You aren't - you're paying for a national telecommunications infrastructure upgrade.
new internet tax
- Thread starter mattheman
- Start date
You aren't - you're paying for a national telecommunications infrastructure upgrade.
You aren't though, this is a plan to roll out 2mb BB to remote areas, read the report again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Yes! You know everything about me! What's my favourite colour?
Assume more please.
I'm not entirely sure what the 2-hour cutoff achieved, especially once download management programs came in.
Websites designed for the most common internet user? Shurely Shome Mishtake?
I imagine it's slow and awful.
So why not cut out the middle man, disband VM and BT and just go back to a monopoly like the South Koreans have? Is that what you're suggesting?The South Korean government paid for their nation's telecommunications infrastructure, which is why they have the best connections today (which is translating into economic growth for them too!). I don't know about North Korea's broadband network
It is still not a good enough argument, I have recently (about year ago), briefly (for a few weeks) was on effectevly 512 connection via gprs. Yes it was slow, yes it took ages to download flash and what not, want to watch crap tube, start the movie, pause it, go have a cup of tea, before coming back to watch it.
But I still do not see why the rest of us should pay for it? You choose to live where you choose to live. I don't see you going around Africa dispencing hugs, water, food and broadband over there.
Want better service? Organise something with the copany, talk to local government, come up with a reasonable plan, get the problem sorted.
But I still do not see why the rest of us should pay for it? You choose to live where you choose to live. I don't see you going around Africa dispencing hugs, water, food and broadband over there.
Want better service? Organise something with the copany, talk to local government, come up with a reasonable plan, get the problem sorted.
if it was commercially viable for BT VM and other telecoms companies they would have already done it years ago.
Now we will have to pay (all be it less than 2p a day) for those companies to make more fat profits from a relitivley small part of the population.
BT didnt mind when it had a virtual monopoloy over the countries networks creaming in the cash ... and now the only way for this to happen is to use a government tax?? Criminal tbh.
Now we will have to pay (all be it less than 2p a day) for those companies to make more fat profits from a relitivley small part of the population.
BT didnt mind when it had a virtual monopoloy over the countries networks creaming in the cash ... and now the only way for this to happen is to use a government tax?? Criminal tbh.
I'm not suggesting it - going back to that situation now would be too messy and costly. Nevertheless it should be case that national infrastructure such as the telecomms network, national gas and electricity grids, road network are owned by the nation. I'd have favoured a part-privatisation of BT, one that allowed them and other companies to use the national infrastructure but didn't give anyone an unfair advantage i.e. a fair marketplace. We are where we are though...
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 14,341
- Location
- Huddersfield
I have no problem with paying 50p a month if it means that I'll be able to get any improvement on my current measley 512k ADSL line. £6 a year is hardly an outrage for improved speeds.
That's what I mean by national telecomms infrastructure upgrade.
I'd be delirious with 50Mbit/s
I live in the east of Coventry on a popular newish estate and can't get better than a IP profile of 1750 on ADSL2+
Meanwhile less than a mile down the road they can get 16+
Why should i have to pay the same as someone who gets 8 times faster than me? Not my fault my line is made of cheese.....
I could be completley off the mark here, but this is an infrastructure upgrade performed, I assume, by BT - as they own the network infrastructure of lines that ADSL is provided through?
If so, what the hell has this got to do with non BT/ADSL customers that require BT lines? Such as VM users? Don't VM have their own infrastructure? At least for Broadband , it's fibre optic mostly right? - Forgive my ignorance if this is way off.
In which case why should we (VM Customers) pay for an "Infrastructure upgrade" when the VM infrastructure is already providing what BT was planning to provide YEARS ago?
Also, if this was just to "upgrade infrastructure", why is it an ongoing 50p a month added to your bill, rather than just a one off payment by everyone in the country? - I appreciate this is basically a new "tax" that is being disguised in horse **** to fool people, but still...
Finally, is this confirmed yet and if so when is it going ahead?
If it's not confirmed yet; other than my MP, who can I speak/email that might help stop it going ahead?
If so, what the hell has this got to do with non BT/ADSL customers that require BT lines? Such as VM users? Don't VM have their own infrastructure? At least for Broadband , it's fibre optic mostly right? - Forgive my ignorance if this is way off.
In which case why should we (VM Customers) pay for an "Infrastructure upgrade" when the VM infrastructure is already providing what BT was planning to provide YEARS ago?
Also, if this was just to "upgrade infrastructure", why is it an ongoing 50p a month added to your bill, rather than just a one off payment by everyone in the country? - I appreciate this is basically a new "tax" that is being disguised in horse **** to fool people, but still...
Finally, is this confirmed yet and if so when is it going ahead?
If it's not confirmed yet; other than my MP, who can I speak/email that might help stop it going ahead?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
Ever considered that many people move to the country to have the chance to build a nice home and be surrounded by good old fashioned peace and quiet?
Do you expect everyone living outside the exchange / cabled area to pay for bonded lines or custom fibre installations because BT / Virgin will not swallow overheads and upgrade their awful network?
I believe everyone should have the same level of service throughout. As it stands the communications companies are ignoring the "not-spots" and focusing on maximising the profits for the urban customers, and no one is saying anything.
Won't be long before a 2MB connection is like dial-up when you consider 50MB is now Virgin's highest package.. I better move
Do you not think that we would not all love to move to the country for the peace and quiet? That is your choice. Why should the general public foot the bill just so the minority who can afford to live such live styles can have nice broadband speed?
Last time I looked the communications companies were businesses? It is their job to maximise their profits. I am sure the company that you work for doesnt give its service/product away for free.
Why cant the local government put up your council tax in your postcode to pay for it if you want it so badly? What you mean you would have to pay for a service rather than someone else paying it for you. How rude!
If it means everyone gets min of say 10mb, fair enough if it upgrades most of the country but if its just for a small part of the country and to only 2mb. Then no that isnt fair.
Unless this tax comes with a free house in the country
Last edited:
Why should I pay for BT's lack of investment over the years?
The same investment they should have made but decided not to in search of greater profits and shareholder pay outs.
Oh dear - another minister, most sinister, showing their naivety or their master's calling..
The same investment they should have made but decided not to in search of greater profits and shareholder pay outs.
Oh dear - another minister, most sinister, showing their naivety or their master's calling..
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,688
- Location
- Leeds, UK
And your an idiot, plain and simple, we dont want to pay for something that isnt necessary.
Were basically paying because the goverment can't finance itself properly.
Give it a month and we'll have to pay tax just for the luxury of breathing.
I say we do what the greeks did the other month, when that kid got shot..
Start a revolution !
Personal insults are not allowed IIRC.
Might want to go read the forum rules and learn to engage in intelligent debate, rather than calling people names unneccessarily.
No need to call him an idiot. He has made a valid point that £6 a year isn't exactly a whole lot; especially to someone who already has a land line and has broadband.
You also have a point, why should we have to pay it when it is the people who own the infrastructures responsibility to upgrade it (As stated above). However, calling people idiots who bring other opinions into the discussion isn't the best way to make it, IMO.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
You're making the assumption that people living in the country are loaded..Do you not think that we would not all love to move to the country for the peace and quiet? That is your choice. Why should the general public foot the bill just so the minority who can afford to live such live styles can have nice broadband speed?
Last time I looked the communications companies were businesses? It is their job to maximise their profits. I am sure the company that you work for doesnt give its service/product away for free.
Why cant the local government put up your council tax in your postcode to pay for it if you want it so badly? What you mean you would have to pay for a service rather than someone else paying it for you. How rude!
If it means everyone gets min of say 10mb, fair enough if it upgrades most of the country but if its just for a small part of the country and to only 2mb. Then no that isnt fair.
Unless this tax comes with a free house in the country
I don't want others to pay for it, after all if EVERYONE paid then it's fair isn't it.. perhaps the tax is wrong (god knows they waste enough money on pointless schemes etc) but my beef is that people are simply saying "I live in an urban area.. screw everyone else" when really, shouldn't everyone get the same level of service if they pay the same price? I see it as selfish.
I understand that companies exist to make money, but if they stumped up the investment in rural areas then perhaps they'd also receive increased custom from that area and encourage local business to relocate out of the cramped trading estates.
At the same time.. a 2MB minimum is a joke, I agree with you on that. If they're going to promise a minimum speed it should be higher but then it comes back to money.. I am not aware of a place where a village can group together and pay for an area upgrade. Care to provide a link?
I am in the same boat as tbz_ck with this. Let the people who can't get the good speeds pay less (if you're not going to invest).
Last edited by a moderator:
in japan you can have 1gb connection (but the 1gb is shared with some other people but still 1gb! , in sweden they have had 20/20 and 100/100 for probably around 10 years now.
i dont know about korea or norway though
What is your point? In some muslim countries, if you are a woman you need to wear a whatsit thing on your face. Should we have that too? Or do you want us to take lessons from zimbabwe how to get 1,000% inflation or whatever silly % they have there? Or shall we borrow the suicide rates from Japan to here?
Comparing what other countries have is silly, they have different ideals, different governemnt, different expectations, and I can't spell.
Last edited: