[Leon Trotsky]

[deleted]

[Ysolt]

Aye This is a fair proposal

[Hopple]

(Original post by Addzter)

Raise the license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices

Raise the license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices

This petition...

calls upon parliament to:

Introduce a higher license fee of £180 (up from £145.50) for all households that contain more than three devices used to view broadcast television programs.

"Devices used to show broadcast television programs" include all televisions that are capable of receiving analogue terrestrial television, digital terrestrial television (such as Freeview), satellite television (such as Sky, FreeSat) and cable television (such as Virgin Media), whether on their own or combined with a set top box. It also includes all computers (PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc) that are used to access online services allowing the user to view television broadcasts live on their device (such as TVCatchup).

The higher license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices will help the BBC to stay competitive as well ensuring the continued high quality of all the corporation's services.

Good idea, but only really applicable in TSRland. In the real world people are going to very pissed at the devious TV license people harrassing them as they currently do to students.

Edit: Actually, changed my mind. It should be based on the number of people in the household (maybe babies/infants excluded) rather than the number of devices they have.

[TheHansa]

I'd like to hear the justification for this before I offer my opinion, do these TVs have to be working? You can watch TV on PCs and laptops, and having more TVs doesn't mean you watch TV more.

Green Party

[unbeatablemoody]

That would bring in a hell of a lot of revenue, which I really wouldn't see as fair. Think about it, 3 TVs is basically 1 in the living room, then 1 in each bedroom or in some cases much more. If there is a justified reason (ie it costs more to get info to these extra TVs) then yeah that'd be a fair thing to do. However, it wouldn't cost anymore for the people involved, so just sounds like a price hike...

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Hopple)
Good idea, but only really applicable in TSRland. In the real world people are going to very pissed at the devious TV license people harrassing them as they currently do to students.

True. I think it'd have to be enforced differently to how it currently is, because I imagine the only way they'd be able to tell if you have more than three TVs is if they obtained a warrant. It'd be better if we just relied on people to tell the truth about it, as I'm sure the majority would.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by unbeatablemoody)
That would bring in a hell of a lot of revenue, which I really wouldn't see as fair. Think about it, 3 TVs is basically 1 in the living room, then 1 in each bedroom or in some cases much more. If there is a justified reason (ie it costs more to get info to these extra TVs) then yeah that'd be a fair thing to do. However, it wouldn't cost anymore for the people involved, so just sounds like a price hike...

Sky have a service called Multiroom that lets you watch Sky in an extra room for like another £15 per TV/room a month or something, despite the fact it doesn't cost them any extra to send the signal to those extra rooms after the initial set up, so if Sky can do it why can't the BBC, which is better value IMO.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Addzter)
True. I think it'd have to be enforced differently to how it currently is, because I imagine the only way they'd be able to tell if you have more than three TVs is if they obtained a warrant. It'd be better if we just relied on people to tell the truth about it, as I'm sure the majority would.

I've changed my mind now Devices isn't as good a measurement of TV watching as the number of people who watch TV, and it's easier to count people.

(Original post by Addzter)
Sky have a service called Multiroom that lets you watch Sky in an extra room for like another £15 per TV/room a month or something, despite the fact it doesn't cost them any extra to send the signal to those extra rooms after the initial set up, so if Sky can do it why can't the BBC, which is better value IMO.

Don't they have to have extra hardware for that? You can watch the same channel in different rooms at no extra cost to them, but to have different channels means having more feeds.

[Birchington]

A good idea in principle.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Hopple)
I've changed my mind now Devices isn't as good a measurement of TV watching as the number of people who watch TV, and it's easier to count people.

But you can't prove that every person in the household watches TV. There could be eight people in one house and only one of them watches TV. Generally, the more working TV sets there are in a house, the more people who watch TV in that house.

EDIT: About multiroom, yeah you need another Sky box and it needs to be set up (you can do it yourself though) but after that it costs them nothing. It's just a signal coming from the satellite dish into two set top boxes, rather than one.

[A Mysterious Lord]

Firmly against it. It means the higher charge would be applicable even if only one device is used at once.

Say someone lived alone but had a TV, laptop and smartphone capable of receiving live TV, it means even though only one person watches TV in that residence, they are still subject to the higher charge.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Addzter)
But you can't prove that every person in the household watches TV. There could be eight people in one house and only one of them watches TV. Generally, the more working TV sets there are in a house, the more people who watch TV in that house.

EDIT: About multiroom, yeah you need another Sky box and it needs to be set up (you can do it yourself though) but after that it costs them nothing. It's just a signal coming from the satellite dish into two set top boxes, rather than one.

But say one person has a TV, a desktop, a laptop and maybe one of those fancy phones (not too far-fetched a scenario), they're still one person watching TV but would get whacked.

As for multiroom, you could argue that it costs them nothing extra to broadcast to your entire street if they're already transmitting to one person, so why should everyone else have to chip in? Multiroom is more aimed at each person having their own feed rather than being able to watch Sky in different rooms (where one box would do). I'd go along with that, more people wanting to watch TV means more payment.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Hopple)
But say one person has a TV, a desktop, a laptop and maybe one of those fancy phones (not too far-fetched a scenario), they're still one person watching TV but would get whacked.

As for multiroom, you could argue that it costs them nothing extra to broadcast to your entire street if they're already transmitting to one person, so why should everyone else have to chip in? Multiroom is more aimed at each person having their own feed rather than being able to watch Sky in different rooms (where one box would do). I'd go along with that, more people wanting to watch TV means more payment.

Only if you actually use both of those things to watch TV.

That's a very good point actually (although it would only count if that person actually used all of those devices to watch TV on). What if it was changed to all households containing more than two people and more than four devices capable of receiving broadcast TV?

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
Firmly against it. It means the higher charge would be applicable even if only one device is used at once.

Say someone lived alone but had a TV, laptop and smartphone capable of receiving live TV, it means even though only one person watches TV in that residence, they are still subject to the higher charge.

They wouldn't be subject to the higher charge because that's only three devices. The higher charge would apply to people with more than three.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Addzter)
Only if you actually use both of those things to watch TV.

My points was, multiroom is targetted at different people wanting to watch different things at the same time (going from their adverts), and it's optional to boot. Your suggestion is targetted at people who merely have multiple devices capable of watching television. Say they can watch TV on their phone, they could really use that all the time but your suggestion would hit them for essentially wanting a bigger screen that they've already had to pay for anyway.

That's a very good point actually (although it would only count if that person actually used all of those devices to watch TV on). What if it was changed to all households containing more than two people and more than four devices capable of receiving broadcast TV?

I still think it should go slolely on the number of people who watch television. Your new suggestion could have a young couple with a laptop each, one or maybe two desktops, a television and perhaps a fancy phone each (so maybe 7 devices) exempt from the extra charge, but once they have a baby they get whacked, and the baby won't even be watching. Once the baby's old enough to be 'gaining' from having access to a television then I think it makes sense, but even then my distinction is based on number of people watching TV, not the number of screens in the house.

[CyclopsRock]

I think the idea that the BBC will become more competitive by giving them more money that they're unaccountable for is a bit loony.

[ngnav]

B=What if someone has more than three computers at home? Remember, you do need a licence after all to watch iplayer.

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Just run the BBC out of the general tax purse and have done with such an archaic system.

[unbeatablemoody]

(Original post by Addzter)
Sky have a service called Multiroom that lets you watch Sky in an extra room for like another £15 per TV/room a month or something, despite the fact it doesn't cost them any extra to send the signal to those extra rooms after the initial set up, so if Sky can do it why can't the BBC, which is better value IMO.

Sky is optional? Sky is a choice to have as an extra, whereas you NEED, yes NEED a licence to watch ANY TV...

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Addzter)

Raise the license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices

Raise the license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices

This petition...

calls upon parliament to:

Introduce a higher license fee of £180 (up from £145.50) for all households that contain more than three devices used to view broadcast television programs.

"Devices used to show broadcast television programs" include all televisions that are capable of receiving analogue terrestrial television, digital terrestrial television (such as Freeview), satellite television (such as Sky, FreeSat) and cable television (such as Virgin Media), whether on their own or combined with a set top box. It also includes all computers (PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc) that are used to access online services allowing the user to view television broadcasts live on their device (such as TVCatchup).

The higher license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices will help the BBC to stay competitive as well ensuring the continued high quality of all the corporation's services.

TV licensing is hard enough as it is and murky as ever. Do we start counting laptops and xbox/ps3 's as devices... Dilemma after dilemma. The BBC is doing just fine as it is and should we really be taxing people to watch TV anyway in the first place... We get VAT from the purchasing of TV's so why tax people a further tax, it is unnecessary and unjust.

This could never work as TV license inspectors are up against it as it is getting into properties to catch one TV, now how will they catch 3 TV's. Even if you sit here as a tax loving lefty and nod along to the sentiment of this petition, the reality is it won't work and will cost more than it brings in for the government trying to enforce it, on a massive campaign and letters to all TV licensed homes trying to get them to pay the higher fee for 3 TV's - everyone will just laugh and ignore knowing how impossible enforcement is.

No one will admit to having 3 tv's and just ignore it and you won't be able to enforce it. In fact it will cost more in staffing than it generates, because TV License teams will have to check houses on the normal TV licenses to see if they have 3 TV's next, it becomes costly unrealistic and difficult to enforce - as if TV licensing was not difficult enough to enforce.

You have bitten off more meat than you can chew here. I suggest the Socialist rationally sits down with unrealistic ideas ill thought through. If he is capable of rationality beyond self seeking advancement of own standing in the TSR HoC.

NAY, NAY, NAY!