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

dangerstat · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:24

Yamahahahahaha said:
I have still yet to understand why we're paying for uneconomical internet connections?

Surely this is effectively signing us up for paying for another person's broadband? I'd like my broadband paid for please!

Is it a 10 year olds fault that they happened to be born somewhere far from an exchange? Is it really fair they shouldn't have access to the internet? In my view no it isn't their fault, the internet should be available to everyone, and the faster the better. If this tax enables that, I can't understand anyone standing in it's way.

phill1978 · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:29

Yamahahahahaha said:
I have still yet to understand why we're paying for uneconomical internet connections?

Surely this is effectively signing us up for paying for another person's broadband? I'd like my broadband paid for please!

it is.

gordon brown said the internet was as important as water (obviously stupid, but not far off lol)

now he wants EVERYONE to have it. There are already thousands of really naughty, useless chavy kids getting free laptops. orange supplied not long ago lots of laptops paid by taxpayers to scroaty types in leeds for example
the kids who do well have to buy there own.. and the ones that do well can still be just as poor if not poorer :mad:

the hidden agenda is to give every social theif a free internet connection to watch re runs of jermey kyle on youtube. on there free laptop, in there free house.. which is maninted and updated for free.. and then when they work 2 hrs a week get topped up £££££ so never work full time.

socialism gone abosultely mad but what do you expect with 12 years of a near communist party in power ???

narrowing the gap between workers and work shy

rant button off..

Glaucus · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:32

except it's not about giving people free internet. But rolling out high speed internet to every house, a very different thing to your rant.

Vonhelmet · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:33

phill1978 said:
it is.

gordon brown said the internet was as important as water (obviously stupid, but not far off lol)

now he wants EVERYONE to have it. There are already thousands of really naughty, useless chavy kids getting free laptops. orange supplied not long ago lots of laptops paid by taxpayers to scroaty types in leeds for example
the kids who do well have to buy there own.. and the ones that do well can still be just as poor if not poorer

the hidden agenda is to give every social theif a free internet connection to watch re runs of jermey kyle on youtube. on there free laptop, in there free house.. which is maninted and updated for free.. and then when they work 2 hrs a week get topped up £££££ so never work full time.

socialism gone abosultely mad but what do you expect with 12 years of a near communist party in power ???

narrowing the gap between workers and work shy

rant button off..

I can already see the impact of all these costs on the quality of English teaching in schools

phill1978 · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:36

AcidHell2 said:
except it's not about giving people free internet. But rolling out high speed internet to every house, a very different thing to your rant.

no its not dont be fooled by the front story. the connections will be marginalised and the real winners will be those who wont have to pay.. which will be scroats.

to EVERY HOUSE. So those who are means tested and pass get it free those who work and pay taxes no matter how small the income pay for the others. its classic labour

Glaucus · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:37

phill1978 said:
no its not dont be fooled by the front story. the connections will be marginalised and the real winners will be those who wont have to pay.. which will be scroats.

to EVERY HOUSE. So those who are means tested and pass get it free those who work and pay taxes no matter how small the income pay for the others. its classic labour

rubbish different budget, this money is for the infrastructure,. benefits is a different area. If internet is part of benefits, they will already be getting it free. So you rant is just stupid.

dangerstat · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:39

EDIT: was going to post but AcidHell2 seems to have summed it up

phill1978 · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:40

AcidHell2 said:
rubbish different budget, this money is for the infrastructure,. benefits is a different area. If internet is part of benefits, they will already be getting it free. So you rant is just stupid.

no they dont get free internet as far as i can tell.

my rant is my rant stupid or not, the knock on effect will be the same as i describe

any how, my max speed is 2.0MB haha

Vonhelmet · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:41

phill1978 said:
no its not dont be fooled by the front story. the connections will be marginalised and the real winners will be those who wont have to pay.. which will be scroats.

to EVERY HOUSE. So those who are means tested and pass get it free those who work and pay taxes no matter how small the income pay for the others. its classic labour

It's for running the cables, not paying for people's subscriptions.

Reading comprehension fail.

Glaucus · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:42

phill1978 said:
no they dont get free internet as far as i can tell.

my rant is my rant stupid or not, the knock on effect will be the same as i describe

It's not the same knock on effect. The knock on effect of national high speed internet is millions of £ of new tax revue from company profits.
Benefits is a different area and a totally septate agenda. 99.9% of houses can already get internet, people are already on benefits. Your argument is yours and is stupid.

phill1978 · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:43

AcidHell2 said:
It's not the same knock on effect. The knock on effect of national high speed internet is millions of £ of new tax revue from company profits.
Benefits is a different area and a totally septate agenda. 99.9% of houses can already get internet, people are already on benefits. Your argument is yours and is stupid.

lol fair enough

il get mi coat

rypt · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:51

mp260767 said:
in my case the majority of the problem is down to the degraded/poor copper in use for the line, not the fact i'm miles away from the exchange.

Surely the £10 a month line rental is supposed to cover BT fixing their crappy copper?

lumpeh · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:52

I'd like to know how Japan funds their fibre networks. I mean its 100mbit as standard for all new homes!

dangerstat · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:53

rypt said:
Surely the £10 a month line rental is supposed to cover BT fixing their crappy copper?

A lot of it (I'd imagine) will find it's way into the BT's 21CN network. And the sooner that comes on line the better, for all of us.

mattheman · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:54

AcidHell2 said:
except it's not about giving people free internet. But rolling out high speed internet to every house, a very different thing to your rant.

Thats why we have a free market if there is a demand then there will be a supply, when BT went private we were told that a private company would improve the infrastructure etc... and no tax money would be used.
if am going to pay for it then i dont expect companies to charge high prices for that product and i will expect prices to drop.

rypt · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:54

dangerstat said:
A lot of it (I'd imagine) will find it's way into the BT's 21CN network. And the sooner that comes on line the better, for all of us.

Why should the internet side of 21CN be funded by line rental ...
Line rental should ONLY fund the phone network and the exchange->home line

Anything else BT need funded should come from their own profits or their broadband customers.

I'm on LLU, yet I still pay the £10 to BT ... why should any of my money go towards 21CN that I can't use anyway?

mattheman · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:55

rypt said:
Surely the £10 a month line rental is supposed to cover BT fixing their crappy copper?

even your some of the money you pay for broad band goes towareds the crapper copper.

dangerstat · 26 Nov 2009 at 20:56

mattheman said:
Thats why we have a free market if there is a demand then there will be a supply, when BT went private we were told that a private company would improve the infrastructure etc... and no tax money would be used.
if am going to pay for it then i dont expect companies to charge high prices for that product and i will expect prices to drop.

I wish it was that easy. It just isn't. The reason many other countries can have broadband MANY times the speed of ours, isn't because our telecomms companies don't invest, it's because they're starting from a fresh canvas. We have to upgrade (replace) kit and that costs crap loads of money. In a way later in life being a the forefront of tech can cost, and that's what we're hitting right now.

BigglesPiP · 26 Nov 2009 at 21:03

Yamahahahahaha said:
I have still yet to understand why we're paying for uneconomical internet connections?

Surely this is effectively signing us up for paying for another person's broadband? I'd like my broadband paid for please!

WHAT! Everyone paying the same amount of money for the same connection. That's not fair! :mad:

So you think - living in a built up area - you should benefit from being close to infrastructure with a cheaper internet connection, rather than bankrolling mine.

And should Mrs Sampson down the road pay less because she only uses the internet for emails and a bit of WFH? Or should she still keep bankrolling your higher than average use?

rypt · 26 Nov 2009 at 21:08

dangerstat said:
We have to upgrade (replace) kit and that costs crap loads of money. In a way later in life being a the forefront of tech can cost, and that's what we're hitting right now.

Most if not all of that kit has paid for it self multiple times over surely