Triple whammy broadband tax in UK Finance Bill
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 08 December 2009
A double taxation, plus the likelihood of restricted Internet access under proposed copyright measures, will begin to make UK broadband services less attractive. And is it just a subsidy to BT and NTL/Virgin?
A tax on broadband will be included in the Finance Bill, to be announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report tomorrow. The tax of 50p per month per phone line is designed to make a contribution towards the installation of fibre lines to UK homes.
For residential broadband subscribers with one fixed phone line, it will be an additional $6 per month on top of their usual payment. But for those who
run a business business from home, and who have two phone lines, it represents an extra £12 per month.Homes with a cable connection and a separate phone line will also pay to lots of the new tax.
For businesses with switchboards, and multiple incoming lines, the monthly outgoings will be considerably higher. According to the Digital Britain Report, the tax will apply to all business analogue telephony lines, and ISDN-2 lines. Thus we can expect to see a consequential rise charges for other services, as those businesses pass on the new tax.
The Daily Telegraph has raised this issue based on a leaked document, stating that a government spokesman ‘refused to comment'. However, it doesn't need a leaked document to work this out, just a knowledge of telecommunications. What the Telegraph report does clarify, however, is that the per line tax will in fact be a double tax, because it will attract value added tax.
The stated reason for the broadband tax is to fund access to broadband for people in "hard-to-reach" locations - an undefined concept which could mean anything from geniune remote locations such as the Highlands and Islands (which have traditionally received subsidies for installation of upgraded telecoms equipment) to places which are not remote, just poorly served by their current exhange. An example is a village down the road from me here in Berkshire, just 35 miles from London, which, I was surprised to read recently, does not have broadband.
People could be paying the broadband tax on the pretext of some form of ‘charity' to remote regions, only to find that they are just subsidising BT or NTL/Virgin who have been miserly about investing in upgrading telephone exchanges.
However, the Digital Economy Bill says nothing about a universal service obligation, or broadband network coverage. Hence the question, what is the tax going to pay for?
The other issue which the Telegraph article does not raise, is the triple whammy on the UK broadband users. At the same time as being double-taxed on their communications facilities, people in the UK are also going to be subject to restrictions on their Internet services, to support the copyright industries. Such restrictions are detailed in the the Digital Economy Bill. They include 3-strikes copyright enforcement measures, which will have to be implemented using deep packet inspection and traffic management systems. The measures cover all kinds of alleged infringements and are not limited to peer-to-peer filesharing, and the Digital Economy Bill leaves the options open for other measures as yet unspecified.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2009) Triple whammy broadband tax in UK Finance Bill http://www.iptegrity.com 8 December 2009.
- Article Views: 9002
IPtegrity politics
- Shadow bans: EU law says users may not be left in the dark
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Shadow bans: EU law says users may not be left in the dark
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill