£6 broadband levy may be trebled for homes with multiple lines

[Sonea Fifer]

Copied my post from the other thread as it fits in here too:

Looks like this is definatley going ahead

Now normally that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, I've absolutely no objection to paying a small amount given that it will be directed towards providing me and many others with a better all round service.

The money made will be put into a fund to ensure rural areas of the UK do not miss out on super-fast broadband services. The government would provide super-fast broadband to 90% of the UK by the end of 2017.

If I really believed this would actually happen then I'd gladly pay it. Given our current governments previous financial record I'd be more inclined to believe my hard earned beer tokens will be put towards a new duck house for some upper class political twonk who is out to line his own pockets at the expense of the tax payer.

We are modernising the UK's digital infrastructure and, in the process, creating thousands more skilled jobs.

We're modernising it? Compared to many other EU countries we're a laughing stock and mile's behind in terms of broadband speeds. Surely pumping more money into BT's aging ADSL backbone is a lesson in futility given that it is already struggling at peak times to supply the demand already requested from it?

 

[Werewolf]

Why dont the phone companies that have the lines now do the upgrade. We pay them for a service and now you get taxed a 2nd time for using it.

Still, they taxed TV and Radio and Fishing, why not cash in on internet too.

Funny how it comes up as the olympic game fund is a bit short of cash, or am i reading too much into this lol..

But, if they charge £6 a year and the uploads are more than doubled with good fiber everywhere, then maybe ok, but i cant see the money going back into the internet side of things to much. 50% will go one red tape and wages alone.

IMO

ColiN

The cost of upgrading the problem part of the "network" (the bit between you and the exchange) is absolutely huge.
NTL/TW and all the other cable companies effectively went bust just doing higher density areas, not because of the cost of doing the backbone (fairly simple/small numbers of connections), but the cost of laying the cable to the individual houses.

At the moment BB/Telecoms in the UK is in a state were people simply will not pay out of choice a reasonable amount (enough to actually allow ISP's to provide the service, make a reasonable profit* and still invest properly for the future).
BT are forced to sell access to the expensive part of their network at a cost that doesn't encourage them to invest either.

In many other countries that have "faster" speeds the government has already invested directly in the relative upgrades to the last stretch of the network, or the population density is such that it's been something that investors have looked at and worked out they can make a profit on (in Japan's case it can be much cheaper to provide fibre to a new building in a City than hundreds/thousands of phonelines).
It's also worth noting that in a number of countries they are starting effectively from scratch, so to provide the capability for super high speeds from the outset isn't much more than to provide basic telephone as they both involve the same sort of digging up/laying of cables where there are none.

That's not to say I agree with this fixed tax, as unless it's very carefully regulated and audited with severe penalties for misuse of the money, what happened in the US is very likely to happen here.
They have tried this sort of thing over there several times**, without proper regulation and all that has happened is that most of the money has gone to replace regular investment with the result that investors effectively pocketed it.



*They are all businesses in the end, and have a legal obligation to try and make a profit for their shareholders/investors.

**IIRC some areas are still paying the fee originally marked to allow for Bell Labs to fund new Telecoms research in the 50's and 60's (Bell Labs as it was having closed down years ago), and others to fund the "high speed internet" to every school/healthcare facility/library in the late 90's.

 

[Drukk]

I doubt very much that any of this tax will go into bringing internet to rural areas any quicker whatsoever. Companies will pocket it and carry on just the same.

 

[Angilion]

Bring it on I say, I'm happy to pay £6 (or even a lot more to be honest) a year if it means I'll be able to get faster than 512k (yes, 512k) speed broadband.

Surely you aren't gullible enough to think it's for funding faster broadband?

It's a tax. You're mistaking an excuse for a reason.

 

[Andelusion]

Surely you aren't gullible enough to think it's for funding faster broadband?

It's a tax. You're mistaking an excuse for a reason.

You have my sincere apologies.

Try managing with 0.5mb broadband for a few years and you too will jump at any chance of investment, no matter how questionable

 

[mattheman]

BT say they need £5bn to do the work, how many billions in profit have they made, this is just another tax.

 

[Abraham]

BT say they need £5bn to do the work, how many billions in profit have they made, this is just another tax.

they're a business, it's not economically viable for them to make these last mile provisions out of their own coffers, think about the cost of running reasonable cabling to one or two houses miles from nowhere compared to how much they're going to get back from line rental, wholesale broadband fees etc.

You can't just say that BT must do it, they're under no obligation to.

 

[mattheman]

they're a business, it's not economically viable for them to make these last mile provisions out of their own coffers, think about the cost of running reasonable cabling to one or two houses miles from nowhere compared to how much they're going to get back from line rental, wholesale broadband fees etc.

You can't just say that BT must do it, they're under no obligation to.

So why should i pay for it, do i get a discount later on no, they'll profit from it ill lose from it.

 

[Rich_L]

BT say they need £5bn to do the work, how many billions in profit have they made, this is just another tax.

Er, not many?

BT's pre-tax profit fell 81 per cent compared to the third quarter of last year.

In the three months ended 31 December 2008 the telco made £113m in profit, compared to £601m in the last three months of 2007.

 

[Abraham]

So why should i pay for it, do i get a discount later on no, they'll profit from it ill lose from it.

because seeing as internet access is close to being deemed a human right it shouldn't be too heavily restricted by where you live, not sure why you think no one should live outside a city and expect reasonable utility services.

 

[OLDPHART]

Can't believe people actually think the Government will use this £6 tax improving broadband, come on what was road tax supposed to be used for! The one's gullible enough who are willing to pay this tax £6, will sharp complain in a couple of years when its £50 or so.The people who use Mobil broadband will be laughing at the moment thinking their safe, but their turn will come!

Who have houses in rural areas our greedy **** bag MP's, will just claim it on expenses no doubt pass a law so they can sign in by e-mail and do even less work, think about it!

 

[Abraham]

so the specific mention that it's going to be held in a seperate fund which contractors are already bidding for the tender on...

also does your second paragraph mean that the only people who live in rurual areas are MP's? I'm pretty sure I'm not an MP but grew up in a rural area.

 

[ljt]

so the specific mention that it's going to be held in a seperate fund which contractors are already bidding for the tender on...

Exactly, I really don't know why people can't see this, I've already mentioned companies have been asked to start making "bids" and business cases for segments of this money, so it must be kept seperate from the "coffers"

And another thing that makes me sigh every time I read this is that people think this is going to BT when it isn't

 

[Jonners]

I dont mind paying this tax, but on what timescale are we looking at for the superfast speeds?

And what speeds are they looking to offer?

If it's going to take until 2017 then it's another money making scam...

 

[Tefal]

I dont mind paying this tax, but on what timescale are we looking at for the superfast speeds?

And what speeds are they looking to offer?

If it's going to take until 2017 then it's another money making scam...

you're in Manchester so you shouldn't see any benefit.

This is just making sure everyone has "superfast" 2mb speed.

 

[jas72]

The cost of upgrading the problem part of the "network" (the bit between you and the exchange) is absolutely huge.
NTL/TW and all the other cable companies effectively went bust just doing higher density areas, not because of the cost of doing the backbone (fairly simple/small numbers of connections), but the cost of laying the cable to the individual houses.

At the moment BB/Telecoms in the UK is in a state were people simply will not pay out of choice a reasonable amount (enough to actually allow ISP's to provide the service, make a reasonable profit* and still invest properly for the future).
BT are forced to sell access to the expensive part of their network at a cost that doesn't encourage them to invest either.

In many other countries that have "faster" speeds the government has already invested directly in the relative upgrades to the last stretch of the network, or the population density is such that it's been something that investors have looked at and worked out they can make a profit on (in Japan's case it can be much cheaper to provide fibre to a new building in a City than hundreds/thousands of phonelines).
It's also worth noting that in a number of countries they are starting effectively from scratch, so to provide the capability for super high speeds from the outset isn't much more than to provide basic telephone as they both involve the same sort of digging up/laying of cables where there are none.

That's not to say I agree with this fixed tax, as unless it's very carefully regulated and audited with severe penalties for misuse of the money, what happened in the US is very likely to happen here.
They have tried this sort of thing over there several times**, without proper regulation and all that has happened is that most of the money has gone to replace regular investment with the result that investors effectively pocketed it.



*They are all businesses in the end, and have a legal obligation to try and make a profit for their shareholders/investors.

**IIRC some areas are still paying the fee originally marked to allow for Bell Labs to fund new Telecoms research in the 50's and 60's (Bell Labs as it was having closed down years ago), and others to fund the "high speed internet" to every school/healthcare facility/library in the late 90's.

We have good speeds in Belgium thanks to 2 things

1) you pay per GB.

2) you pay high prices which allows companies to install good lines.

I pay 42€ per month for 12MB line with 30GB cap.

I'm never throttled and usually get between 1.5-2MB downloads at all times day and night.

I admit that 30GB is not much but you'll never get anywhere selling unlimited download for 15 quid the sums just don't add up and everyone else ends up losing out to the heavy downloaders.

I'd reckon most people would be happy with a download limit if the speeds went up.

 

[Tefal]

we're when i was in manc i paid 7.50 (not including line rental) and got 22mb unlimited and a solid 2mb dl speed.

used to download crap loads too never got throttled.

 

[rypt]

We have good speeds in Belgium thanks to 2 things

1) you pay per GB.

2) you pay high prices which allows companies to install good lines.

I pay 42€ per month for 12MB line with 30GB cap.

I'm never throttled and usually get between 1.5-2MB downloads at all times day and night.

I admit that 30GB is not much but you'll never get anywhere selling unlimited download for 15 quid the sums just don't add up and everyone else ends up losing out to the heavy downloaders.

Except for Japan, HK, Singapore and S. Korea can give you fast speeds and not tiny caps while still being cheap.
Even Verizon FIOS in USA is not _that_ expensive and no cap.

 

[Jonners]

you're in Manchester so you shouldn't see any benefit.

This is just making sure everyone has "superfast" 2mb speed.

lolol

We can get up to 24mb here, if you live next door to the exchange, only half of the town at best is cabled...

Looks like I'm stuck with my 7mb

 

[mattheman]

you're in Manchester so you shouldn't see any benefit.

This is just making sure everyone has "superfast" 2mb speed.

2 mb is super fast, then years later theyll just upgrade again, why not go the whole hog and offer 1 gig BB end of.