new internet tax

Zarf said:
If everyone had FTTP it could really kickstart a lot of new tech, you could do a lot more with regards to online storage because we'd all finally have proper upload links. Things like remote computing or that gaming service that was getting a lot of press a few months back would actually be really viable thanks to low latencies and enough bandwidth that they can use high quality video codecs.

If the infrastructure is there, people will find new ways to use it, and UK businesses would have a real shot at pioneering these new ways.

The way I see it is it's inevitable that we'll move over to Fiber, the only question is when and the sooner we do it the better. Once countries like Aus and Japan have completed their Fiber networks and got the jump on us developing and using all the cool stuff we're going to be spending quite a few years kicking ourselves for not getting started earlier whilst we play catch up to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
What can't a fiber network be provided by the private sector without subsidy?
 
Stretch said:
What can't a fiber network be provided by the private sector without subsidy?
Click to expand...

It's just too big a project, they can't raise the cash. And unless a significant portion of the population has access it's not going to spurr development or actually make any difference.

The benefits are more long term and country wide, for the way we use the web atm a basic 2Mb/s down 256Kb/s up basic level of service is fine, but if we want to start doing interesting things our infrastructure needs a radical overhaul.

The way Aus is doing it is using public money to get the network in place, but will then sell off it's stake to private companies in a few years.

Could you honestly see BT or VM managing to raise tens of billions on their own? They are perfectly happy with things as they are, since their income wouldn't change a great deal if we were on FTTP - they'd still have similar running costs and be charging a similar amount to their current setup.
 
teaboy5 said:
Did you think before posting that?

All that to save 50p a month
Click to expand...

I'm sorry are you from the past? Or did you genuinely manage to avoid all sources of news for the past 20 years? Networks like these already exist, LAN's consisting of thousands of computers, MAN's, even whole streets networked together using wi-fi, I'm sure even you have heard of neighbours sharing their internet subscription over wi-fi. If you hadn't noticed people will go to huge lengths to avoid paying for things, this is human nature, from piracy to dripfeeding bank accounts. You also seem to have missed the fact that the rogue isp would be making a large amount of money, not simply saving 50p a month (which will no doubt be £5 soon enough).
 
Last edited:
The main reason BT was privitised, it would provide the users with more up to date tech etc... whats the point in privatising a company just to get tax payers money down the line for upgrades.
This is company failure not my fault that the pass government messed up.

When they privatised royal mail are they going to place an extra tax for homes that live in rural areas. seems to me theres a culture of privatise the profits, socialise the losses.
 
Zarf said:
Could you honestly see BT or VM managing to raise tens of billions on their own? They are perfectly happy with things as they are, since their income wouldn't change a great deal if we were on FTTP - they'd still have similar running costs and be charging a similar amount to their current setup.
Click to expand...

BT Group PLC make between 1.5 and 2.5bn NET PROFIT (after tax etc) a year.
It would only take them ~10 years to pay back the FTTH expense on their current profits alone.
 
I think the problem here is that BT scaled the cost ADSL rollout to cover only the easy to reach houses from the start, they always new the last 1% was going to be too expensive, yet waited for years and years before even thinking about it

if it costs 50p a month from each subscriber to fund the 1% then they should have rolled this into the bill from the start - and we wouldnt have this issue now of "why is MY bill going up when I have over 2mbit speeds?"

massive line speed is irrelivant these days anyhow - its the packet shaping, download limits and contention (although they dont use that word anymore) that define the "speed" of your line now
increasing capacity over speeds would improve things for many people
 
Who cares about the 'rest of the country' I live in the City for fast broadband and things to do. Country is for dialup, horses walking down roads, nice local pubs and no pollution
 
I live inside the manchester ring road, and get about 1meg if lucky, why is broadband still ****?
Click to expand...

laying infrastructure is not cheap or easy, laying fibre can get expensive, at least BT has said now that other companies can use their underground tunnels.

you should be able to get 100mbit leased line in manchester just have to pay for it.

no virgin media there ?
 
rypt said:
EVERY penny spent on Iraq has been a waste.
EVERY penny spent on anything in Afghanistan that is not to do with hunting and killing Taliban is a waste
Click to expand...


I am sorry but you are such a ******* moron. Have you even been here? Have you even stepped one foot outside of your little comfort zone of a house and see what the real world is like or are you just one of these people that likes to pretend he knows exactly what should be done all the time?

Instead of just focusing on what the media says how about finding out some true facts about what changes have been done to these country's and what the military is actually doing out here - Oh wait the media says its just chasing the taliban around so that must be true!
 
simulatorman said:
The MPs believe the charge is unfair, and if the government wants to fund fast broadband, it should be done out of general taxation.
Click to expand...
This is the only way.
Click to expand...

But in effect rather than theory, what is the difference? It would not be totally unreasonable to assume that the majority of broadband line owners are also tax payers, if this is the case then why is it better to take it from general taxation than by adding an extra levy per month on broadband customers? There is some disparity of course in that not all tax payers want broadband and not all broadband users pay tax but practically speaking what is the important difference that you see?
 
i would be happier if the government stayed as far away from the internet as they can. I also say that if corporations are complaining about the internet, newspapers complaining about people stealing their news, sites saying they are hacked, then they should gtfo. The internet was never intended for e-commerce, it was meant for lolcats and irc etc.
 
semi-pro waster said:
But in effect rather than theory, what is the difference? It would not be totally unreasonable to assume that the majority of broadband line owners are also tax payers, if this is the case then why is it better to take it from general taxation than by adding an extra levy per month on broadband customers? There is some disparity of course in that not all tax payers want broadband and not all broadband users pay tax but practically speaking what is the important difference that you see?
Click to expand...

Because the broadband users are already paying money, that in theory should be sufficient to cover costs and future investment ... if it is not then perhaps companies need to raise their prices so that they have money for investment.
 
Skidder said:
good, why should achievers constantly carry the burden for the knuckle draggers?
Click to expand...

How is a proportional tax unfair? :confused: If everyone pays 50p then the poor are paying a higher % than the rich which is clearly unfair, I don't see how you can possible say that a fixed % rate means the "achievers" are paying for the poor. This internet tax is regressive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom