Why you could pay more broadband tax than BT

On the other hand...

If the big companies have already invested in a better solution, why should they be taxed for improving a service they don't use?

No longer active? Do you mean disconnected or connected and the standing charge is paid every month?

By big_D on 15 Dec 2009

Their customers use it...

"If the big companies have already invested in a better solution, why should they be taxed for improving a service they don't use?"

Well I would suspect that the customers of these big customers do use broadband to access their services and hence they are profiting from that service (broadband) so why shouldn't they pay?

And even though they have bespoke telecom solutions, they still use the BT network for outgoing and incoming calls. In a nutshell, a lot of large companies benefit from customers accessing their services via broadband....so they should pay

By everton2004 on 15 Dec 2009

Whilst the principle that big companies pay less seems fundamentally wrong I find it hard to believe that having to pay an extra £6 per year for the odd disconnected line is going to be a hardship for any small company, so why are we making a fuss about this?

By jgwilliams on 15 Dec 2009

This does raise an issue over future infrastructure. even I know that I'm not paying for ISPs to invest in the future, lay down a few more bundles of fibre and what not.

While I wouldn't like it, if I was asked to pay another £10 a month by my ISP under the contractual promise of a symmetric 10mb line by 2011 I think it would be fair to do so, but this should be put towards a "future infrastructure fund" directly from the ISP, not to OFCOM (who would waste it) nor to the government.

As it is, we all know this tax will be spent on something else - like MP's expenses, HoC loo roll or some PFI con.

There is also the issue that this is a taxed tax, as VAT will bump the price up even further until buying broadband is as expensive as buying fuel.

By bubbles16 on 15 Dec 2009

_________________

"admits that consumers and small businesses are likely to pay more than huge corporations."

Much like the tax system then?

By Lacrobat on 15 Dec 2009

50P per month?

It is what the government do with the rest of the money that annoys me.

By Alperian on 15 Dec 2009

Tax Tax Tax

Why not tax people for using an operating system and send the mponey to the likes of microsoft? Why not let the broadband companies pay for the network that they will make money out of?

By Kotty on 15 Dec 2009

"However, customers of Virgin Media - who receive their broadband over coaxial cable and their telephone over a separate copper line - will only be asked to pay once."

I can't help feeling that as I pay for a service run by a private company (Virgin), that I've already paid - I can't see any of this money going back into funding Virgin to extend its network??

By halsteadk on 15 Dec 2009

Having worked for BT if a customer ceases a line it is marked as a spare line and the BT Billing system would be unable to raise a charge against it. If the line hasn't been ceased then the charge would be raised. I'm not sure why a Company that was down sizing would continue to pay rental on lines that were not being used. If a line is used for outgoing calls then there would be call records but customers do use lines for incoming only quite legitimately.

There are ways in which large customers with bespoke installations could be charged more but this would require considerable complexity in drafting the tax rules (and don't forget that the largest user is the Government).

The other losers are consumers and firms that do not pay VAT. They will pay an extra 17.5% whilst larger firms that pay VAT will be able to recover this charge.

By dave_burns on 17 Dec 2009

Dangerous precedent

The danger I forsee here is that of the media barons chipping-in and wanting a share to cover copyright material. That could lead to am 'Internet Licence' like the TV Licence, levied whether or not you use the media services, simply because you are theoretically able to do so.

By Anteaus on 17 Dec 2009

Why do those, who will never be on broadband, pay this tax. The number of phone lines is going to decline even faster than in USA. And no-one will know eachother phone numbers in an emergency. Should tax those already on broadband, to extend the privelidge to others. And dump money on BBC rather than BT.

By EconSim on 17 Dec 2009

Labour Ripoff

Just another of this idotic governments ideas which have not been thought through. None of this tax will go towards faster broadband.

By birdmaniw on 17 Dec 2009

Why Should I Pay For Somebody Else's Broadband?

Nobody else pays for my broadband.

If it is more expensive to provide broadband in remote areas, then people living there should pay more to cover those costs. People living in remote areas gain advantages such as cheaper housing, more peace and quiet etc. Surely then they should pay for any disadvantages.

Besides, nobody is forced to live in remote areas, it is their choice to do so. Why should I be taxed for other people's choices?

By digitallogic on 19 Dec 2009