Peter Scott wrote:
Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.

So what?

Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live in.


Lets take a parallel example - television reception.

Not the same at all.

For a start the BBC is a subsidised operation, with a mandate to achieve
ncoverage. BT aint. Once a tranmitter exists, its trivial to add
commercial stations to it.

You should be complaining that the licence fee subsidises commercial
stations..

It is thought
proper that the whole country should get a television signal.

Not by me it aint.

Some areas
like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?
Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
that it is an essential service.

I dont.

Do we object that electricity users in
the country have to be provided with long lines at extra cost? No of
course not.

well actually they do end up with a worse service as a result. Cheap
overhead lines prone to lightning damage and trees falling..



Happily I ignore the ad hominem attacks. If you can't win the argument,
then attack the person. Such tactics have always been looked down on.
Similarly the PC word 'offensive' should be struck from the dictionary.


Te argument is whether or not fast broadband shuld be considered a basic
citizens right, and subsidised to make it so.

So far, Bt has managed to resist being re-nationalised, and we have
believe it or not, a better service than we ever had when it was.

If you want a monopoly state supplier of indifferent broadband,
throttled back so that we all only get 512k,nbecauseits fair that way,
say so.


Peter Scott