Every Household To Pay £20 Internet Piracy Tax

[Dukesy 0]

 

Every household to pay £20 internet piracy tax as Government announces 'broadband for all' plan

 

By Paul Revoir and Michael Lea

29th January 2009

 

Every home in the UK will have to pay an internet piracy tax as part of a new Government commitment to give every household broadband access by 2012.

 

Lord Carter's Digital Britain report suggested scrapping BT's obligation to provide fix line access and instead rolling out the new technology.

 

A so-called Universal Service Commitment would see everybody able to watch video online, including the BBC iPlayer, and put Britain at the vanguard of new internet technology.

 

The government also announced its plans to legislate around illegal internet file sharing, which would see online providers force to tell those breaking rules their conduct is unlawful.

 

Internet service providers will be required to collect information on serious repeat offenders and hand over details to music and film companies that own the content. They will then be subject to court orders.

 

As part of the clampdown the government will launch a rights agency to bring together figures in the industry to agree how to encourage and people to stop the practice.

 

The new rights agency would be funded via a levy - believed to be £20 - on internet service providers (ISPs) and the music and film industry.

 

Other conclusions could include a levy on broadband bills to compensate film and music companies for their losses from illegal downloads - which could a total of £1 billion over the next five years - and for Channel 4 to be pushed into a merger to ensure its future as a public service broadcaster.

 

Estimates suggest the cost of the universal broadband could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

It is likely to be funded by service providers, such as BT, Sky and Virgin, as well as mobile phone operators, broadcasters and web content owners.

 

That raises the prospect that the BBC, which operates the popular iPlayer system to watch programmes online, could have some of the licence fee ring-fenced to help pay for the roll out.

 

Ministers see the communications sector as a growth industry for the country that can help boost the economy. The sector contributes £50billion to the UK, and the Government believes it will be the backbone of the nation's economy in the years to come.

 

'Internet access is not just about entertainment,' one source said last night.

 

'It is also an essential tool for business and learning. There's a social case for this commitment.'

 

About 40 per cent of homes did not have broadband by last year, according to Ofcom and some households - especially in remote areas - lack the necessary infrastructure to support it.

 

Under the Government’s universal service obligation, BT must provide fixed-line phone services and narrowband internet access to every household that wants them at a cost of up to £74million a year.

 

Communications Minister Lord Carter said this month that broadband 'is an enabling and transformatory service and therefore we have to look at how we universalise it'.

 

His final report, Digital Britain, will be published in June. It will outline plans to boost the internet and communications industries, as well as dealing with illegally copying and sharing music and films online.

 

The Times reported that Lord Carter is to propose creating a body to mediate between internet service providers (ISPs) and music and film companies.

 

It would provide information about people who repeatedly infringe copyright by copying and sharing files, and be paid for by a levy on ISPs, the paper said. Such a charge could be passed on to broadband customers.

 

Professor Martin Cave, a telecommunications expert from Warwick Business School, said the country needed to create a network of fast fibre optic connections.

 

'Large-scale fibre optic investment is essential and UK policymakers must resist introducing any sort of regulation that deters private companies from spending the money needed to upgrade our internet infrastructure,' he said.

 

'With the increasing use of the internet for online gaming and downloading music, we need to allow the internet to evolve and develop in order to cope with these new demands.

 

'New technologies such as the BBC's iPlayer require much faster processing and no delay in transmission.'

 

Lord Carter's report is expected to push for a merger between Channel 4 and either Five or BBC Worldwide to create a viable non-commercial competitor to the BBC.

 

Last week communications watchdog Ofcom warned that Channel 4 faced a bleak future unless such a deal could be reached.

 

In a speech today in London, Gordon Brown said Lord Carter's report 'sets out the scale of our ambition to compete in the digital economy'.

 

He will add: 'Our digital networks will be the backbone of our economy in the decades ahead.

 

'We know that every aspect of our lives - every school, every hospital, every workplace and even every home - will depend on the services the digital network provides.

 

'It is as essential to our future prosperity in the 21st Century as roads, bridges, trains and electricity were in the 20th Century.

 

'So even at this difficult time for the economy, we will not turn our backs on the future. Britain must invest in the industries of the future.'

[andyw 0]

i get sick of hearing about these people breaking the law and how much the government is going to make us all spend to stop it,while i won't condone anyone illegally downloading the music industry and film industry have only got themselves to blame for blatently ripping everyone off for years.it is time this goverment and future goverments(not any party but all of them)started to deal with real crime and real criminals, and give them real punishments for their crimes with appropiate sentencing and make prison a place where they don't want tobe . in the local news today they are on about a paedaphile who is seeking compensation because his human rights have been abused by sending him to prison :protest: ,trust me if i had my way with his sort his human rights would be the last thing he would be worried about: :rant:

[Dukesy 0]

I know what you mean. It does not seem to be getting any better. Seriously folks, time to invest in upgrading your home security, stock up on tinned food and candles, and hope that the climate change STAYS cold to keep the wolves off the streets. We're gonna have a rough ride, some more than others me thinks. Let's be careful out there, and hope that our 'leaders' find a way to work together, as opposed to waving fingers and levelling blame all the time. We need our country heading back up the slope and a little unity would go a long way.

 

:amen:

 

 

[Kingy 0]

Whatever next...??

 

Lets make Harris PM. :damn:

[McCardle 1]

I agree with what Andyw has said. Only in the UK, with the country already facing a very high possibility of total ruin from the worst recession in years, could the glubberment be actively discussing ways of penalising the costs to the average householder and increasing their bills. Well one small consolation is that by 2012, nobody will probably to able to afford the internet, when unemployment is riding at around 8 million and the country is back to the Victorian era, although possibly there won't even be any workhouses left, as they'll all be subcontracting to Poland.

 

For a lot of people, recently, who have found themselves made redundant, the internet is probably a means to brushing up on their work finding skills, and actually finding a job and uploading their CV to places like jobsite.co.uk and it is something of a lifeline to get themselves out of their current situation. Now the glubberment seems to want to tax this tool too - £20 is about 1/3 of the average Jobseekers allowance.

 

Introducing this, seems to indicate that all households are guilty of some form of piracy. Its almost like taxing the parents of every newborn baby £2000 'just in case' their offspring grows up to be a criminal, and costs society money

[dh140770 0]

Its almost like taxing the parents of every newborn baby £2000 'just in case' their offspring grows up to be a criminal, and costs society money

 

Not wanting to get into a tax argument, because they can go on for ever, but i've always found it strange that the government GIVE you money to have children i.e child allowance, as surely it needs more resource from the government to look after your family if you have children.

 

People who don't have children (for whatever reasons) get fleeced by the government for tax and get the least benefits back, on whole. Surely that can't be fair ? Perhaps it's bordering on discrimination.

 

 

 

[McCardle 1]

People who don't have children (for whatever reasons) get fleeced by the government for tax and get the least benefits back, on whole. Surely that can't be fair ? Perhaps it's bordering on discrimination.

 

Agree 100%.

 

I also think that things like Cold Weather payments should be paid to all ages, and not just the elderley (which is actually age discrimination of sorts in itself - discrimation against the young). There are plenty of single people who are working on minimum wage or have been made redundant and are struggling and they feel the cold, and can get ill or have damp in their homes and their utilities have just increased the same as everybody elses, and just the same as older age groups.

 

Some pensioners are actually better off than those who work and to prove the point, its rumoured that the queen maintains protocol and entitlement and actually picks up such payments too!.

 

Benefits should be means tested, and based on income and situation and not just how many birthdays you have had

Edited January 30, 2009 by McCardle

[andyw 0]

Agree 100%.

 

 

 

Benefits should be means tested, and based on income and situation and not just how many birthdays you have had

ok lets put the world or should i say GREAT britain to right here. benefits should be means tested fairly,not so those just above the limit are a lot worse off then those below the limits,child allowance should be means tested( i know a few people who send their money to childrens charities in other countries because they dont need it (while i think they are admirable for doing it it's not what the benifit is for).child allowance should only be given for the first 2 children whatever the families circumstances,it's a crime that some families are able to pick up more in child allowance each month than most of us can earn, having children should not be allowed tobe a career move by some.

i feel better now,sorry dan your topic has been hijacked,but that what taxing us can do to people :ads:

[Dukesy 0]

ok lets put the world or should i say GREAT britain to right here. benefits should be means tested fairly,not so those just above the limit are a lot worse off then those below the limits,child allowance should be means tested( i know a few people who send their money to childrens charities in other countries because they dont need it (while i think they are admirable for doing it it's not what the benifit is for).child allowance should only be given for the first 2 children whatever the families circumstances,it's a crime that some families are able to pick up more in child allowance each month than most of us can earn, having children should not be allowed tobe a career move by some.

i feel better now,sorry dan your topic has been hijacked,but that what taxing us can do to people :ads:

No worries!

I'd go a step further actually....talking about kids, I'd say there are many who are not qualified to have ONE kid in the first place, never mind two or three or four, and so on!

But back on topic.........

[UKHero 0]

Not wanting to get into a tax argument, because they can go on for ever, but i've always found it strange that the government GIVE you money to have children i.e child allowance, as surely it needs more resource from the government to look after your family if you have children.

 

People who don't have children (for whatever reasons) get fleeced by the government for tax and get the least benefits back, on whole. Surely that can't be fair ? Perhaps it's bordering on discrimination.

 

Dont be silly people with children have produced the adults that will pay for your old age... Doh some people

 

 

Nik

[Kingy 0]

" I believe that children are our future...." tongue out icon

 

Good points.

 

And back on topic, what a crap idea.