Dave wrote on Dec 12
th, 2009 at 12:10am:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you can have broadband only is on Virgin Media's cable network. Should we not be allowed ADSL only from BT (and other suppliers)?
Personally, i think you should.
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 12
th, 2009 at 2:49am:
There are indeed many who would argue that broadband should only be provided to those who are prepared to pay the actual cost of providing it. They would make the case that those who live in rural areas should pay far more than those who live in towns because of the greater per unit cost of providing it.
There is no easy, right answer to that. Actually, I think everyone regardless of where you are should pay the same. Some ADSL providers charge more if you're outside their 'area' than those that live inside their area. This is mainly due to how their connected to the internet.
Quote:The basic reason why we have a disturbingly high structural deficit is because taxation is too low in relation to spending.
That is technically true but the deficit became even more disturbingly high due to gov bailing (nearly) all the banks out. Going by what I read banks took a lot of risks because they were able to and unhindered from gov, all in the name of higher bonuses.
Quote:This is no new announcement, the proposal has now reached the stage of a public consultation. The government argued in Stephen Carter's work "Digital Britain", which was published in the Summer, that this is most equitable way of raising the money necessary to subsidise broadband provision for the vast majority of the country, notably in areas where it would otherwise not be thought economic.
My main problem is that those that have a landline only and don't want/need broadband are also forced to pay.
Oh and why is it called a landline duty when I thought the term 'broadband duty' would be more fitting as it is only those that will benefit?