[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 30/07/10 15:22, John Williams wrote:
My main argument against the tax was I'd be paying 50p for a line that I only have to get BB and in the knowledge that that 50p would go to someone else in a town getting an upgrade first. I think there are about 20 houses down here 5-6 miles from the exchange. So BT would have fork out maybe Â10-20K to upgrade us to fibre, so that they can get maybe Â1 a month more from those with internet? I would have probably had the phone cut off rather than pay it - working on the principle that most of my neighbours can get mobile coverage and were going to drop their BT lines if the tax had come on.On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 15:00 +0100, James Fidell wrote: Agreed with so many points.As to whether people in such situations should pay more to get high speed internet access, I'm not really sure. If it's regarded as sufficiently important that the govt mandates that everyone who wants it should be able to get it, I think perhaps not. I'd argue that where provision of a service is deemed to be to everyone's benefit or is considered essential then the cost should be the same for everyone. Sometimes that means some people subsidise the cost of some services for other people, but it's far from a one-way street. That's the way civilised societies ought to work as far as I'm concerned. I realise that others may not share this view, but by definition they're clearly inadequately civilised :)I'm with you on this, but didn't labour try and suggest that every one in the country pay just 50p per month on there fixed line rental to help roll out better internet around the country.
You cant do anything with a tax that doesn't bring in any money. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq