[Leon Trotsky]

Y'all made some good points (except misterxninja). I concede that this wasn't well thought through. 2/10 would not submit again.

[misterxninja]

(Original post by Addzter)
Y'all made some good points (except misterxninja). I concede that this wasn't well thought through. 2/10 would not submit again.

Nothing you ever do is well thought through... you account for nothing your whole thinking process is narrow and small. Actions have consequences your bum is going to get most certainly bitten and I look forward to witnessing it. You have set yourself up for one very big fall and your oblivious to it.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by misterxninja)
Nothing you ever do is well thought through... you account for nothing your whole thinking process is narrow and small. Actions have consequences your bum is going to get most certainly bitten and I look forward to witnessing it. You have set yourself up for one very big fall and your oblivious to it.

[toronto353]

Absolutely not. There's no need for it really and I don't see why you've proposed it.

[CLS94]

I think this is unenforcable - there is no way to tell whether someone has multiple devices which can receive a signal barring literally going door-to-door and checking, the expense of which would negate the increased fee. It would also be applicable to almost everyone now, considering everyone owns a telly and a computers pretty much and then I'd say 95% have one out of a second telly, second computer or smartphone.

[smithsmith]

No completely disagree, why cant they get their programs sponsored, not like 10 minuets adverts but 10 second sponsorship of each program before it starts and when it ends, that will create huge revenues, and be fair to families who have 3

[PapaShmurff]

Sounds like alot of extra faf

[undertaker1]

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.
Why does the BBC have to charge viewers a license fee? Why can’t they advertise to raise revenue like ITV or Channel 4 does?

[undertaker1]

(Original post by smithsmith)
No completely disagree, why cant they get their programs sponsored, not like 10 minuets adverts but 10 second sponsorship of each program before it starts and when it ends, that will create huge revenues, and be fair to families who have 3

this

[Moleman1996]

If we can afford to spend £20m to buy the rights to a singing show, we dont need to give the BBC more money. No from me.

[chrisawhitmore]

(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.

In my bedroom I have a TV connected to an Xbox capable of receiving Sky and a PC capable of showing Iplayer. That would put me into the upper rate on one TV.

This would, in effect, be a raising of the TV licence pretty much everyone, with only a few, mostly older, users excepted, and as such I am completely opposed to it.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

You'd also then be changing the goal-posts as to what needs a TV license then?

Because at the moment - if you're not watching something live, you don't need a license, nor if the device is "powered solely by it's own internal batteries."

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Addzter)
Raise the license fee for households with more than three TVs or equivalent devices

I won't even pay for the licence at the current price so where in the world do you think I will pay more for three or more TVs?

[barnetlad]

Let us raise the cost of being a student (by a small amount). No thanks.

[Abiraleft]

I can see the general principle behind it, but it wouldn't be workable or very fair in the form it's currently in.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by Addzter)
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).

That is rather undetectable, plus I don't agree anyway, so nay.

[paperclip]

(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...

Blimey, a TV in each bedroom is considered normal, or average? Quite telling how privileged everyone was here, hell, i didn't like even have my own bedroom as a kid.

Man, everyone hates us benefits kids but they dont even realise how lucky they have it. Then David Cameron goes and demonises young adults on benefits

In any case, for the average family with two children, that is a television in the living room, the parents bedroom and the childrens bedroom. Perhaps disincentivising having a TV is actually a good idea. I am actually quite taken back that it is seen as normal...

[thunder_chunky]

I'm not sure that if a household has three televisions that automatically means they might be able to afford to pay a bit more. It may mean that more might be watched at the same time but I don't think it automatically means that household could or should pay more. They might be tight for money because they have children, perhaps a lot of children. So I don't think this is a good idea.

(Original post by misterxninja)
Nothing you ever do is well thought through... you account for nothing your whole thinking process is narrow and small. Actions have consequences your bum is going to get most certainly bitten and I look forward to witnessing it. You have set yourself up for one very big fall and your oblivious to it.

Some people charge to see that sort of stuff.

(Original post by tehFrance)
I won't even pay for the licence at the current price so where in the world do you think I will pay more for three or more TVs?

Gosh you're such a rebel.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by paperclip)
Blimey, a TV in each bedroom is considered normal, or average? I am actually quite taken back that it is seen as normal...

[jesusandtequila]

(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.

The BBC could do it. They could make themselves a subscription service instead of just taking because people own a TV - BBC or otherwise.