I totally agree with John Peesbody, Brenda, it’s 2008, get a life.

Report abuse

Um… Has no-one noticed the irony of publishing online a letter about not having internet access?

Genius!

“I’ve been forced to buy a service to cover me for digital television” What? You mean a TV licence?

She’s also not paying £6 a year to support broadband as that cost’s not been introduced yet.

Will someone print these comments off and post them to her please?

Report abuse

Brenda, it’s a TAX my dear.

It’s one of many taxes that the government imposes on us. It’s to pay for those grand “infrastructure projects” which should have been paid for during the boom years while Gordon was “investing” (most of us actually prefer the terms “spending” or “wasting”) our money on government largesse.

Get used to it, you’re going to have to pay far more of these type of “taxes” in the future.

And as for digital – more boxes sold, more VAT for the government. In USA, they gave vouchers to everybody to offset the cost. Poorer people could buy one without any further cost while those who chose to do so could get a more expensive set and offset the cost with the voucher.

Report abuse

Although I do sympathise with B A Flower’s anger at being forced to pay for something that he/she does not use I fail to see what the big deal is…I have been paying full price for a colour TV license for donkeys years and I am yet to watch any of the BBC channels, I pay for Sky and use that, along with shop bought DVD’s (which you also need a license for) and used videos in the past. I never watch BBC, nor will I ever watch it, and yet I still have to pay out, so why shoulnd’t you?

Report abuse

get a job!

Report abuse

This IS a very interesting debate.

As an Internet Service Provider, I’ll be very honest, and say I can’t really decide whether I’m for this or against it.

In the early days of Broadcasting (cc 1920′s), when there was only the BBC,
(Borne out of a few radio transmitting sites – most famous was G2LO?)
…. it might have been in order to pay for the service by way of a licence fee

(And that was for Radio, a seperate one for car radio (Yes -that’s right!!) , and a seperate TV licence (1936 onwards), which of course several years ago was rolled up into one).

BUT .. I think that WAS different. MUCH different

The licence fee enabled the introduction of Public Service Broadcasting (i.e Radio) in the early part of the 20th Century, and I don’t think anyone at the time begrudged paying it – as NO ONE ever before had been able to communicate further** that you could shout!

**Similarly – during the same time, the telegraph and telephone were being developed, and in those days, even into the 50′s and 60′s .. you were SOMEONE if you had a telephone! …. and YES you PAID for it.

Don’t forget in those days it was ONLY the GPO – part of the post office* – that provided the phone service (so it was paid for out of service charges and taxation?)

* -anyone remember the Dark Green Morris Vans with the crown emblem showing “Post Office Telephones”?!

HOWEVER, TODAY it’s VERY different.

We have all grown up.

Radio, TV , Telephones, (landline and mobile), have all become VERY commonplace. – and are provided in the main by private enterprise.

The internet is also no exception.

The internet has grown from the original ARPA NET in the USA in the early ’60′s, to what it is now, a global resource provided by many different providers world wide.

And so – That resource (the internet) is now also commonplace. Even the Inland revenue is insisting on TAX returns being made on line.

However –

The ONE glaring point in all this is:

THE “TV” LICENCE FEE.

This seems to be the precedent for “overall” charging (taxing) for resources, and this is what I think I CANNOT accept.

I Have to say, on balance, that all these resources should be provided by (private)organisations willing to provide them, and the cost born by those wishing to use it. In other words if you use it, you pay for it.

(And that of course would mean the abolition of the licence fee, since unless you actually “use” the BBC service, why should you pay for it? -Technology can EASILY provide for a “pay as you view” service – (

which could EASILY have been inroduced as an alternative to the licence fee in the days of BskyB – (anyone remember “squarials”?)

To charge a blanket fee seems to me to be the thin edge of the wedge.
We will end up with another “licence fee” – with similar draconian measures to make sure you pay it.

And as sure as “eggs is eggs” the £6.00 will grow to the same size as the licence fee.

Mark my words!!

Report abuse

Without prejudice, and please take this in the correct context John Smith. If you are well enough to write such articulate messages on a public forum such as this, then are you not well enough to work from home a few hours a week? Not directly aimed at you as I’m sure your circumstances are genuine and valid. However its very common to come across people that could be very useful to society and the economy if they were to get jobs that utilised the abilities they do have such as computer use etc.

Still what do I know?

x

Report abuse

answer = because the private sector wont

what do you think the government is for if not to paper over the cracks in the markets

you all live rurally in Shropshire right? well BT, Virgin et al dont find it profitable to sell you broad band in the sticks ergo the public sector steps in or you go without

Report abuse

I agree with askeric dotcom, I pay for my broadband.

Report abuse