“Universal Broadband” (in the UK…) this is exactly how and why (socialist) governments get everything wrong…


again

David Davis

If people want broadband connections, then the market will discover ways to give it to them at profitable prices. It is _not_ necessary for a (socialist) state, in its death throes, to charge _everyone_ £6 a year to pay its favoured toadie-suppliers of “broadband”, for a probably substandard product such as 2Mb/s (would you guess?), so that this can be provided to the last 30% of people who have not got it already.

This is a back-door-content-receiving-licensing-scam, just like the BBC “TV license”, only worse, and now.

The next step will be a compulsory levy on purchase of (and later, annual ownership of)  home computers.

Soon.

You just watch.

Here’s an exerpt:-

“The report proposed a 50p-a-month levy on all fixed telephone lines to help bring next-generation broadband to the whole country.

This money would go to an independent Next Generation Fund that would provide subsidies for operators to deliver super-fast internet to areas where it would not normally be commercially viable…”

“Not normally commercially viable” …? That’s the “countryside, ducky, you know – that place you have decimated and re-created as a sort of GramscoRamblerNazis’ theme park…

Well, all I have to say is, it’s strange and surprising that  __THIS__  government wants to “deliver broadband” (at “commercially-viable rates” )  to areas which contain none of its voters!

Very odd indeed. I smell a rat, and I see it floating in the air….they are up to something, the buggers, so they are….I think it wants to remotely-scan their hard disks, so it can clear them out once and for all.

About these ads

4 responses to ““Universal Broadband” (in the UK…) this is exactly how and why (socialist) governments get everything wrong…

  1. When I heard Sky News talking about a government push to connect every home in Britain to the internet I had this dark shiver/deja vu type happening and the murmured words Big Brother rose from my inner mind in a surge of apprehensive sulphur. Well, something like that. Just imagine the possibilities!

  2. It’s a generalised power grab. First of all it cements the idea in the minds of the unwashed that only government can provide services to “the needy”, you know, poor rural people like Tarquin and Clarissa with their second home in Bufton On The Wold which they want to have all the mod cons of city life.

    But also contained within this terrible nonsense is the expansion of government into creating more internet content, in other words a BBC for the web. It isn’t necessary, but once it is there the hope is people will come to expect it, then it must be “defended” and spending increased and so on.

    Sometimes I feel utter despair. This shit just keeps happening, and we’re powerless to stop it, and most of the population just don’t see the big picture that we politically motivated types do. The government moves forwards slowly but consistently like a steamroller. Even if one thing they want is blocked somehow, another ten things get through.

    Bah.

  3. Oh, and while on the one hand they’re saying that 2Mb/s is a universal human right that people can’t live without so the government must provide it, etc, they’re also saying they’re going to start throttling down the connections of naughty people like filesharers, who presumably can live without this universal human right.

    The decisions of course will be made by fiat by bureaucrats, without such quaint antiquated things as due process getting in the way.

    Sigh.

  4. I found this interesting description of “Fabianism”, which might appeal to Dave Davis:

    Leon Trotsky, an influential 20th century revolutionary socialist, wrote that Fabianism was an attempt to save capitalism from the working class. He wrote that “throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists and Owenites who reject the class struggle and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the proletariat.”[12]

    Tony