[discardorama]

> With such a proposal!

Isn't UK the place where you have to pay license fees to watch television? Those fees are then used to support outfits like BBC. So it isn't a far stretch to imagine a similar broadband tax. I'm not supporting the tax; I'm just saying that to someone who grew up in the UK with a "license fee" model of television, a broadband tax isn't an intellectual leap, it just feels like an extension.

[blueskin_]

Yes, unfortunately, although there is growing resentment against it every year and even some high profile celebrities are now refusing to pay. An internet tax would ensure whoever brought it in would not win an election again, especially as the old people (largest TV tax paying demographic while many younger people ignore it) are dying while huge numbers of young people are only just reaching voting age. I would be surprised if even the TV tax still existed in 10 years. If the BBC want funding without adverts, they should encrypt their channels and sell subscriptions; I think they'd find that the number of people who want to pay £150/year for 1 or 2 good programmes is a lot less than they have convinced themselves it is.

[Fuxy]

True that's a weird way of doing things it's practically state/tax sponsored television owned by "the public".

Plus I think you don't have to pay the fee if you can show that you don't own a television.

Not certain I agree with that model either.

Something about the person paying it not having a choice always rubs me the wrong way.

Why do i have to pay if I don't watch the BBC or download pirated stuff.

[blueskin_]

Yeah, it's messed up. Easy enough to avoid by saying you either don't have a TV, or have one but don't use it to watch broadcast TV though.