Quote Originally Posted by darren-b View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by darren-b View Post
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).