Broadband tax on the way?

[LadyJ]

A new tax on broadband use could be made law before the next election, according to Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

It would apply to everyone with a fixed line telephone and could raise up to £175 million a year.

Speaking at a debate in London, Mr Timms said the tax will be presented to parliament as part of the Finance Bill.

He said: "We want to make high speed networks nationally available. The next-generation fund will help that and we will legislate for it this side of a general election."

Tory MP John Whittingdale says the Conservatives would not be in favour, saying: "I object to it on the basis that it is another tax and is aimed at people who are using old technology."

It is though the plan would mean people with a home phone line paying a £6 annual fee even if they are not connected to the internet.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090923/tuk-broadband-tax-on-the-way-dba1618.html

[LadyJ]

:cwm23::cwm23::cwm23::cwm23:
:NoNo::NoNo::NoNo::NoNo::NoNo:

Oh no another tax:furious3::Blacklistthatsucks:

[aromulus]

Yep, another tax, invented, and ready to be introduced by this illustrious and industrious government....:NoNo:

And again they will try to get it up and running, before anything can be done to stop it...:doh

[walesrob]

Only 8 months max until Gordon is OUT, and his Government is paralysed anyway, so this bill wont make it through parliament.

[aromulus]

Only 8 months max until Gordon is OUT, and his Government is paralysed anyway, so this bill wont make it through parliament.

Don't forget the foxes saga..... :Erm:

The good old "act of Parliament".....:NoNo:

Where laws are passed without anyone having to vote or argue against them....:doh

[KeithD]

Tories have already said this is a no go, and if they don't win the next election I'll give Dom some tongue :cwm24:

[aromulus]

if they don't win the next election I'll give Dom some tongue :cwm24:

:omg:


:vomit-smiley-011:

:Bolt::xxparty-smiley-004:

[Alan]

In my opinion, the Internet should be free anyway.

Al.:)

[Arthur Little]

Another 'Stealth'? Tax ... :bluegrab:

[fred]

Another 'Stealth'? Tax ... :bluegrab:

If they say it will happen then it WILL happen eventually..
They leak an announcement of a "study" and wait for the public's reaction...When the dust settles they introduce the new tax which will go up annually for ever and ever and the tax man will tell you that there is not a damned thing that you can do about it..:NoNo:
Grrrr...I can feel myself getting angry for you poor British soles..Even from over here!!:angry:

[KeithD]

It won't happen as it is actually a BT subsidy, not allowed under EU law.

[JimOttley]

In my opinion, the Internet should be free anyway.

Al.:)

I tend to agree with you Alan, I would like to see it free to all, however the reality is that the internet as an infrastructure and all it's connected nodes, PC's laptops, phones, printers and so on are estimated to be using between 5% and 10% of the worlds entire electrical generation capacity.

It's a contentious area but there is no denying that the numbers are huge and it's hard to see how all that could be made free in any global sense.

I'd love to see it happen though.


Jim

[darren-b]

In my opinion, the Internet should be free anyway.

Al.:)

Don't you actually mean paid for by tax payers? :doh

[Northerner]

This tax is nonsense to begin with. They say the money is needed to build the next generation internet, but if they simply mandated private industry did the upgrades by 2020, then the companies would simply increase their prices to cover their costs...

And the taxpayer could stay out of it.. Only those of us using the internet would pay for the upgrades.

But the truth is, the 50p tax is just the start. Given a few years it would be a good £5... easy:NoNo:

[darren-b]

This tax is nonsense to begin with. They say the money is needed to build the next generation internet, but if they simply mandated private industry did the upgrades by 2020, then the companies would simply increase their prices to cover their costs...

And the taxpayer could stay out of it.. Only those of us using the internet would pay for the upgrades.

But the truth is, the 50p tax is just the start. Given a few years it would be a good £5... easy:NoNo:

That isn't going to work, when even now Virgin Media aren't even in a position to enable all of the main town and cities, nevermind all the tiny villages in the middle of nowhere.

I don't necessarily support the idea, but when currently ~65% of the UK households have broadband internet it starts to make little difference where you fund it from.

[walesrob]

That isn't going to work, when even now Virgin Media aren't even in a position to enable all of the main town and cities, nevermind all the tiny villages in the middle of nowhere.



Agree, its a tax that will only benefit large population areas. Where I live, BT have the monopoly as the ADSL supplier (i.e. no cable, no LLU, nothing, just BT ADSL) and having spoken to Talk Talk and 02, they have no plans to install their own gear in such a small exchange, and I doubt Virgin will either. Even Aberystwyth, considered to be the cultural capital of Wales, the home of the UWA and now some Welsh Assembly offices, also only has BT ADSL, nothing else. Its going to take more than a feeble £5 tax.

[bornatbirth]

Agree, its a tax that will only benefit large population areas. Where I live, BT have the monopoly as the ADSL supplier (i.e. no cable, no LLU, nothing, just BT ADSL) and having spoken to Talk Talk and 02, they have no plans to install their own gear in such a small exchange, and I doubt Virgin will either. Even Aberystwyth, considered to be the cultural capital of Wales, the home of the UWA and now some Welsh Assembly offices, also only has BT ADSL, nothing else. Its going to take more than a feeble £5 tax.

you could move to the mainland :D

[walesrob]

you could move to the mainland :D

Theres always one.....:CompBuster:

[Arthur Little]

Only those of us using the internet would pay for the upgrades.

:rolleyes: But how can it be determined WHO'S using the internet ... and who ISN'T?

[darren-b]

Agree, its a tax that will only benefit large population areas. Where I live, BT have the monopoly as the ADSL supplier (i.e. no cable, no LLU, nothing, just BT ADSL) and having spoken to Talk Talk and 02, they have no plans to install their own gear in such a small exchange, and I doubt Virgin will either. Even Aberystwyth, considered to be the cultural capital of Wales, the home of the UWA and now some Welsh Assembly offices, also only has BT ADSL, nothing else. Its going to take more than a feeble £5 tax.

Just reading more and it's the opposite. It's a tax that will benefit the rural areas (about a third of the country) where it is not economically viable to install the next generation networks. So you ought to be totally supporting it.


:rolleyes: But how can it be determined WHO'S using the internet ... and who ISN'T?

I think Northerner means it's paid for those who are currently paying for the internet.

I ought to be totally against the tax as I pay for my phone line though I don't pay for my broadband, and I currently live in an area that is economically viable to install the next generation networks. But I can see the point of it if it's used correctly.

[linc]

In balance, I don't mind the idea of this tax as long as the investment happens for those non-economically viable areas. I don't like the idea of companies using it as an excuse to significantly hike the monthly price. (They're so predictable, it's sure to happen.)

But the government should not bother with the tax and instead offer business grants to companies willing to invest in radio/wireless services and providing this to rural areas. This would be more beneficial in many respects (creates jobs, for example).

Possible solutions can be satellite based broadband to service a whole village. I have seen a similar solution in Poland: a highspeed connection coming in to the block of flats and then cable plus wireless used to share it out. It was a lad living in the block which set up the network and then went on to do the same for other buildings in the area. The end result was a viable and popular ISP by adapting a solution to fit the location.

[darren-b]

In balance, I don't mind the idea of this tax as long as the investment happens for those non-economically viable areas. I don't like the idea of companies using it as an excuse to significantly hike the monthly price. (They're so predictable, it's sure to happen.)

But the government should not bother with the tax and instead offer business grants to companies willing to invest in radio/wireless services and providing this to rural areas. This would be more beneficial in many respects (creates jobs, for example).

The tax is to raise money for the business grants (or eqivalent).


Possible solutions can be satellite based broadband to service a whole village. I have seen a similar solution in Poland: a highspeed connection coming in to the block of flats and then cable plus wireless used to share it out. It was a lad living in the block which set up the network and then went on to do the same for other buildings in the area. The end result was a viable and popular ISP by adapting a solution to fit the location.

This already happens in the UK - satellite broadband to one house, then wireless to the rest of the village. One problem is the whole internet for the village is then dependant on one house (if he decides to turn it off....). Though the main problem is costs, especially for speeds equivalent to the next generation networks.

[IainBusby]

Agree, its a tax that will only benefit large population areas. Where I live, BT have the monopoly as the ADSL supplier (i.e. no cable, no LLU, nothing, just BT ADSL) and having spoken to Talk Talk and 02, they have no plans to install their own gear in such a small exchange, and I doubt Virgin will either. Even Aberystwyth, considered to be the cultural capital of Wales, the home of the UWA and now some Welsh Assembly offices, also only has BT ADSL, nothing else. Its going to take more than a feeble £5 tax.

As BT own what is known as the backbone and everything apart from cable goes through that, you have to either buy your internet access from a cable company, or a company that pays BT for the use of their infrastructure.

BT has always been the real problem in this country. Because they are known as a blue chip company as far as the stock market is concerned, they've been afraid to invest in improved infrastructure and because of their monopoly they have held up progress with regard to communications systems in general. If a company like virgin says they are going to invest millions on their systems, their share price goes up, but if BT says the same thing, their share price goes down.

Because they are blue chip (a bankers share) the majority of their shares are held by pension funds and institutions ect and that is because they are regarded as a safe bet, not too exciting, but pretty safe as far as the share price is concerned and always likely to pay a reasonable dividend. Unfortunately this has led to them just sitting on their hands and trying to maximise the income stream from what they already have a monopoly on, the infrastructure.

Iain.

[linc]

The tax is to raise money for the business grants (or eqivalent).
From the news reports, it seems more like money for BT (a subsidy for the roll out of fibre) rather than grants for people wanting to set up a new business providing a network for broadband "not spots" (or whatever weird term the media likes to use). This could be done through business link, for example.


This already happens in the UK - satellite broadband to one house, then wireless to the rest of the village. One problem is the whole internet for the village is then dependant on one house (if he decides to turn it off....). Though the main problem is costs, especially for speeds equivalent to the next generation networks.
This seems like a market then: instead of depending on one house, a commercial network independent of that would make much more sense.

Obviously, the speed would not be the same as 50mbit/100mbit potential of BT's cable network but then there is possibly WiMax.

However, Win2Win makes a good point. How will this reflect with UK and EU laws? As a comparison, consider TV license fee - the BBC would not get it if it ran adverts. If it did then run adverts and still receive money then every other network could rightly ask for a cut of the fees.

If the tax is to go ahead from a commercial perspective it would be fair to offer the money to companies willing to roll out some form of high speed internet for rural areas rather than subsidising BT (a commercial entity).

[darren-b]

As BT own what is known as the backbone and everything apart from cable goes through that, you have to either buy your internet access from a cable company, or a company that pays BT for the use of their infrastructure.

Apart from in Hull where it is all done by Kingston Communications.


Unfortunately this has led to them just sitting on their hands and trying to maximise the income stream from what they already have a monopoly on, the infrastructure.

BT is improving the infrastructure, but it is slower as looks at the whole country. Would you rather BT did what Virgin does and only cherry pick the profitable areas to deploy internet services to?


From the news reports, it seems more like money for BT (a subsidy for the roll out of fibre) rather than grants for people wanting to set up a new business providing a network for broadband "not spots" (or whatever weird term the media likes to use). This could be done through business link, for example.

This seems like a market then: instead of depending on one house, a commercial network independent of that would make much more sense.

Obviously, the speed would not be the same as 50mbit/100mbit potential of BT's cable network but then there is possibly WiMax.

However, Win2Win makes a good point. How will this reflect with UK and EU laws? As a comparison, consider TV license fee - the BBC would not get it if it ran adverts. If it did then run adverts and still receive money then every other network could rightly ask for a cut of the fees.

If the tax is to go ahead from a commercial perspective it would be fair to offer the money to companies willing to roll out some form of high speed internet for rural areas rather than subsidising BT (a commercial entity).

Have you seen anywhere where it states that this money can only go to BT and not any other telecoms provider willing to provide services to rural areas?

Just bear in mind what is behind this tax. It is aimed at getting next-generation broadband rolled out to areas that no commercial entity would bother with at the moment because they are not profitable.

[linc]

Have you seen anywhere where it states that this money can only go to BT and not any other telecoms provider willing to provide services to rural areas?

This tax is if you have a phone line (BT). This is for the next generation network (BT).

The digital Britain report suggests wireless ways of delivering broadband to areas without it, but most of these are not quite "next generation" in a practical setting (although some offer pretty good speeds - WiMAX, for example). BT's is.


Just bear in mind what is behind this tax. It is aimed at getting next-generation broadband rolled out to areas that no commercial entity would bother with at the moment because they are not profitable.

Yes and this is great as long as the Government doesn't forget what can be done on a local level by local companies (existing or new start ups).

[GaryFifer]

It was to do with the subscribers and cost of fiber-optic. Now we have air travel and the world is a smaller place. It is easy to get international phone calls. Thank goodness.

The history and development of this, is only as old as me. So we are still developing the technology to local applications when the cost is ok. Have a read of how we can talk to our mahals so far away.

The first transatlantic telephone cable to use optical fiber was TAT-8, based on Desurvire optimized laser amplification technology. It went into operation in 1988.

Read more about it if you are interested

Source- Wikipedia- History of Fiber Optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication)

[darren-b]

This tax is if you have a phone line (BT). This is for the next generation network (BT).

Have you actually seen anything official from the government that backs up your opinion. I've not seen anywhere that says if I have a fixed phone line from Virgin or Kingston Telecom (ie in Hull) I won't have to pay this tax. Nor have I seen anywhere that states BT is the only provider that will be subsidised to provide services in rural areas (admittedly it may be in the only operator intersted in doing it...)

[Ann07]

A new tax on broadband use could be made law before the next election, according to Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

It would apply to everyone with a fixed line telephone and could raise up to £175 million a year.

Speaking at a debate in London, Mr Timms said the tax will be presented to parliament as part of the Finance Bill.

He said: "We want to make high speed networks nationally available. The next-generation fund will help that and we will legislate for it this side of a general election."

Tory MP John Whittingdale says the Conservatives would not be in favour, saying: "I object to it on the basis that it is another tax and is aimed at people who are using old technology."

It is though the plan would mean people with a home phone line paying a £6 annual fee even if they are not connected to the internet.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090923/tuk-broadband-tax-on-the-way-dba1618.html

oh not again:cwm23: whats next?????????:furious3::furious3: