Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Announces Broadband Tax

Barence writes "The UK Government is planning a 50p-per-month levy on fixed-line connections to pay for next-generation broadband. The Government claims that market forces alone will bring fiber connections to only two thirds of the country, so it plans to use the 'broadband tax' to pay for the final third by 2017. The plans form part of the Government's Digital Britain report, which also see the UK guarantee connections of 2Mbits/sec for every citizen by 2012." The report also threatens legal action and bandwidth restriction for repeat file sharers.

13 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Pointless by Captain+Kirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it. Taxing users in order to make more connections to that backbone monopoly is totally wrong.

    1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "There's no such thing as Society." Or as my cat puts it: "Me! Me! Me!"

  2. Repeat file sharers get bandwidth restriction? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At 2Mb/s, I'd say the entire country gets punished right from the start. This sort of speed is okay, but it's hardly the future.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. What good will this do by Houndofhell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem is BT estimates that it will cost upwards of £5Bn to do FttC.At 50p a month even if every household paid this. It would still take 37.9 years to raise that amount. Its totally pointless, further more the problem in the UK is that all the politicans and BPI seem to have gotten it in their heads that all file-sharing is illegal regardless of whether it is family videos or the latest cinema release.

  4. Good thing. If done right. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast. Which would mean that the runtime of this tax is limited to a few years, when every corner of the countryside has broadband.

    This is actually quite different from the German GEZ fee for Internet capable devices. Which is bizar beyond anything concievable.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Good thing. If done right. by Tx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This actually *is* a good thing - if the money inmediately is used for the intended purpose: Bringing nation-wide Broadband fast.

      Unfortunately given the track record of our government, I can't say I'm hugely optimistic about that. This smells of the kind of private-public partnerships that our government is so fond of, where they can claim a low up-front cost for a scheme, but it ends up costing more than they thought, with the private companies raking it in at the tax payers expense. See for example the PFI hospital schemes that Mr Brown championed so keenly. I expect the telcos in line to be involved in this are rubbing their hands with glee.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
  5. Re:Interesting scheme... by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're giving the money to BT (DSL) and Virgin (cable). BT is a private for-profit company and as such will limit what it will allow competition to do and set the prices higher than a public network. Virgin [Media] doesn't allow people to use their network at all.

    A public network is always the right answer. You set up the cables, maintain them, and then set the fees based on what you're paying to keep it up-and-running.

    With your hugely sarcastic post you also didn't address why these private for-private companies should be getting a huge check out of the pocket of tax payers? Or a better question, why they're getting a huge check which they can then turn around and use to make EVERY MORE money? It is just handing them the keys to the vault.

  6. The actual report by krou · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_09digitalbritain.pdf

    Other major points in the report (from this BBC article):

    • a three-year plan to boost digital participation
    • universal access to broadband by 2012
    • fund to invest in next generation broadband
    • digital radio upgrade by 2015
    • liberalisation of 3G spectrum
    • legal and regulatory attack on digital piracy
    • support for public service content partnerships
    • changed role for Channel 4
    • consultation on how to fund local, national and regional news
    • £130m of BBC licence fee to pay for ITV regional news
    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
  7. Big problem with this. by jim0203 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Surely the problem here isn't that the UK government is trying to raise taxes to pay for something that has a massive social benefit, but that it's doing it via a poll tax? I pay as much towards this project as my millionaire friend and my grandmother who's on a small pension. Is it really that unfashionable to tax the rich?

  8. Greedy corrupt control freak UK government by MindKata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A third possibility might be that the last mile infrastructure is communally owned"

    A fourth possibility is they pay for it out of the cost to the people who need better connections outside of the major cities.

    Getting others to pay for it is nuts. Also where does this thinking end? Can the government simply choose ever more ways to tax people to give to yet more companies to partially fund what the company should be earning from the sale of its products.

    Also they are selling a rubbish product. 2Mbits is obsolite now. So do they then come back in a few years time, to take even more money to pay to upgrade it to say 8Mbits ... then come back again and again taking ever more money every few years. Each time taking millions more to pay for incremental upgrades.

    What is it with the current UK government. Their greedy corrupt control freak attitude seems to have no end. I love how they spin it as (implied *just*) 50p-per-month levy. That sounds so much better than £6 (about $10) extra tax per year. The UK Government gives hundreds of billions to their rich banker friends and then their friends in telecoms also want some free extra money, so the Government decides to take some more money from people. Haven't they given enough already this year?!?. £6 may not be much when you have a job, but its a lot for the elderly on a pension. Also if someone walked up to you in the street and just tried to take that amount of money off you, everyone would complain about it, yet this government can just decide to take it wherever they wish.

    Its not as if BT are short of money... "BT to freeze pay of 100,000 employees" ... while "Ian Livingston, the chief executive, stands to make more than £6 million in bonuses this year if performance targets are met. This is on top of his basic salary of £850,000." ... Its a corrupt arragant UK government giving millions more to an arragant corrupt boss treating his staff with contempt. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article5890128.ece

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Greedy corrupt control freak UK government by khakipuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A fourth possibility is they pay for it out of the cost to the people who need better connections outside of the major cities.

      If you follow that line of thinking then may be people who live in outside major cities should pay more road tax or may be cancer patients should pay more for expensive drugs. We generally have fair minded policies in the UK and recognise that what you loose on supporting others you gain by what they contribute to you. If dairy farmers have to pay more for braodband (and they have to use things like the Cattle Movement Service on line) then they will put that on the price of milk, or go out of business. How about next time you vist Scotland the broadband in the hotel costs 10x as much as in a city?

      What's a stake here is really the ability to distribute internet TV. We will all be better off if TV moves to internet rather than broadcast which requires high energy radio transmission and all the attendant cost. But you can't move to internet only TV unless everyone is on broad band. It would be a lot better to stop the digital TV roll-out and use that money to fund braodband.

      --
      Art is the mathematics of emotion
    2. Re:Greedy corrupt control freak UK government by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody's going to run fiberoptics to every farm on the countryside

      Post that here, got modded +1 Insightful. Post that in South Korea, get modded +1 Funny.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  9. Where did we hear that before? by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh yeah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

    The goals of Universal Service are:
    To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,
    To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,
    To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.

    We saw where that went.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com