Openreach will be OK. Labour are un-electable. Apart from the Blair era, when he embraced aspiration and enterprise, labour have not won an election in 41 years, which takes us back to Harold Wilson. It will stay that way while Jeremy Corbyn's Marxist campaign team claim that the Tories are planning to 'Gas the poor' at 1:25 lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQX6rOfeqe8

Edited by professor973 (Wed 22-Jul-15 16:09:42)

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

Interesting! I'd happily pay 50p a month on my bill.

I think you will find that you're in a very small minority - hence the proposed tax being scrapped.

In fact, if you asked most people (not necessarily on this site), they could probably find better uses for the BDUK funds as well - rather than being spent on 'rural' broadband infrastructure.

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

Interesting! I'd happily pay 50p a month on my bill.

I think you will find that you're in a very small minority - hence the proposed tax being scrapped.

In fact, if you asked most people (not necessarily on this site), they could probably find better uses for the BDUK funds as well - rather than being spent on 'rural' broadband infrastructure.

Maybe, but 50p a month (or £6 a year) is affordable to someone that is paying for a phone line and broadband already. The full £6 for a year is less than two pints in most of the UK. Would it really be that much of a contentious issue in the grand scheme of things?

Trouble is that same argument can be made over and over again. We'll put 50p on this, 50p on that and that and that...

What says that the 50p is best spent on providing broadband than as a tax that is spent on welfare or defence? We already pay taxes. If additional tax is required then there are many other ways to raise it rather than arbitrarily on a services bill that would then need to somehow be collected to a central pot and then distributed.

Part of the argument was for people who need a phone line for contact but do not have a lot of money - therefore there would be exemptions for sections of society - but who manages the exemptions?

How much does it end up costing to collect and manage the extra 50p?

It was five years ago, i.e. many did not feel the need to subsidise those in rural areas in such a direct manner

Maybe sentiments have changed but I doubt there has been a massive swing.

Proposing a 50p extra per month to fund an improved NHS would probably be more popular.

None of the parties attempted to make a big thing of broadband in the recent election race which says a lot.

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

Maybe, but 50p a month (or £6 a year) is affordable to someone that is paying for a phone line and broadband already. The full £6 for a year is less than two pints in most of the UK. Would it really be that much of a contentious issue in the grand scheme of things?

Probably, yes.

The argument would go like this:

A telephone is a critical service - why make it more expensive?

If someone is

a) poor/unemployed
b) on benefits
c) doesn't want internet access

why should they subsidise others when there are other things additional tax revenue could be spent on which would benefit the.

Also, consumers are very price sensitive - note the adsl can be secured for only £2-3/month so you're asking them to effectively pay for another 2/3months service - which they will notice..

Maybe, but 50p a month (or £6 a year) is affordable to someone that is paying for a phone line and broadband already. The full £6 for a year is less than two pints in most of the UK. Would it really be that much of a contentious issue in the grand scheme of things?

Why should those of us who have paid to have FTTC installed (gap funded upgrade) also have to pay for others to be upgraded other than via general taxation?

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

why should they subsidise others when there are other things additional tax revenue could be spent on which would benefit the.

It's swings and roundabouts. I don't (and can't) have kids - why should I pay as much tax as everyone that has kids to go into the system for their health and education?

The answer is because a small sacrifice by me is for the greater good of all. It's unfeasible and unworkable to have completely customised taxation plans where everyone chooses to only put into what they want to put into - unless you privatise everything and it becomes a dog eat dog world with every man, woman and child for themselves.

Better broadband for all does help people's lives with more and more services going online. It would would help for education for all. Those in formal education have easier access to resources, and everyone has access to resources that aid continuous life learning.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Why should those of us who have paid to have FTTC installed (gap funded upgrade) also have to pay for others to be upgraded other than via general taxation?

You paid to get FTTC installed when you had it installed; you got what you paid for. However under an idea such as that I'm proposing competition would be increased in all areas as grants would become available for infrastructure to be provided.

This is likely to result in you getting FTTP or similar much sooner and without you having to put your hands in your pocket in the same way again - as well as raising other's connectivity up which would drive online usage which would get companies and organisations to increase their online services and offerings.... Of which we all would benefit.

Add to this the jobs that would be created in rolling out and maintaining more infrastructure, jobs with companies and organisations increasing their online services and offerings....

Extra jobs would help offset those concerns with people not being able to afford 50p a month. I've read somewhere recently that an increase in average broadband speeds has shown a direct correlation to an increase in GDP...

Surely all of this has to be a good thing? For the sake of 50p per month per line....?

Edited by MrBukey (Wed 22-Jul-15 17:18:42)

In reply to a post by MrBukey:

You paid to get FTTC installed when you had it installed; you got what you paid for. However under an idea such as that I'm proposing competition would be increased in all areas as grants would become available for infrastructure to be provided.

There is a reason some things are described as natural monopolies - it isn't economically sensible to build duplicate infrastructure when regulation and price controls can be applied to the existing operator