Friday, April 11, 2008

Broadband shafting

In the name of all that's totally fucking unholy, why won't these utter bastards fuck off into the nether darkness and eat their own testicles?
Internet service providers could face a new tax to help pay for unprofitable programmes shown on ITV and Channel 4, which may in turn lead to higher broadband charges for consumers.

The levy could be imposed by the Government on the service providers and websites within the next few years, under proposals published yesterday about the future funding of "public service" programmes which make little or no money for commercial broadcasters.

They "may" lead to higher charges? You think? What planet are you living on, you thick bastards? Of course they will lead to higher broadband charges, you arseholes.

And what if I don't watch these programmes—why the fuck should I have to pay for them? As Timmy points out, there is a reason that these programmes are loss-making.
So why do these programs make little money? Because no one wants to watch them. So why should there be any public subsidy to them? They are clearly producing less value than they cost to produce: this is known as making us all poorer, a destruction of value.

And why should people who deliberately use a different technology, the internet, pay for the failures of an old one, TV? Should we have taxed the car makers to support the buggy whip manufacturers?

This is as silly as taxing dustmen so that Dukes can go to the opera... oh, wait, we do that don’t we?

Why the monkey-crap should broadband providers prop up television? The internet carries far more than television and so why the fuck should I have to pay more in order to underwrite the losses of TV companies? Especially when I don't watch the crappy programmes in the first place?

And—oh my fucking hell—there are just so many unintended consequences to be antcipated here, not least the inevitable shifting in definition of the phrase "public interest programme". Once the TV networks realise that they can get a free subsidy for such broadcasts, you can bet your arse that every programme will start to contain a "public interest" aspect.

Seriously, why don't these fuckers just piss off? There should be no subsidy to any fucking company in any form whatso-fucking-ever. And that includes the sodding BBC.

I really wish you bastards would all fuck off and die...

23 comments:

Vindico said...

And here is the problem - any model other than 'user pays' necessarily means cross subsidy and thus somebody else paying for stuff they don't use.

Mind you, if I was a director of such TV companies, legally duty bound to act in the interests of that company, I would also partake in some corporate rent-seeking and lobby for a tax (thst is, if i did not have principles).

How brilliant to make other people pay a tax to keep my company churning out the dividends to shareholders. God, just think, the shareholders might like me so much I could be in line to replace the CEO when he is ousted!

And thus the cycle continues.

Roger Thornhill said...

I suspect those in the BBC consider shyte like "Eastenders" to be public service, seeing as they use it to create yet another generation of insecure, backbiting, dependent morons that will keep their ghastly political ideology from the bitter wind of reality.

ChrisM said...

How amusing. Only yesterday it was reported that ISPs were saying that BBC should contribute to their costs because the popularity of iPlayer was putting a strain on their infra structure. What goes around comes around I guess. A pox on both their houses.

Rob said...

This is even more bonkers than the TV poll tax. It is nutty enough that people have to pay the BBC a large sum of money simply because they own a television set, but at least 'public service' television programmes are transmitted and received through a TV set.

Why on earth should I pay through broadband access for 'services' I will never, ever use through broadband? Why not levy a charge on the electricity I use, or when I buy a washing machine, and donate that money to ITV?

Frank Fisher said...

this is socialism folks - milking any and every cash cow they can find, to prop up their failing vanity projects - and I'll include cameron's increasingly lefty conservatives in that. All state interventionists.

But... DK, isn't their some contradiction here - regarding BAE, you *want* state intervention - ie laws to prevent corruption overseas - but with regard to this, you don't. Now, it can be argued that BAE was doing no harm here at home - so why would we prosecute them?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Frank,

You might have noticed that it was Martin Kelly who wrote the BAE post.

I have never commented on that one way or another. Make of that what you will...

DK

Roger Thornhill said...

frank,

You point out an interesting issue - extraterritorality.

Now, it is one thing for a stock exchange to have rules that require the delisting of a company that participates in corruption abroad, but another thing entirely for that company to be subject to criminal proceedings.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand this Government, it's as if they don't want to be re-elected.

What fucking worries me is that Dave's team won't be any better.

Jones said...

Ask this question; what is there worth funding on the BBC? Apart from Top Gear?

Tax money to pay for the BBC is like public funding for making medieval armour. It's clunky, outdated and worthless except as an ornament. Shut it down.

Anonymous said...

TV is a visible and handy means of control for our Kommisars, so if it goes tits up how can they put across their messages of Increased Traktor Production?

But they could do more, like tax the newspapers to pay for it too, and books as well, and why not the cinema?

However, not Opera as that would mean we are taxing what we are subsidising...

Anonymous said...

Sarkozy in France suggested a tax on the Internet to pay for French state funded TV rather than the license, I guess old Broon and co are copying ideas, though in their case they will keep the TV license and this new tax...

xoggoth said...

Nowt to say except absolutely.

Auntie Flo' said...

What an outrage. What's effectively being advocated here is a totally discriminatory tax on broadband users.

Not one of the fools advocating this has given a moments consideration to the injustice of it. After all, why should they care about justice as long as they're filling their boots with our money?

Consider the crass injustice of this in respect profoundly or severely deaf people like me. The majority of us cannot watch television even if we want to - thanks to totally crap and defective subtitling systems which defy and obliterate all meaning and understanding. Most of us depend on our broadband for communication.

RNID estimate that 14% of us are hearing impaired - a significant proportion being severely deaf.

Why the hell should deaf or partially deaf people - many of whom, like me, work and claim no benefits whatsoever - be taxed more for our broadband use in order to subsidise telly addicts and a service we cannot use?

monkey said...

The fact that we already pay for a service that advertises speeds that we clearly do not get is a complete and utter rip off. i really dont watch much on TV anymore because it so shit paying for a TV license well thats just a mugs game.

Beryl Blagg said...

I notice that the BBC news website cannot bring themselves to mention that those who tried to blow up Glasgow Airport are Muslims. Since their entire raison d'etre was a Islamist outrage, I would have thought it might have had a place in the story, but no. The editors at the BBC decided that it didn't fit in with their cudddly world view.

As for taxing broadband (we already pay VAT) there is no end to the amount of interference that these worthies want to inflict on us.

In Zimbabwe they are a nation of cowards, so they get bullies running the country. Here the population is a nation of credulous idiots who want to blame somebody else - anything but assume personal responsibility, so you get liars with a talent for finding scapegoats to run the UK.

It seems that we need educating, and another tax on broadband will keep a few more members of the regime in jobs.

Anonymous said...

fucking dicks

auditor said...

Why not just tax Ebay,You Tube and Myspace. I suspect that their contribution to UK tax receipts is not all that huge.....

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Twats. I don't even have a telly - wouldn't have one in the house if THEY paid ME £135 a year.

Fucking lobotomy box.

pagar said...

A while ago the BBC allocated a huge budget to Gaelic programme makers. When you did the analysis it worked out to cost about a grand for every Gaelic speaker in Scotland. The programmes, including soap operas, were shown with subtitles and I can confirm they were truly terrible.

The problem is deep rooted and will remain so until we abolish the licence fee.

Chalcedon said...

This is a distortion of the market. Also, it amounts to state aid for TV stations showing programmes no-one wants to watch and which therefore do not attract advertising sponsorship.

Surely public service broadcasts should be screened by the BBC, since it is not a commercial channel and funded by the TV tax that is already levied? So another tax isn't actually necessary, but McBroon et al love to tax absolutely anthing so no doubt reason and thinking simply don't figure.

I reckon this subsidy and thus the tax will be illegal according to EU competition laws anyway.

Bastard Nu Labour. The sooner they are out of office, the better. they are utter bastards who sdimply don't care about the hard working, over taxed people of this country.

BTW, Dev, hanging is way too good for them.

Semaj Mahgih said...

Monkey crap - haven't really reflected much on that, DK, before your blog.

Anonymous said...

Why is the answer to any problem in this country always another fucking tax?

Anonymous said...

Tax and then spunk our hard earned money is all the Nu Labor monkeys know how to do. Create wealth and encourage business and lazy cunts on the dole to get back to work is not on the agenda.