View Full Version : Internet Tax
I cant help but think that the internet media tax we are all being expected to pay soon is because of DRM. BT complaining due to lack of bandwidth, DRM causing issues with multicast so its mostly unicast everywhere.
yeah yeah bad that in't it (somebody explain what tsm's on about :confused:) :D
the_lone_wolf
16-06-09, 08:26 PM
They're going to tax the internet in order to support an outdated and failing business model...
;)
Jamiebridges123
16-06-09, 08:35 PM
British broadband services are terrible.. in comparison to even Eastern European countries, our speeds are WAY down. And have been for some considerable amount of time.. perhaps because we take the sh*t service we're givien.
Seriously, why tax the internet.. isn't there enough taxes already?
And the internet has died in the last year or so, especially with all the "you used a song for a video of your cat. YOU ARE STEALING AND COSTING US MONEY" crap, it's dreadful...
Greed will end the internet, simple as...
And they put petrol back up to over £1/l.. and have the cheek to charge us to look at virtual pages. Oh the cheek.......
Samurai Penguin
16-06-09, 08:43 PM
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.
What is the point of having super fast internet when they stop you file sharing?
ethariel
16-06-09, 08:57 PM
What is the point of having super fast internet when they stop you file sharing?
Exactly, 50 Mbit speeds and a 10 Gig or less cap, just watch!
Every time Brits get something new, we bend over and take it up the .... when it comes to pricing. As the government(s) have been doing it for years buisnesses think they can too.
People share files? When did that happen...
jamesterror
16-06-09, 09:16 PM
How can they tax a service they fail to provide to a good level of quality?
Our Virgin Media is good for like 2 hours during the day, the rest its snail speed.
timwilky
16-06-09, 09:26 PM
Well the tax will be on phone lines. Good, my phone is VoIP delivered across my cable internet. so no tax for me.
I do feel for those poor sods who cannot get ADSL (like me), but have no alternative provider(unlike me). Pay the tax on their phone line and no broadband
Warning - rant, venting of spleen, issuance of bile...........read on.
This proposed landline tax is just the most spiteful pea-brained idiotic idea yet from this god-awful excuse for a government. What about the little old dear who has a phone and no intention of ever having a PC, why the **** should she be expected to subsidise someone's inept business model of a broadband service?
And what's the bet it'll be plus VAT?
After the setting-up costs and admin charges they'll end up with a couple of quid a year? Just what the **** do they think that'll achieve? Jobs for some halfwit government ministry, that's all.
If they want some more cash out of Joe Public just be honest about it and do it on income tax FFS, negligible admin oncost, the system is all there, just tweak the personal allowance and job's done. What a bunch of ****s, just vote them out. Anyone for Iran?
the_lone_wolf
16-06-09, 11:27 PM
Anyone for Iran?
I dunno, I heard that it was ruled by some facist gobsh1te who nobody likes...
wait...
punyXpress
17-06-09, 09:26 AM
Warning - rant, venting of spleen, issuance of bile...........read on.
Anyone for Iran?
Brown, G ?
I already pay tax on my phone line! market forces should drive the introduction of super-fast, not government taxation.
timwilky
17-06-09, 09:47 AM
I already pay tax on my phone line! market forces should drive the introduction of super-fast, not government taxation.
That is the problem, it is not cost effective for the operators (BT, or virgin) to deliver infrastructure beyond the reach of their technologies. I live about 4 miles from my ADSL enabled exchange. BT have twice stated that they are unable to provide me with a service due to the line losses. fortunately I have cable outside my door.
A new garden grab development was built 100 yards from my house. 8 five bedroom houses. When the first new proud owners moved in they discovered BT will not provide them with ADSL nor virgin who ran past the original house where the development now stands. They are not happy.
They have put up big signs on the entrance to the development to state it is an internet Notspot, not surprisingly the developer is all shirty, nobody wants to buy the remaining houses etc.
Market forces may well drive demand for faster broadband. But the operators would quite easily baulk at providing service to isolated notspots where they would never see a return on investment under single charging policies.
Fibre to the home, it is the way forward. Cost a fortune but at least it would cure the digital divide in terms of an acceptable national standard for speed and access to broadband service for all
Gazza77
17-06-09, 10:10 AM
That is the problem, it is not cost effective for the operators (BT, or virgin) to deliver infrastructure beyond the reach of their technologies. I live about 4 miles from my ADSL enabled exchange. BT have twice stated that they are unable to provide me with a service due to the line losses. fortunately I have cable outside my door.
A new garden grab development was built 100 yards from my house. 8 five bedroom houses. When the first new proud owners moved in they discovered BT will not provide them with ADSL nor virgin who ran past the original house where the development now stands. They are not happy.
They have put up big signs on the entrance to the development to state it is an internet Notspot, not surprisingly the developer is all shirty, nobody wants to buy the remaining houses etc.
Market forces may well drive demand for faster broadband. But the operators would quite easily baulk at providing service to isolated notspots where they would never see a return on investment under single charging policies.
Sounds like me, bar I'm not in a new house. No cable access, and BT nor anyone else can provide me with a home broadband service. Can't even get a dongle, as none of the mobile providers can guarantee a suitable signal strength at my house.
Not only that, no digitial tv signal either, and the analogue signal cannot pick up channel 5, not channel 4 very well and that is with a brand new, high gain aerial.
Anyone would think I live in the most far flung place in the world. Yet I'm only 25 miles from Leeds and 27 from Manchester. :(
Yet I'm only 25 miles from Leeds and 27 from Manchester. :(
well that explains it. Middle of nowhere :p
amarko5
17-06-09, 10:17 AM
Sounds like me, bar I'm not in a new house. No cable access, and BT nor anyone else can provide me with a home broadband service. Can't even get a dongle, as none of the mobile providers can guarantee a suitable signal strength at my house.
Not only that, no digitial tv signal either, and the analogue signal cannot pick up channel 5, not channel 4 very well and that is with a brand new, high gain aerial.
Anyone would think I live in the most far flung place in the world. Yet I'm only 25 miles from Leeds and 27 from Manchester. :(
get SKY :cyclops:
Gazza77
17-06-09, 10:23 AM
get SKY :cyclops:
I have. Doesn't solve the broadband problem though, and whilst I accept that I get extra benefits for my subscription it doesn't alter the fact that I am paying for a service by means of my license fee that I don't actually have access to.
Internet tax is proposed at £6 per year. If it is used properly, as proposed, to bring the internet to rural areas, i don't mind paying it at all. If it's squandered and put into ill thought out schemes that don't work and go nowhere, then of course its a problem.
There's something about the british government and computer technology that doesn't gel. Just look at the NHS :mad:
jamesterror
17-06-09, 10:48 AM
Internet tax is proposed at £6 per year. If it is used properly, as proposed, to bring the internet to rural areas, i don't mind paying it at all. If it's squandered and put into ill thought out schemes that don't work and go nowhere, then of course its a problem.
There's something about the british government and computer technology that doesn't gel. Just look at the NHS :mad:
If I paid the internet bill, I'd happily add that £6 to it knowing it was going to make a difference and allow the UK to play catch up with other countries and spread availability.
.. and one of the best providers is probably Be who use ADSL (I think), I like 2.4miles from the exchange for BT and fastest I can get is 4.5mb/s (up to 8mb lol) but on Virgin I get 20MB, well sometimes it varies between 10MB to 20MB. (http://www.speedtest.net/result/497639525.png)
Fell out with Be because they made big promises about high speeds and uk wide coverage, register interest here, gullible internet user... and then just decided to drop the whole thing and become the same as any other ISP.
jamesterror
17-06-09, 10:58 AM
Fell out with Be because they made big promises about high speeds and uk wide coverage, register interest here, gullible internet user... and then just decided to drop the whole thing and become the same as any other ISP.
Oh right, thats the first bad thing I've heard about Be.
The point is that the proposed tax is on TELEPHONE LANDLINES, not on broadband access services.
Why? It's because it'll hit a lot more people so get more money, many being folk who have no interest at all in what the tax is supposedly aimed at funding.
The landlines are nothing to do with Government, it's not nationalised, what gives them the moral right to apply a charge on users, it's not even like imposing VAT on the service bill, it's a "poll tax" on anyone who wants a landline. It's like imposing a charge on anyone with a gas supply so the electricity industry can update the national grid, it's disgusting arrogance from the government, "...because they can".
what gives them the moral right to apply a charge on users
Us. We voted them in. They can do what they like till we get rid of them.
The point is that the proposed tax is on TELEPHONE LANDLINES, not on broadband access services.
Why? It's because it'll hit a lot more people so get more money, many being folk who have no interest at all in what the tax is supposedly aimed at funding.
Alternative interpretation: it's because that's the physical infrastructure over which the services are delivered (in the main), and that's the bit that needs upgrading. Yes, not everyone uses broadband, but not everyone uses the NHS either.
The landlines are nothing to do with Government, it's not nationalised, what gives them the moral right to apply a charge on users, it's not even like imposing VAT on the service bill, it's a "poll tax" on anyone who wants a landline. It's like imposing a charge on anyone with a gas supply so the electricity industry can update the national grid, it's disgusting arrogance from the government, "...because they can".
Therein lies the problem with these regulated industries. Artificial "competition" as private companies where there's only really one service has led to under investment in order to satisfy the demands (i.e. greed) of shareholders. Natural monopolies should be nationalised services.
I know it's a radical socialist idea running against the capitalist tide, but is it such a bad idea to raise some funds to upgrade the country's infrastructure so that everyone has the same choices? Whether they elect to use them or not, the opportunity would be there.
the_runt69
17-06-09, 10:51 PM
Us. We voted them in. They can do what they like till we get rid of them.
Some of Us didnt so are against it, yes internet access for every home, great when the unemployed cant affford the computer to connect to it
Some of Us didnt so are against it, yes internet access for every home, great when the unemployed cant affford the computer to connect to it
I certainly didn't either. However, as a nation, "we" did.
Bear in mind an internet capable computer costs less than the latest pair of branded trainers :rolleyes:
Luckypants
18-06-09, 09:37 AM
Therein lies the problem with these regulated industries. Artificial "competition" as private companies where there's only really one service has led to under investment in order to satisfy the demands (i.e. greed) of shareholders. Natural monopolies should be nationalised services.
Hear! Hear! (Bet that surprises a few people :p)
I am ambivalent about this tax, because I support it's aims but not the means. I sit here working from home on a broadband service made possible only by government intervention, the Welsh Assembly Government paid for my exchange (and all others in Wales not done by BT) to be upgraded to ADSL because it was not commercially viable for BT to do. The WAG decided that all exchanges in Wales should be ADSL enabled and fronted up the money to do it. The Scottish Executive did the same for Scotland. Therefore it would be churlish of me not to support initiatives to help those that still have no broadband access. However, these initiatives were paid for from general government money, not any specific taxes. (and would not have happened without a good deal of campaigning by folks like me)
And this is why I think the tax is a 'bad idea' - we will be paying BT to upgrade their infrastructure. The government will be raising specific monies to give to a private company to help them stay competitive and provide a service needed by the entire country. Now that to me sounds like a company that should be nationalised and run for the good of the country. (yes I know about nationalised industries being bloated, ruled by unions etc etc. and I have issues there). We put a USO on BT and various other constraints, this tax will introduce a USO on BT for broadband, so we give BT money and tell them what to do and what they have to achieve.... what does that sound like?
There is no competition to BT unless you live in a big city, but that competition is limited even then. Forget LLU providers unless you are in a big town. Cable has failed to live up to the promise.
I'll pay this tax without to much complaint, because it is not a large sum and I agree with it's targeted use. But how that is achieved I have an issue with.
Final thought on this tax. Income tax was introduced to help pay for the war against Napoleon and is still with us, road Tax was introduced to pay for roads maintenance, National insurance is meant to pay for the welfare state - we all know that these just go into the general taxation pot and is not used for it's original purpose. What's the betting we are still paying such a tax in 20 years after the communications infrastructure has been upgraded? What's the betting it will be a lot more than 50p a month after we get used to it?
SoulKiss
18-06-09, 09:48 AM
I'll pay this tax without to much complaint, because it is not a large sum and I agree with it's targeted use. But how that is achieved I have an issue with.
Final thought on this tax. Income tax was introduced to help pay for the war against Napoleon and is still with us, road Tax was introduced to pay for roads maintenance, National insurance is meant to pay for the welfare state - we all know that these just go into the general taxation pot and is not used for it's original purpose. What's the betting we are still paying such a tax in 20 years after the communications infrastructure has been upgraded? What's the betting it will be a lot more than 50p a month after we get used to it?
For me these paragraphs do not belong in the same post LP.
You realise that a tax once introduced only becomes more of a burden once its been accepted, yet agree that you will pay it, hence starting it on that path.
Not compatible statements in my book.
Its like saying the Westminster Bike Parking Tax is "ok cos its just £1/day and car drivers have to pay much more for parking AND they pay the congestion charge."
We all know that if Westminster get away with this, it will spread to ALL of London, and from there to all the major cities.
Then next year it will be £1.20/day, then £1.50 the next, but "it will still be cheaper than a car...."
Luckypants
18-06-09, 09:56 AM
For me these paragraphs do not belong in the same post LP.
You realise that a tax once introduced only becomes more of a burden once its been accepted, yet agree that you will pay it, hence starting it on that path.
Not compatible statements in my book.
Its like saying the Westminster Bike Parking Tax is "ok cos its just £1/day and car drivers have to pay much more for parking AND they pay the congestion charge."
We all know that if Westminster get away with this, it will spread to ALL of London, and from there to all the major cities.
Then next year it will be £1.20/day, then £1.50 the next, but "it will still be cheaper than a car...."
I do realise the contradiction in my post. I also realise that by accepting it, I'm endorsing it, by endorsing it I tacitly allow successive governments to ramp up the charges. BUT (and this a bit new for me!) I agree with the aim to get BB access to all and therefore cannot oppose it just because it might cost me more in the future. :(
SoulKiss
18-06-09, 10:07 AM
I do realise the contradiction in my post. I also realise that by accepting it, I'm endorsing it, by endorsing it I tacitly allow successive governments to ramp up the charges. BUT (and this a bit new for me!) I agree with the aim to get BB access to all and therefore cannot oppose it just because it might cost me more in the future. :(
So where did the £400 Million NET PROFIT BT made in the quarter ending Sept 2008 (http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/british-phone-company-bt-_n_143496.html)go?
Share holders saw their shares leap 9% on that day - why should I have to put money in their pockets (ok it more like not having them have to lose money from their pockets) just because I happen to chose to have a phone - a privilege I happen to already pay for in the monthly charge BT take from me?
EDIT - Just found this
BT Group plc, the U.K.’s largest phone company said fourth quarter revenues rose 1% to £5.47 billion from £5.42 billion a year ago. Net loss for the quarter was £977 million or £12.6 per diluted share compared to net profit of £426 million or £5.3 per share a year ago.
BT Group plc, in the last one year traded as high as 239.75 pence in May 2008 and as low as 70.20 pence in March 2009. Based on the yesterday’s closing price of 92.60 pence the company has market cap of £7.17 billion. (from http://uk.123jump.com/market-update/UK-Stocks-Rebound;-BT-Dividend-Cut/32876/)
So I guess this is just another Government Bailout after all, they just dont want to call it that....... and I guess there may be legal implications if they nationalised parts of it being that it was them that sold it in the 1st place......
I use Virgin Media cable for landline, TV and b/b, it works fine thanks.
Will they plop this tax on me too? I damn well hope not, why should I pay for a private company to upgrade its infrastructure when I made the conscious decision not to use that company for my landline let alone b/b. Are the cable companies going to get their fair share of this tax so I get a better deal?
Buy a Ford and be charged a tax to subsidise Nissan? I don't think that would be tolerated.
I don't care what BT charges its b/b customers in order to fund the infrastructure upgrades, that's called free market economy. If it can't be made commercially viable then so be it. What other lame ducks do the government propose to splint and prop up? It'll be the Banks next...............
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.