Not really why should i pay for people that live in the sticks to have good quality BB, they have much cheaper properties values rents etc..
So wheres property tax to help those to purchase a house in a city? dont see any of that do i.
£6 broadband levy may be trebled for homes with multiple lines
- Thread starter mattheman
- Start date
Not really why should i pay for people that live in the sticks to have good quality BB, they have much cheaper properties values rents etc..
So wheres property tax to help those to purchase a house in a city? dont see any of that do i.
if theres a market demand the market will provide. how many times have we heard privatisation will benefit everyone. if privatisation is so good how come we need to subsidise it? always.
Last edited:
Not at all, infastructure cost is massive and it's not just about demand it is about economy and keeping UK up there with the rest of he world.
Also BT has to sell line rental at a set price, due to monopoly laws. Just like Royal Mail had to sale final deliver post at a set price. Making RM lose money as other comapnys picked up business mail for dirt cheap and gave RM the letters to do final delivery.
So no it does not work like you say at all.
Where did I say privatisation was good?
you cant privatise companies and still expect the tax payer to foot the bill.
Soldato
I imagine it'll be along the lines of tax breaks and grants for companies looking to invest in rural areas, I wouldn't be surprised if mobile broadband was a target - it as to be easier to install a 3G mast in Hicksville than upgrade umpteen local exchanges.
Short-term thinking like that was what led to closure of all the local rail routes - if a bit of money had been spent even maintaining them (not even running) but rather than just leaving them to rot, I reckon nowadays there would be hundreds of economically viable routes now available given the increased population and suchlike, except the the start-up costs are now completely prohibitive.
If you bring infrastructure to those areas, business and business practices follows. For example access to broadband makes flexible working and remote working easier, meaning less pressure on transit routes. Less migration to the already heavily populated areas means less pressure on public services in those areas etc etc.
Short-term thinking like that was what led to closure of all the local rail routes - if a bit of money had been spent even maintaining them (not even running) but rather than just leaving them to rot, I reckon nowadays there would be hundreds of economically viable routes now available given the increased population and suchlike, except the the start-up costs are now completely prohibitive.
Last edited:
if people choose not to live in cities etc.. the get the benefit of one good yet lost the benefit of another, you cant have both.
Where did I say privatisation was good and yes you can. The government gives many industry grants, to improve infrastructure for the benefit of the UK. Just look at all the grants for energy effeminacy in homes.
No they dont? I live in the "sticks" and you will not find a house around here which is very cheap at all. Do not assume that "sticks" means cheap. A huge number of very expensive properties are rural or semi rural.
Associate
The way the internet has picked up and demand for it is something that just simply wasn't foreseen and we've essentially just been 'making do' with what we've got but now needs to be taken to the next level.
There's no hard and fast rule to who can and can't receive decent broadband speeds i.e. those in rural areas or in towns/cities, an example in my local area that I look after is Little Gaddesden/Aldbury Common, absolutely tiny tinpot places that are reasonably isolated but near each other, quite a few very large, expensive houses, yet both have exchanges and would think a lot of the people there can get decent speeds, then there's Luton (Stopsley area) which is too far from the main exchange in the middle of Luton to be able to get good speeds.
I'm extremely fortunate where I live because it's a small town but has an exchange very nearby and is also a Virgin Media area (ex Cable Tel), but it does make me chuckle at people who scoff at the thought of trying to help others purely because of the luck of the draw of where they currently live.
The internet is so vital and integral to everyday life now I would almost say it's a right that people have access to it and at a decent speed, which is what this money will hopefully address.
There's no hard and fast rule to who can and can't receive decent broadband speeds i.e. those in rural areas or in towns/cities, an example in my local area that I look after is Little Gaddesden/Aldbury Common, absolutely tiny tinpot places that are reasonably isolated but near each other, quite a few very large, expensive houses, yet both have exchanges and would think a lot of the people there can get decent speeds, then there's Luton (Stopsley area) which is too far from the main exchange in the middle of Luton to be able to get good speeds.
I'm extremely fortunate where I live because it's a small town but has an exchange very nearby and is also a Virgin Media area (ex Cable Tel), but it does make me chuckle at people who scoff at the thought of trying to help others purely because of the luck of the draw of where they currently live.
The internet is so vital and integral to everyday life now I would almost say it's a right that people have access to it and at a decent speed, which is what this money will hopefully address.
The whole thing a ****ing joke.
So the british public have to pay a tax for a private corporation can provide a better service and profit more..
Those that use fibre optic(virgin) shouldn't be forced to pay this, as they aren't using BT lines.
So the british public have to pay a tax for a private corporation can provide a better service and profit more..
Those that use fibre optic(virgin) shouldn't be forced to pay this, as they aren't using BT lines.
Soldato
If broadband is 100% available, the 'British public' can arguably save money by moving all the junk like council tax, benefits administration etc completely on-line 
Commissario
Not true a lot of the time the value is in large part due to location/view.
Also as already mentioned it's a complete lottery as to if you'll get good BB Speeds, as some areas may have had an exchange built 50 years ago and constantly updated so the houses near it might well be in the middle of nowhere but with great speeds.
On the other hand you might be in a newish estate in the middle of a large town/city and get really awful speeds because you're connected to an exchange built 50 years ago at what was then the center of town, but is now a couple of miles (or more) away from you as the cable is laid.
If broadband is 100% available, the 'British public' can arguably save money by moving all the junk like council tax, benefits administration etc completely on-line
Most people in the country especially those on benefits can't even use the internet properly.
Lots of people can't even use computers, and lack basic common sense. Which is why its so easy to scam people online, and generate advertising revenue.
Very poor generalisation.
Most of Surrey is countryside, yet property prices are eye-watering.
Same goes for most the the South.
your telling me if you had a 4 bedroom property in surrey, and you got the same property and put it in london the values would be the same?
Last edited:
Soldato
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
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
Caporegime
I know I'm really late to this and it may have been brought up, but how the hell can VAT be levied on a tax in that fashion?
You are already paying VAT for the service.
As yet no one has provided a government source for this, so I'm not convinced it's correct.