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 sureUK ISP customers could face government broadband TV tax
ugh...
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
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.