Internet Tax

[jamesterror]

Originally Posted by ophic

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

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)

[ophic]

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]

Originally Posted by ophic

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.

[embee]

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".

[ophic]

Originally Posted by embee

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.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by embee

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.

Originally Posted by embee

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.

Originally Posted by ophic

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

[ophic]

Originally Posted by the_runt69

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

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

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 )

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]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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...."