Martin Jay wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2009 04:10:06 -0500, ad
...@ng2000.com wrote:
>> http://www.ng2000.com/blog/2008/11/10/uk-broadband/
>> The UK Conservative Party plans to scrap a proposed tax
>> on landline telephone bills, revenues from which will be used
>> to fund an upgrade of the country's broadband
>> infrastructure, if it should win the 2010 election.
> Presumably something a little more substantial than a blog entry will
> appear about this sometime?
> Political parties claim they will or won't do all sorts of things But
> that doesn't mean they will or won't.
> If we want improvements to broadband someone will have to pay for it
> eventually. If it's not a relatively low charge of 50p per month paid
> by every phone customer it'll have to be a higher charge paid by
> fewer, presumably only those who subscribe to a broadband service.
> So, perhaps it's a choice between all phone customers paying their
> telco an extra 50p a month, or all broadband customers paying their
> ISP, say, an extra GBP1 a month.
> Presumably this charge or non-charge only applies to customers who
> subscribe to a service which uses an Openreach line?
> I suppose there's also the additional argument of why customers who
> live in highly populated areas should subsidise those, such as myself,
> who live in more remote ones.
Internet usage has already replaced a large chunk of
the letter service (while creating growth in the
parcels one), so it does make some sense to suggest a
comparable subsidy. The downside is that subsidies
generally remove any incentive to come up with
cost-effective alternatives (e.g. wireless networks),
just as the current postal subsidy may be hindering
progress towards increased electronic communications.
Not to get OT, but the current postal dispute prompted
me to wonder if residential users could manage without
doorstep deliveries. A lot more of my wanted mail
could come by e-mail if I chose (it's mainly habit
that stops me), and most of the rest (unsolicited)
could go into the real-world junk filter. If the
Royal Mail were to send users an electronic message
saying "you've got mail" in their personal PO Box,
they could go collect it at their convenience,
preferably at a nominated point closer than the usual
edge-of-town sorting depot, maybe their local
supermarket or even Post Office, giving those
institutions a renewed purpose without relying on
gimmicky, non-core services (Roger Moore? Really?)
The premium service - e.g. for country-dwellers -
could e-mail the scanned envelope (or even contents)
and offer a "reply", "return-to-sender" or "NKATA"
option. It would be a big step from where we are now,
but we seem to be heading in that direction anyway.
To get back OT, it would all need a much more
universal internet service than we have at present.
IOW, shift the subsidy from paper mail to electronic
delivery by, for example, gradually reducing the
frequency of doorstep deliveries. I doubt this would
do much for industrial relations, though some staff
might prefer to spend more time in sorting offices and
less on a delivery walk.
Getting back to the subject, even allowing for their
general opposition to taxes/subsidies, it seems odd
that the Tories would pick on a proposal that might
benefit their own natural constituencies in rural or
suburban areas. This, after the recent announcement
on pensions affecting a large number of older voters,
suggests either (a) they're so confident of victory
they don't mind annoying potential supporters or (b)
for all their expensive education, the current
leadership members are not that smart. Of course,
arrogance and incompetence are far from being mutually
exclusive!
|
