Government propose broadband tax on fixed telephone lines.

[little al]

BBC News - Broadband tax condemned as 'unfair' by MPs


Broadband tax condemned as 'unfair' by MPs


The government wants to pay for a £1bn network upgrade
A government proposal to charge people with fixed phone lines 50p per month to help fund ultra-fast broadband has been condemned as "unfair" by MPs.
The cross-party Business Innovation and Skills Committee said most of those who would pay the tax would not benefit from the faster broadband service.
The focus should be on providing basic broadband for all and allowing markets to deliver higher speeds, it said.
The government said the plan was the "best way to drive further investment".
It maintains that faster speeds are "vital to the UK's growth".
However, the committee argued: "We believe that a 50p levy placed on fixed telecommunication lines is an ill-directed charge.
"It will place a disproportionate cost on a majority who will not, or are unable to, reap the benefits of that charge."
Market forces
The government's broadband plans - outlined in its Digital Economy Bill - have two main strands.
It wants to ensure a minimum speed of 2Mbps to all parts of Britain by 2012, and then deliver ultra-fast broadband to most of the country by 2017.
The committee agreed that the government should help deliver 2Mbps to all by 2012 but said that it was "concerned" that the government had not defined what it guaranteed.

DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL
Legal framework for tackling copyright infringement via education and technical measures
Ofcom given powers to appoint and fund independently funded news consortia
New duties for Ofcom to assess the UK's communications infrastructure every two years
Modernising spectrum to increase investment in mobile broadband
Framework for the move to digital radio switchover by 2015
Updating Channel 4 functions to encompass public service content, on TV and online
Age ratings compulsory for all boxed video games aimed at those over 12 years
Broadband speeds can vary at different times of the day and can also vary with distance from an exchange.
The committee believes that the government should commit to delivering a minimum of 2Mbps "under normal circumstances, to all users at all times".
It also said that it was concerned that government intervention in delivering ultra-fast speeds - known as Next Generation Access - would distort the market and that there was little demand for such services.
"We think the market can be trusted to deliver faster speeds," committee chairman Peter Luff told BBC News.
"The real priority should be the universal service obligation and the whole effort to increase digital inclusion."
But the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that the government wanted everyone to "access the huge social, economic and health benefits" that high speeds offer.
"Our analysis shows that without intervention, the market will only reach up to 70% of the country, so it's vital we act now to ensure no area is left behind," said a spokesman.
HAVE YOUR SAY
I pay road tax but it doesn't get spent on the roads. What is to say that broadband tax is going to be spent on broadband developments?
Lucy, Derby, UK
Send us your comments
"The 50p duty we have proposed is modest, fair and affordable and is the best way to drive further investment in our networks."
Bis believes the tax will allow a £1 billion upgrade of the UK's digital networks and will be of particular benefit to rural areas.
"We're currently consulting on the most effective way to deploy this investment with public and commercial benefits in mind, and will consider the Committee's report in our final response," said the spokesman.
The government published the Digital Economy Bill in November 2009. It is currently being scrutinised in the House of Lords.
One of the most hotly-debated elements is the so-called "three strikes rule" that would give regulator Ofcom new powers to disconnect or slow down the connections of persistent net pirates.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It seems bizarre that they are asking people to pay a tax on a service for a service they may not get or want.

I object to paying a tax for private companies to upgrade their infrastructure. If it was still publically owned then fine but lets not boost the profits of BT, Virgin Media etc.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I think the point of it was that the companies will invest in the infrastructure where it makes economic sense i.e. towns and cities but won't want to pay out megabucks for the same stuff for rural areas

 

[phoenix]

What makes me laugh is you get a little old lady or gentleman.living on the borderline struggling with a crap pension.Doesn't own a pc doesn't want broadband,has to pay 50p per month.Thankyou labour party.

 

[BensGrandad]

My mother is 90 and blind and cannot even see a computer let alone use one but has a static telephone line. Should she pay a tax for broadband? Of course she shouldn't.

 

[clapham_gull]

Someone has got to pay for this infrastructure I presume. If it isn't cost effective for a private company to lay cable in a rural area they simply won't bother.

In the future, you need to think about it being used for a computer, television and water meters etc..

The list is endless.

I quite like the idea of these things being paid for transparently and "up front" rather than companies like mobile phone operators (for instance) charging extortionate amounts and using the excuse they've invested billions in the infra-structure.

Do the prices suddenly come down when the infrastructure has been paid for ?

 

[beorhthelm]

wow, this is somthing that was proposed months if not years ago.

this is actually exactly the sort of thing government should do, provide the means to roll out national infrastructure. since they no longer run the state telecoms they ask BT to do so, who understandably want some paying for it (baring in mind they'll have to open up access once its in place).

you might not want to pay for it as you dont need or use it, but consider that can apply that to council tax for local services or NHS. maybe we should give BT a tax break for the rollout instead, but that still amounts to everyone paying for it in the end, just not so visably.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Why can't the telecomms companies pay for this? They managed to pay for all the radio masts for the mobile network and the telegraph poles for normal landlines. They can go to the city and raise more money in share issues to do it. After all they're the ones who will get all the profit from increased useage.

Cannot see the need for the 'taxpayer' to pay for this.

This policy is a case of 'keeping up with the Joneses' as far as I can see, not determined by the needs of the country at present.

 

[ILOVEBHA]

WOW 50p a month to move this country to another level.......
We need to grow up and not moan about such paltry sums

 

[beorhthelm]

Why can't the telecomms companies pay for this?

because its not commercially viable for them to run fibre to every street and home. you may not have noticed, they dont put up mast to cover every square inch, get away from the South East or urban areas and the signal gets patchy.

put simply, if it is not funded from government they wont do it. 20 years time, you might want to move to a village, say Ditchling, and find they have no internet beyond basic ADSL at 1mbps. that might not matter, or it might. we didnt ask the questions when installing phone lines or electricity to every home, it was just done.

 

[Gary Leeds]

I live on a large estate about 2.5 miles from the centre of Leeds. We have no cable and never will as the money ran out before they got to us and now they dont have a licence to dig the roads up to lay it despite it being dish city round here. I am lucky to get 2mb broadband despite living 1km from the 20mb enabled exchange because they took the route that covered most houses meaning my cable length is 3km from house to exchange. Connection drops 2 or 3 times a day. Been told there is NOTHING they can or will do about it and im lucky to have what I have got. I can actually get faster connection with my mobile phone at times than I can on my land line

So they can shove their 50p up their arse, I pay my phone bill, my broadband bill, and my taxes. I bet BT wont pay back the 50p a month once the new cables are in and they have doubled their profits

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Sorry but I believe that this is just another stealth tax, what's to stop the Government syphoning off this money to fund something else, ( like NI, Road Fund Licence etc etc ) when they hit yet another public sector borrowing crisis.

At least with a TV Licence you are paying for the recurrent costs of funding the BBC, but this is a ONE-OFF investment, so why does it need a recurrent levy?

 

[BensGrandad]

Could the money not be raised by BT etc by imposing a one off installation fee payable to obtain broadband. If you want it you pay for it if like my mum you don't want it you don't pay.

 

[KneeOn]

Hang on, this is 50p a month yeah? As in, Fifty Pence? Why teh f*** get all upity over fifty sodding pence?

If it were a tenner a month, then yeah, but fifty Pence, thats the price of a mars bar from most places.

 

[BensGrandad]

It is the principal that people, like my mother, should not be forced to pay for something which they will never ever use and will be of no benefit to them. I use the internet so should pay whatever is the designated fee/tax whatever but not somebody who will never use it or at least make them pay if and when they do use it.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Hang on, this is 50p a month yeah? As in, Fifty Pence? Why teh f*** get all upity over fifty sodding pence?

If it were a tenner a month, then yeah, but fifty Pence, thats the price of a mars bar from most places.

Where does this say that this will be fixed at 50p in perpituity? Before you know it, it will £ 1 , then £ 5, then god knows what as the Government realise what a money spinning tax they have created ( just like how VAT has gone up from 5% when first introduced in the early '70's to 17.5% now ).

It's exactly the same with duty on alchohol and cigarettes. I don't pay a tax just so other people can smoke and drink, so why should I have to do it to let them use the internet?

And nowhere is there any mention of when this tax will STOP being levvied.

 

[beorhthelm]

So they can shove their 50p up their arse, I pay my phone bill, my broadband bill, and my taxes. I bet BT wont pay back the 50p a month once the new cables are in and they have doubled their profits

maybe you've missed it, but the plan is to connect *everyone* up, not just distant rural homes. i didnt realised city centre estates hadnt been connected already.

Could the money not be raised by BT etc by imposing a one off installation fee payable to obtain broadband. If you want it you pay for it if like my mum you don't want it you don't pay.

that installation fee would be thousands for tens of thousands of homes. did your mum pay full cost for her phonline installation? or electrification? i dont really want to pay for the Library or Schools, i dont use them and might never, but thats the nature of central taxation.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It's exactly the same with duty on alchohol and cigarettes. I don't pay a tax just so other people can smoke and drink,

As both a smoker and a drinker I wholeheartedly reccomend this proposal as a vote winner to any of the major political parties!

 

[Fef]

This is such a cheapskate measure - why not just fund it out of central taxation. All this faffing about...

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Tories want private enterprise to invest in upgrading the network instead of a "broadband tax" on each landline. Secondly , Ofcom along with numerous other quangos will be disbanded or stripped of their regulatory decision making.