Coalition government announced broadband policy - your view?

[miriam_idnet]

Coalition government announced broadband policy

"If necessary, we will consider using the part of the TV licence fee that is supporting the digital switchover to fund broadband in areas that the market alone will not reach."

Do you think its right for the TV licence fee to support broadband enhancement in remote areas?

[Rik]

No, you might as well put a tax on motorists to pay for it, Miriam. Oh, wait, they probably will. The TV licence, much as I loathe it, shouldn't be turned more into a general tax than it already has been.

[Bill]

Do you think its right for the TV licence fee to support broadband enhancement in remote areas?

Doesn't seem too unreasonable considering how much BBC content is now dependent on the 'net.

And there's no point in waiting for BT to do it

[Lance]

I think that BTshould have to pay more tax on their profits which can then be reinvested in rural broadband. Interestingly, at work BT have offered to make two local towns wireless for £40-50k each, after telling us in a presentation that they don't believe wireless is the way to go. 

[Simon]

I wonder what proportion of broadband use is BBC content? 

[Rik]

I'm with you, Lance. BT Openreach will reap the profits, let them pay for the infrastructure. Oh, and while we're at it, let's get rid of the deadbeat Ofcom.

[Rik]

I wonder what proportion of broadband use is BBC content? 

Quite a lot, Simon. The BBC should, imo fund the transmission of their material on the web, just as they have to pay for transmitters.

[Simon]

I agree, but out of the current licence fee, or with additional funds?

[Rik]

That should come out of the current licence fee. I just don't believe the licence fee should fund a high-speed rollout. It makes the TV licence tax just that, and I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

[gizmo71]

Everyone wants something for nothing.

If it can't survive on its own commercial merit and we're not prepared to fund it out of general taxation then we shouldn't be doing it.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and simply slapping a tax on BT won't hurt them - they'll just hike up the prices for everyone. You can't make something we can't afford affordable by mandating it.

[kinmel]

If the current TV Tax is higher than it needs to be it should be reduced, not spent elsewhere.  It will never go down if it can be repeatedly sliced for other uses.

The BBC should also withdraw 60% or more of their web presence and reduce the TV Tax accordingly.

If it needs public funding then the Government should take back ownership of just the telephone cable ducting, upgrade it to fibre and then sell/utilise it in the same way that gas and electricity distribution systems are.

Government would do better encouraging Rutland Telecom type solutions

[dujas]

I thought Labour had the right idea in the Telephone tax, except it should only of been charged on broadband subscription services. Use the tax to subsidise BT Openreach/Wholesale's (no other choice really) deployment of 21CN WBC/FTTC in Market 1 exchange areas, couple it with a gradually increasing legal requirement for minimum download speeds.

They could also allow BT Openreach to vary the telephone line rental, dependant on exchange size/profitability, instead of a flat rate across the country. In the same way other utility companies can ask the regulator for % increase on bills to cover infrastructure upgrade costs in certain areas.

[quandam]

I think the operative words are  ' If necessary' (see a fuller version below)

>>>>>"We will introduce measures to ensure the rapid roll-out of superfast broadband across the country. We will ensure that BT and other infrastructure providers allow the use of their assets to deliver such broadband, and we will seek to introduce superfast broadband in remote areas at the same time as in more populated areas. If necessary, we will consider using the part of the TV licence fee that is supporting the digital switchover to fund broadband in areas that the market alone will not reach."<<<<<

At least they have a plan   to do something for rural areas, it may not be perfect and may take many years to implement but a plan nonetheless. Quite encouraged that the subject has even been discussed and a plan offered at such an early stage of the ConDem alliance.

[Rik]

I thought Labour had the right idea in the Telephone tax, except it should only of been charged on broadband subscription services. Use the tax to subsidise BT Openreach/Wholesale's (no other choice really) deployment of 21CN WBC/FTTC in Market 1 exchange areas, couple it with a gradually increasing legal requirement for minimum download speeds.

I'd agree to that if there was also a levy on the profits BT achieved from our investment in their infrastructure.

[Niall]

I really think that they should be forced to spend all money made from it, into rolling out broadband everywhere. After all, they are the ones that will profit from it. The sooner the whole country is rolled out, the better things can be (or attempt to be at least).

If you were an investor surely you'd see that you were putting your money into something that will be around for a long time, and making money for you in a big way, as soon as the expenditure was over.

Still, maybe using common sense doesn't apply anymore.

[Rik]

It hasn't for a while, sadly, Niall. Short term profits rule.

[zappaDPJ]

Coalition government announced broadband policy
Do you think its right for the TV licence fee to support broadband enhancement in remote areas?

No I don't, I think the TV licence should be scrapped as virtually everyone has a TV and the BBC should be funded from a proportional increase in taxes. The money saved by scrapping administration and enforcement coupled with the increased revenue gained from current licence dodgers would probably fund rather a lot of remote infrastructure.

[gizmo71]

No I don't, I think the TV licence should be scrapped as virtually everyone has a TV and the BBC should be funded from a proportional increase in taxes. The money saved by scrapping administration and enforcement coupled with the increased revenue gained from current licence dodgers would probably fund rather a lot of remote infrastructure.

[pctech]

The TV Tax should be scrapped, end of.

If the Beeb cant survive well then so be it.

Peronally I'd like to see some of the tax I pay being used for stuff like this but there should be a new publicly owned company to build and manage it, not BT who wouldn't be rolling out 21CN if it wasn't beneficial to have a centrally managed system.

I agree that ofcom should be disbanded but there should be a more efficient organisation set up to enforce rules to ensure the customer gets a good deal and unscrupulous operators don't get away with ripping off the customer.

[drummer]

If the BBC is funded from general taxation, any government will be able to influence what the BBC produces and reports.

Like it or lump it, the license fee allows the BBC to be an impartial voice.  Labour and Conservative politicians always moan about BBC bias when they're in power and hate the fact that the BBC is impartial.

Imagine a world where the government of the day (the holder of the purse) tells the BBC what it can or cannot report.  Love it or loathe it, the licensing model represents a genuine bulwark against government interference in the editorial and artistic output of the the most significant broadcaster on the planet.

Back on topic though, I don't think it's right that a percentage of the license fee should be siphoned off to subsidise the private sector's woeful shortcomings in the roll-out of "superfast broadband for all".

I willingly pay my license fee to fund the BBC, not to subsidise BT.

[Gary]

I hardly think the beeb is impartial these days, they have stood and made their political stand a few times in the last few years.

[pctech]

The Beeb is and always has been a state broadcaster.

If the Government want a mouthpiece they should fund it, not tax us again.

[Ted]

Coalition government announced broadband policy

Do you think its right for the TV licence fee to support broadband enhancement in remote areas?

Quite frankly, no, I don't! How does that work for people who have TV, but don't use BB?

As someone already said, If there is a surplus in the License fund, then that surplus should be reflected in a reduction of, or refund of the License fee. Alternatively it should be used to fund better programming, which after all, is what it's meant for.

However, I have no objection in principle to paying a small "surcharge" on my Internet bill (not phone bill), providing that it's used solely for the enhancement of BB services, in ALL areas. You don't have to live in a remote area to be classified as a second class BB customer.

[Rik]

Tell me about it, Ted.

[drummer]

I hardly think the beeb is impartial these days, they have stood and made their political stand a few times in the last few years.

Not sure what you're referring to Gary - could you elaborate on this?

I think Mark Thompson is a bit of a joke who's made some really bad decisions but nevertheless, had to take into account the authoritarian instincts of the New Labour government.  The independence of the BBC remains intact though, despite the mendacity and vindictiveness of Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson.

[drummer]

I agree that ofcom should be disbanded but there should be a more efficient organisation set up to enforce rules to ensure the customer gets a good deal and unscrupulous operators don't get away with ripping off the customer.

In other words, you want a "super" regulator to regulate the other regulators.

Who will regulate this "super" regulator?  Another regulator perhaps?  A "super-duper" regulator even.

I wonder who would fund this super duper-regulator - the industries or the taxpayers?

You already know the answer so I won't labour the point.

[pctech]

Needs to be tax funded so it is impartial.

Trouble with ofcom is they make so much money from the various bizarre stuff that is licenced it is not in their interest to really get tough with companies.

[gizmo71]

Needs to be tax funded so it is impartial.

Can you explain how tax funding ensures impartiality?

Playing devil's advocate, one could certainly see how government funding could result in a lack of impartiality...

[pctech]

Simple

Interview panel should be made up of the public picked at random as happens with jury service.

They should pick people that have never worked for BT for starters but do have a telecoms background (indie ISPs perhaps)

[dujas]

Although this is just a case of a company wanting some free publicity, I do agree with their statement:

Fibrestream, a community network specialist for Next Generation Internet Access (NGA) services, has called on Ofcom  to force BT into revealing either the list of postcodes for the 66% of the UK population where BT will be investing in superfast fibre optic broadband services ( FTTC  , FTTH  / P ), or the Final Third where it will not.

I do think it's crazy that Ofcom and the Government are just going to sit on their hands for the next five years, in a wait and see what BT do approach.

However a BT spokesperson told us that what is being proposed here "is not in the spirit of competition and bad for consumer choice." The operator adds that where Openreach is rolling out fibre, people have a choice of broadband providers because they're "making it available on an equivalence of access basis to all Communications Providers (CPs)."

BT continues on to say that the idea of giving small providers "effective monopolies over 30% of the UK" could run the risk of allowing those "unregulated monopolies" to charge whatever they wanted to customers, and tie residents in to "one provider forever". Ironically that is perhaps how a lot of remote residents already feel under BT, but then BT probably wouldn't even be there if there wasn't a legal obligation upon them to do it.

Full article here.

[Rik]

So BT don't think it harmful that their choosing who gets and who does not is bad. What a surprise.