"Bandwidth (Peter)" wrote in message
...
"George Weston" wrote...

I heard that Yorkshiremen were mean but giving up the landline to avoid
paying a measly 50p extra per month?

It may well seem "measly" to you rich suverners :~)


It's not really just about the money. It's also about who gets
that money, who controls or uses it and who has the power over
the providers.

In general, we are each with the ISP who we believe offers
us the best service (or the least bad). What we pay them goes
into providing the service that we are paying for.
The fact that they rely on the customer to provide that money
means that they should do whatever they can to keep those
customers happy. If they charge an extra 6 Quid per year to
fund improvements to their service, which those paying it will
see the benefit of, then all is fine.

As I read it, the 50p per month will be a levy, not a tax, and will be
ring-fenced for broadband improvement, which would take years to achieve
given the available (or not) funds during the current downturn.
Also, it will be collected by fixed-line suppliers, not ISPs.
So, no chance of any of it leaking away into government coffers - or to ISPs
for that matter.

George

and will be
ring-fenced

You jest. The money from parking meters was to be
ring fenced to provide off street parking and clear our
cities of congestion at a stroke.

All we got was a load of jobsworths, a mountain of
pen pushers and bean counters to administer it, and
now that it has failed, congestion charges.

Beeching killed off the rail network that was
to get people into our cities. Now my colleagues
who live in or near Station Road's arrive late after
being stuck in gridlock. And the old defunct rail
route runs parallel to the gridlocked road only
a few hundred yards away.
Still Beeching was under the Conservatives, so I won't be
trusting them again. Wasn't Lamont managing the
Exchequer and ended up devalueing? Shows how good
they are at managing the economy.

"George Weston" wrote in message
...
"Bandwidth (Peter)" wrote in message
...
"George Weston" wrote...
snip
As I read it, the 50p per month will be a levy, not a tax, and will be
ring-fenced for broadband improvement, which would take years to achieve
given the available (or not) funds during the current downturn.
Also, it will be collected by fixed-line suppliers, not ISPs.
So, no chance of any of it leaking away into government coffers - or to
ISPs for that matter.
George

If you believe that then i have some bad news for you, Santa Claus
and the Tooth Fairy are your parents, they lied to you.

Steve Terry

"Ato_Zee" wrote in message
...

and will be
ring-fenced

You jest. The money from parking meters was to be
ring fenced to provide off street parking and clear our
cities of congestion at a stroke.

All we got was a load of jobsworths, a mountain of
pen pushers and bean counters to administer it, and
now that it has failed, congestion charges.

Beeching killed off the rail network that was
to get people into our cities. Now my colleagues
who live in or near Station Road's arrive late after
being stuck in gridlock. And the old defunct rail
route runs parallel to the gridlocked road only
a few hundred yards away.
Still Beeching was under the Conservatives, so I won't be
trusting them again. Wasn't Lamont managing the
Exchequer and ended up devalueing? Shows how good
they are at managing the economy.

Well, go off at tangents if you like but that's what the report says - and
it's widely publicised all over the net, so if the dosh doesn't go into the
independent fund and get spent on fibre, etc., there will be millions who
might just have a little go at whoever's in power - especially as there will
be a general election coming up next year.
Governments might have got away with such stuff as you mention years ago
before the information revolution occurred but now? I think we've all woken
up. Example: the MPs' expenses scandal...

George

On 29-Jun-2009, "George Weston" wrote:

Governments might have got away with such stuff as you mention years ago
before the information revolution occurred but now?

They still get away with it. Mr Bean Brown loves soundbites, knowing
he won't have to implement it. Who ever gets in will just absorb the
money, fibre a couple of areas, trumpet how good they are doing,
more sound bites, and put the rest on the backburner until the
next election, then set up a Commission to report on how to move
it forward, to report after the election.
Politicians get us into wars, economic mess, and never reflect
the will of the people who elect them, except when forced into an
embarassing U-turn, like over the Gurkhas.
If the government gives the money to BT they will just absorb
most ot it and only do the easy profitable bits.
Only way forward is to break BT's monopoly on the ducts and
that ain't going to happen.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:45:37 GMT, "Ato_Zee"
wrote:


On 29-Jun-2009, "George Weston" wrote:

Governments might have got away with such stuff as you mention years ago
before the information revolution occurred but now?

They still get away with it. Mr Bean Brown loves soundbites, knowing
he won't have to implement it. Who ever gets in will just absorb the
money, fibre a couple of areas, trumpet how good they are doing,
more sound bites, and put the rest on the backburner until the
next election, then set up a Commission to report on how to move
it forward, to report after the election.
Politicians get us into wars, economic mess, and never reflect
the will of the people who elect them, except when forced into an
embarassing U-turn, like over the Gurkhas.
If the government gives the money to BT they will just absorb
most ot it and only do the easy profitable bits.
Only way forward is to break BT's monopoly on the ducts and
that ain't going to happen.

I fear you are correct. Successive governments have a good record of
being able to "fool some of the people all of the time".

By the next general election there will be too few of us that even
remember the Iraq war/MP expenses scandal/Cash for honours etc. to
count.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.