Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs Could Face Government Broadband TV Tax
An anonymous reader writes "Industry regulator Ofcom, which yesterday launched the first phase of its review into public service broadcasting, is threatening to impose a tax on UK broadband ISPs to help resolve funding problems. The review covers all public service broadcasters, both publicly owned and commercial. Ofcom Chief Executive Ed Richards said: 'Public service broadcasting is at a crossroads. Viewers still want a mix of high quality UK-made content, but the traditional television model is not enough to meet all their needs. Today's proposals outline options for a securely-funded PSB future. Now is the time for a wide-ranging debate looking carefully and dispassionately at all the options.'"
yeah, it doesn't matter whether you're actually making use of any of that content, you pay anyway.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
So ISPs have to help fund the regulator that regulates them. Kinda makes sense I guess.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
...for...looking carefully and dispassionately at all the options. I'm not surePray tell, could you enlighten me how much the corporate BBC paid out in dividends to its shareholders last year?
UK ISP customers could face government broadband TV tax
ugh...
I'm not sure of your contribution to a better convention.
'If the BBC has funding issues they should cut costs'
- maybe this applies to everything else as well? If the NHS has funding issues they should cut costs, if the department for transport has funding issues in road building they should cut costs - isn't it rather a discussion of what the _job_ should be, and then whether the cost that is quoted is about as expected for that job, i.e. whether it's run efficiently enough?
'The other broadcasters can put away their begging bows and start making programs for the public instead of advertisers'
- so they should STOP asking the public for funding, but START making programs that advertisers will not pay for? I take it they will get an extra hour of lunch break per day, so they can first beg on the street for their daily wage to spend the next hour eating?
The UK taxes people per TV, supposedly to direct those taxes into the government production (BBC) and oversight (regulation) of TV broadcasts. The idea was supposedly that people who didn't have a TV wouldn't have to pay to support the government's work producing and overseeing TV.
But the benefit of that government work doesn't come only through the TV. TV is now, generations after introducing the tax, as integrated a societal activity, whether government produced or not, as any other largescale activity. It's as (and more) universal and impactful as, say, newspaper publishing.
The UK should stop charging TV taxes as a service fee, and just integrate the taxation into it's broadbased general taxation. That would drop the now arbitrary basis for the tax, and eliminate bottlenecks that call for even more arbitrary taxes to "fix" the problem of using the wrong basis for the tax in the first place.
--
make install -not war
Ofcom has no power to set taxes.
They are unelected, so have no need to please voters.
Their aims and views are at odds with government: empire-building vs not-getting-voted-out.
If HM Gubmint puts a levy on internet access on the say-so of Ofcom, I'm a banana.
In fact I think the whole iPlayer is just an excuse to make sure the BBC is on the net so there is no getting around paying for a licence. This is obviously not the case, hence why this issue of broadband tax is coming up. I'm a bit confused as to how you could think this anyway - don't you think having the BBC's content online is a good thing?
Amnesty International
1) Linux stuff available for ALL programs funded by the BBC in part? If not, then no, not paying.
2) Dialup? P2PThrottled? AUP? Congested network? Well you're not getting this stuff then, are you.
The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device to receive TV signals, must buy a licence. The iPlayer does not count as a TV signal any way you spin it.
And again, from the article you linked to: You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV. I don't see how you can be so confused over this, it's quite clear.
Amnesty International
Both you and the GP are correct - the point being that once a customer has paid for their bandwidth, there should be no question of extra remuneration for the ISPs unless individuals start exceeding the bandwidth usage they've paid for.
I suppose the case the ISPs (particularly the budget ones) are making is that services like the iPlayer are causing a large proportion of their consumers to exceed their bandwidth limits. Now, it would be impractical, the ISPs argue, to go after the individual customers (many of whom have no idea that they're doing anything wrong) so they want the content providers to pay instead.
What the GP is saying is that these budget ISPs are feeling the brunt of this high demand for large-bandwidth content because they are operating on profit margins that are simply too small (hence the GP claiming "broadband is too cheap").
Amnesty International
There is no "supposedly" about it. Yes, the license fee is a charge imposed by the state, so its technically justifiable to call it a "tax". However, it is completely distinct from "general taxation" - like the "road tax" or tax on cigarettes which go into the general coffers with no obligation for the government to use the money for transport or healthcare. The license fee is collected independently and is actually used to fund the BBC.
Likewise - yes, the BBC is a state institution. However, in the British political system "state" is not synonymous with "the currently incumbent political party" - some effort is made to separate governance of the BBC from government and any party interference is Definitely Not Cricket. If you're skeptical, go look at news.bbc.co.uk and see if it looks like the Voice of El Presidente to you.
However, I suspect the issue raised in TFA is eventually going to be the end of the BBC. The arrival of media convergence makes a nonsense of only licensing "television receiving equipment", and the idea of charging ISPs is going to be highly contentious. I wouldn't mind a reasonable levy on my broadband connection if it is collected and spent in the same way as the TV license - but not if it morphs into just another tax to fund the new Crucades and bail out incompetent bankers.
PS: Is the BBC immune to political bias? No. Is the BBC 100% efficient in spending its money? Nope! Do I completely trust it? Hell, no. Do I trust it more than a big commercial broadcaster with ties to big industry and the Republican party? Er, yes.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
... and lose 90% of its revenue thereby having to charge as much or more as Sky (which works out at something like £1000 a year - 10* the BBC cost) and depriving those without that much money of the BBC entirely. Worse, it could start taking advertising and become something like the scumheap that is ITV.