June 2009, 03:30 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£6 from every household (who already has broadband) - what's that 25m x £6 = £150mm
is that really enough money to boost the national broadband infrastructure to help everyone get BB?
the government has no spare cash, but it can see a way to get a little more from us
is that really enough money to boost the national broadband infrastructure to help everyone get BB?
the government has no spare cash, but it can see a way to get a little more from us
17 June 2009, 03:32 PM
#6
Scooby Senior
Outrageous! Broadband is already available for all via satellite. If I'm paying for infrastructure then I don't want it used to line shareholders pockets in the future.
17 June 2009, 05:35 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Aylesbury
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also read a comment in the Telegraph suggesting that the 50p could rise in the future...
And what's the betting that a levy introduced to fund this wonderful project doesn't get removed once it's completed.
Simes
And what's the betting that a levy introduced to fund this wonderful project doesn't get removed once it's completed.
Simes
Trending Topics
17 June 2009, 07:46 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
See here for more info ... Broadband tax of £6 per year to fund rural fibre rollout ? The Register
Basically the levy is because BT and the like can't *financially justify* installing BB in rural areas. But why the f%ck shouldn't the government just pass a bill that makes them responsible for just that? Why should we all have to pay?
But why does it have to happen by a certain date? Just get BT and whoever to replace all copper with fibre as they need replacing. With a commitment to do all 'fibre to the cabinet'. That'll solve most of the problem. Not that I can see there is much of a problem.
Dave
Basically the levy is because BT and the like can't *financially justify* installing BB in rural areas. But why the f%ck shouldn't the government just pass a bill that makes them responsible for just that? Why should we all have to pay?
But why does it have to happen by a certain date? Just get BT and whoever to replace all copper with fibre as they need replacing. With a commitment to do all 'fibre to the cabinet'. That'll solve most of the problem. Not that I can see there is much of a problem.
Dave
17 June 2009, 08:10 PM
#11
This really gets on my **** - I live in the sticks through choice. We have limited access to shops so should the city shoppers be taxed so we can have a supermarket built. There is no bus or train service, should the public transport users be taxed to provide some public transport for me?
If you really cant live without these things move to the city but at your own expense. This wouldn't happen anywhere else apart from the UK.
If you really cant live without these things move to the city but at your own expense. This wouldn't happen anywhere else apart from the UK.
19 June 2009, 06:58 PM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really gets on my **** - I live in the sticks through choice. We have limited access to shops so should the city shoppers be taxed so we can have a supermarket built. There is no bus or train service, should the public transport users be taxed to provide some public transport for me?
If you really cant live without these things move to the city but at your own expense. This wouldn't happen anywhere else apart from the UK.
If you really cant live without these things move to the city but at your own expense. This wouldn't happen anywhere else apart from the UK.
This is to ensure we have a decent infrastructure over the whole UK, not just country bumpkins like yourself per se
There are still urban areas where broadband coverage is not good.It's not as if the government is taking an extra 10% of your income, it's £6 for God's sake! That's two pints, over the course of a year!!!!
Geezer
22 June 2009, 04:06 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Geezer, I think tarmac terror was saying that if you live in the sticks, as he does, then you should pay for services yourself ratehr than being subsidised.
That's how I read it anyway.
That's how I read it anyway.
22 June 2009, 08:26 PM
#14
You are already heavily subsidised by large urban populations so you can have the services you do get, so what's the difference? Have you any idea what it would cost to provide the services that councils do to small outlying areas?
This is to ensure we have a decent infrastructure over the whole UK, not just country bumpkins like yourself per se There are still urban areas where broadband coverage is not good.
It's not as if the government is taking an extra 10% of your income, it's £6 for God's sake! That's two pints, over the course of a year!!!!
Geezer
This is to ensure we have a decent infrastructure over the whole UK, not just country bumpkins like yourself per se
There are still urban areas where broadband coverage is not good.It's not as if the government is taking an extra 10% of your income, it's £6 for God's sake! That's two pints, over the course of a year!!!!
Geezer
23 June 2009, 05:12 PM
#15
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer
24 June 2009, 08:56 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original point is that I realised some things are subsidised, but why not subsidise BB from central government? Why are the users of existing services forced to pay for those without?
Extending your point on fireman, I would not expect to have to pay for fire officers in Cornwall/Scotland to reach a scene of a fire in 5 minutes, just because I live in a town and the fireman can reach me in 5 minutes? So someone says, you live in a town, your cost of fire services will be 50% more because we need to improve those in outlying areas.
Sure it's only £6 but that is about 50% of current competitive BB high street prices! An yes I will regret giving one of my Friday night pints to some people who live on Skye. I don't know them FFS :-)
Extending your point on fireman, I would not expect to have to pay for fire officers in Cornwall/Scotland to reach a scene of a fire in 5 minutes, just because I live in a town and the fireman can reach me in 5 minutes? So someone says, you live in a town, your cost of fire services will be 50% more because we need to improve those in outlying areas.
Sure it's only £6 but that is about 50% of current competitive BB high street prices! An yes I will regret giving one of my Friday night pints to some people who live on Skye. I don't know them FFS :-)
Last edited by Miniman; 24 June 2009 at 08:57 AM.
24 June 2009, 10:56 AM
#17
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, people subsidise other people all the time. You earn loads, you pay more tax than those on low income.
You are paying for people who are unemployed, if you have private health insurance, you are still subsidising those that utilise the NHS. You may only do 2k miles a year, but you still pay the same road tax as someone doing 100k miles a year. This is just how it works.
This really isn't any different. The government have decided that we should have a good infrastructure, and need to raise the money.
Of course, the reality will be very different , but that is the reasoning behind it.
Geezer
You are paying for people who are unemployed, if you have private health insurance, you are still subsidising those that utilise the NHS. You may only do 2k miles a year, but you still pay the same road tax as someone doing 100k miles a year. This is just how it works.
This really isn't any different. The government have decided that we should have a good infrastructure, and need to raise the money.
Of course, the reality will be very different
, but that is the reasoning behind it.Geezer
24 June 2009, 02:13 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you explain why the people of Croydon aren't paying extra to extend the tram link into my neck of the woods in Surrey? I think they should pay extra just so I can have access to the tram. Heck it's only a couple of miles of extra track and only about £1 on each fare - hardly much. No I do not think central government (or even local government) should pay - I only want those with access to the tram already to pay.
24 June 2009, 04:31 PM
#20
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I do not know the situation of your Tram link extension, so I can't comment on that directly! However, if we are to assume it is a local requirement, or even a county one, then no, the people of Croydon would not be required to subsidise it. If Flintshire CC want to build a new youth club in Mold, then that is purely a matter for them.
This is a national government initiative, to bring the broadband infrstructure up to a certian level. It's quite different.
The only reason people don't like this is because it has been mentioned specifically, and not hidden in the usual way that enables us all to subsidise stuff we wouldn't want our money to go to.
I'm sure you didn't want your tax money to go to fighting Saddam Hussein........
Geezer
However, if we are to assume it is a local requirement, or even a county one, then no, the people of Croydon would not be required to subsidise it. If Flintshire CC want to build a new youth club in Mold, then that is purely a matter for them.This is a national government initiative, to bring the broadband infrstructure up to a certian level. It's quite different.
The only reason people don't like this is because it has been mentioned specifically, and not hidden in the usual way that enables us all to subsidise stuff we wouldn't want our money to go to.
I'm sure you didn't want your tax money to go to fighting Saddam Hussein........
Geezer
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post