As I said you appear to have a comprehension problem. The UK population aren't prepared to pay a broadband tax to enable others to get faster broadband and no electable UK government is going to go through with such a plan. I for one am not prepared a penny, other than via general taxation, to allow others to get faster broadband until such time as my neighbours and myself have been repaid the £18+K we paid out to allow us to enjoy the same benefits that others such as yourself got for free.

May I suggest that instead you gift your bank details to OR to allow them to provide faster broadband to those with less spare cash.

They didn't get the FTTC "free", they paid for it out of their taxes.

hat you're effectively saying is, "We paid for this - no-one else is allowed to have anything similar unless they pay the same as us!". That kind of attitude leads to complete stagnation of broadband services in this country. Which curtails jobs that better infrastructure could bring.

As I stated, you clearly have a comprehension problem. What I said is that I and I suspect the majority of the UK population am not prepared to pay a broadband tax OTHER THAN AS PART OF GENERAL TAXATION.

The poster with attitude is yourself but that's no surprise given your inability to comprehend what others have posted in this thread.

They didn't get the FTTC "free", they paid for it out of their taxes.

I wasn't aware that the government had funded Virgin Media nor contributed to BT's commercial roll-out. Further, as I clearly stated, I have no problem with additional fast broadband access being funded, in part, from general taxation.

My apologies, I thought you were referring to the BDUK roll-out.

In reply to a post by MCM:

As I said you appear to have a comprehension problem. The UK population aren't prepared to pay a broadband tax to enable others to get faster broadband and no electable UK government is going to go through with such a plan. I for one am not prepared a penny, other than via general taxation, to allow others to get faster broadband until such time as my neighbours and myself have been repaid the £18+K we paid out to allow us to enjoy the same benefits that others such as yourself got for free.

May I suggest that instead you gift your bank details to OR to allow them to provide faster broadband to those with less spare cash.

I don't have a comprehension problem, I see where you're coming from - I just disagree that it's a bad idea.

Asking you to pay 50p per month in the future which would drive competition, increase availability of FTTC and then FTTP, create jobs, increase the services that were offered online, etc, etc is very different to me gifting my bank details to OR.

Ultimately your neighbours and yourself paid money to be early adopters - there was no exclusivity offered as part of that purchase, and there was no guarantee offered that others wouldn't be allowed to enjoy the same benefits as you have bought.

Your investment probably did pay for cables to pass to the cabinet, and additional infrastructure could end up being run off of the infrastructure you paid for.

Quite often, with FTTC as an example, the first household pays more than other households that end up using the same infrastructure (eg Openreach digs a trench and puts in a duct that passes other households, but the first household pays for the initial trench to be dug and ducts to be put in).

Ironically my idea would get you faster Internet sooner and probably at less (additional) personal cost. Selfishness and one-upmanship (or a desire to be faster than everyone else, even if it means slower broadband for you in the medium to long term) appears to be the driving force between your stance?

Anyway, I think I'll bow out - we obviously have differing views, and that's fine. I believe a tax would be a good thing, you don't. You're almost certainly right tin that it won't happen - scarcity in supply and demand and lack of competition seem to be big with Conservative governments. It's not good for (the bulk) of consumers though.

Quite often, with FTTC as an example, the first household pays more than other households that end up using the same infrastructure (eg Openreach digs a trench and puts in a duct that passes other households, but the first household pays for the initial trench to be dug and ducts to be put in).

That is just not the case. The only times people pay more for FTTC is if BT are not going to rollout and the community decide to fund it instead (as MCM presumably has done).

Otherwise the costs of installing a cab are shared amongst all users, present and future. If too few people sign up then BT make a loss on the cab.

As per my previous post there are too many issues with a levy on lines and would cost too much to manage. Whereas doing it via general taxation is a tried and those in society who earn most pay most (well, except those that dodge taxes - but that is a whole different subject).

As for the comparison with schools they come out of general taxation. If it was a levy on parents who currently have children in schools then you would find people would be up in arms over it - but this is what you are suggesting for broadband. Personally I would be very happy not to pay for schools as I don't have kids either but it is part of my social responsibility - the same as the fact I pay towards BDUK despite the fact my cab was enabled under commercial terms rather than social good.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Otherwise the costs of installing a cab are shared amongst all users, present and future. If too few people sign up then BT make a loss on the cab.

If its a BDUK cabinet it is, effectively, the Government that make a loss right?

Openreach have already been paid.

Depends on the level of gap funding Government paid for.

The idea of loss is different for BDUK, since by having a cabinet enabled even if not one person subscribes you have added the potential for people to use it and thus uk.gov gains from higher coverage figures and meeting the target.

It might fail value for money criteria, raising a question over whether investing elsewhere would have been a better option.

Cash-rich cellular operator, Vodafone plc, has promised to invest in Britain's fibre infrastructure; but only on condition that Openreach, the network operator, is spun-off from the rest of BT Group.

From The Guardian (July 24, 2015) -- http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/24/voda...

Vodafone says it would invest if BT's broadband arm becomes separate firm

Vodafone has fuelled the debate about the future of BT, saying it would be prepared to become a shareholder in any new company owning the UK�s largest telephone and broadband network.

Rivals are calling for BT to be split in two, with its Openreach division, which builds and maintains its network of copper and fibre-optic cables, spun into a separate company. Telecoms watchdog Ofcom is considering the idea in its first strategic review of the broadband market for a decade.

�We would be prepared to put equity in a vehicle that could deliver fibre to us and also other companies, whether it is an independent Openreach or a similar vehicle,� said Vodafone�s chief executive, Vittorio Colao.

[...]

A condition for Vodafone�s investment in a national broadband company would be that all internet service providers, such as Sky, TalkTalk, Vodafone and the rump of BT, would have equal access to its cables. Colao said any new infrastructure should be of the highest quality, with fibre-optic cables running all the way to the doorstep of homes and businesses. Fibre to the doorstep allows speeds of up to 1,000 megabits per second. This compares to an average UK speed of 23 megabits per second.

BT last week warned a decision to split the company in two could lead to a decade of litigation. Instead, it is proposing to invest an estimated £4bn over ten years to upgrade its broadband service with a technology called G.fast. This would use new equipment on old copper wires, allowing download speeds of up to 500 megabits per second by 2025. Upload speeds � transferring data from computers to the internet � would be slower.

In a jibe at BT�s massive investment in football broadcasting, Colao said: �It�s important that the UK gets more fibre and not more expensive football.�

In Italy, Vodafone has teamed up with rival mobile operator Wind to offer to buy a stake in the partly state-owned fibre-optic company Metroweb. The Italian government is planning to invest �6bn (£4.2bn) to build high-speed networks across the country.

Vodafone is advocating using Metroweb as a vehicle for a shared national fibre infrastructure, and Colao said the same could happen in the UK. Such a project would avoid wasted resources, he argued, by deterring fibre companies from digging up the roads twice to build competing networks in the same neighbourhoods. �It�s better to share, and compete at the service level, rather than all build in the same areas.�

Is there anyone serious left, beyond the corporate stooges and shills, who still wants Openreach to be shackled to BT Group?!