I’ve read that the recently released government sponsored report ‘Digital Britain’ proposes everyone should be able to have a 2MB broadband link – almost 3 million homes havn’t. Also that higher speed lines should be available to 90% of the population. To fund this a £6 a year tax on all land telephone lines will be made.
Basically I’m against any new taxes and I’m more inclined to think that those without access should pay more towards it, although I’m not against some kind of subsidy.
Where I live my line is up to 8MB on a good day although I pay in hope for 16MB. I’d really like 20MB and my use of the internet might justify it, so should I be subsidised? We havn’t got cable in our area so should that be subsidised?
When you start writing you realise how much you don’t know. I think I’ll update this after doing some research into line speeds in our area. I’d imagine that only those living in the hills might not get 2MB around here. Those living in built up areas should get up to 8MB. Those near exchanges might get 16MB. Then there are the cable customers who already have fast lines.
What technology is round the corner, there is mobile, fibre optic / cable, satellite, electrical mains transmission, television. Underground cable seems a bit old tech to me. Surely wireless is going to be the way forward. Although I’m not convinced that wireless, either mobile phone or home network, isn’t a long term health risk. Then again trains used to have a man with a red flag walking in front of them.
I’d support a national plan that keeps the UK at the forefront but the word ‘tax’, however small it starts at, puts a pallor on the whole thing. Also the rapid changes in technology and variety of providers make large scale uneconomic investment a risky business.