Talk:History of television licensing in the United Kingdom

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Removed chart

Removed chart as it is original research. The creator could simply be promoting his or her agenda with biased analysis. We don't know if his or her methodology is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.240 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no explanation as to why the methodology is not valid, nor what "agenda" you think is being "promoted." Given that the creator Briantist is still active on Wikipedia, why not ask them for their methodology before arbitrarily deleting something you don't like? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the methodology it is original research which shouldn't really be in a wikipedia article. Maybe it would be more sensible if one wants to compare relative costs, to find some references to average monthly wages in the past. 195.194.15.1 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple calculations on accepted parameters are not original research. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the calculations are so simple, can you explain why the green line, which supposedly represents the 'licence split by C/BW' (here I assume C is colour and BW is Black and White), stretches back before the invention of the colour TV and converges on the radio licence line. Even in its own terms the graph is confusing.193.105.48.21 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask the editor who created the chart? That said, I suspect that in pre-Colour years that line is actually showing the split between radio & TV licences. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR, it's all source from the BBC and TV Licensing site. The split line is Split C/BW or BW/radio. This is a calculation AA28*G28+(1-AA28)*F28. It splits when radio licence was abolished in 1970. It's not Original Research, it's DATA! BRIANTIST (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRIANTIST (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the development of radio as a graph, using figures from the same article page.

BRIANTIST (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid any idea that there is any agenda here other than clear display of data about the subject, I have added the explanatory text: The computed split is the simple value for the total of the licences issued (at whatever price) divided by the number sold.. OR my donkey. BRIANTIST (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the chart accurate? I used the following site to calculate inflation adjusted value of the licence fee from 1946 and got the result £73.01: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html . This site http://www.hl.co.uk/news/calculators/inflation-calculator gives a lower value - £64 for 1948 - which still disagrees with the chart193.105.48.21 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the chart implies zero inflation between 1946-1950 which is definitely not the case. 193.105.48.20 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also the opening line of this reference: https://fullfact.org/factchecks/tv_licence_cases_magistrates_courts-29166 193.105.48.20 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chart also shows an increase in licence fee in 1981 but that is not the case in the table of values.193.105.48.21 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Telegraphy Act 1924

There was no "Wireless Telegraphy Act 1924". Mauls (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 was introduced as a temporary measure, and required annual extensions by Parliament until replaced by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1924."

This is clearly untrue. The Wireless Telegraphy Act was still being extended annually into the 1940s, for example, schedule 1 of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act 1935. This ended with the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Mauls (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]