Ta ta Decent F1 Coverage

prawny

nation wrote:

I suppose the BTCC and MotoGP audiences will benefit.

I haven't seriously followed the BTCC in ages. I should probably check it out again.

BBC moto gp coverage is dross, there was a huge uproar when they tried to take it off eurosprt so much so that eurosport got it back (slightly amended) at the last minute.

I'm not sure what the BTCC live coverage is like but it's not as good as it was a couple of years ago, and the series has really been affected by the recession with a lot of manufacturers pulling out. Still good racing though.

I'm not fussed that it's not n the beeb really, just wish it wasn't sky sports and it's extortionate prices, it'll probably be pay per view soon like the boxing/wrestling.

Paul E

CyclingBantam wrote:

Paul E wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

As for the old, British Institution, that is a load of old rubbish. It is no more an institution than the Tour de France.

It is, the modern F1 championship started at silverstone, the vast majority of teams are based here and so are most of the skills so you can say it's an institution here.

But it isn't a 'TV' institution though. Nothing is.

The BBC has a pretty hard job IMO. They should work out how much they are prepared to pay for sports and not just keep upping the budget to keep them. Why should inflated prices for sport (which are way above most other programming) take so much budget. I think the fans should have to pay for stuff that is so expensive (like I do for Football and Cycling)

I never said it was a TV institution I said it was a British institution. It's built into the docuement which sets out the rules and regulations for how the sport is run (the concord agreement) which says the sports should be on free to air tv, if other sports don't have that clause then tough, it's always been on free to air here.

dhope

sigh. Awful news. The Beeb do fantastic coverage. Sky, meh.
Wonder whether Brundle and DC will move to Sky. I assume on the shared races they'll get the same feed from the local broadcaster etc

DonDaddyD

CyclingBantam wrote:

DDD - Sorry but as soon as someone comes out with phrases like "Rip off Britain" people with a brain stop listening. You should post your comment on www.DailyMail.co.uk I'm sure you will find equally disgruntled people!

Well I suppose it is Friday....

OK to begin:

I'm sorry but I think "Rip off Britain" can be attributed to this. You see if F1 is broadcast on Free-to-air channels in other Countries and people in Britain, where the sport is arguably an institution - as pointed out by Paul E, have to pay a subscription to watch it then you could argue that it is, in fact ripping off the British viewers. This logic extends to Premier League and European football matches as well.

Really it doesn't take a genius to work that one out.
{

Also you need to listen to Jamesco.

Yes I accept that he is right.

Why is it such a big deal?

I think two pages of posts - excluding mostly just yours - and a link to a website where the teams are asking for clarity have by and large explained this.

The licence comes up for renewal. If you don't want a TV licence nobody forces you to get one. Why do people think that you TV is a 'need' like Gas or electric?

I want a TV and I watch channels that aren't paid for by subscription or by the TV licence. But to own a TV is to pay for the TV licence. It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

I totally get that if you are a fan it is probably really annoying but it isn't 'wrong' or 'disgusting' it's just the way of the world.

Your opinion not mine.

I am annoyed I can't watch cycling on 'free' tv but I have decided to get Sky so I can watch it. If I got to the point where I was struggling to afford it I would get rid.

Your decision not mine.

Cycling, as much as I love it doesn't have the following or the history or industry motorsport (specifically F1 in this case) has in England. It's (F1) equivalent would be like making Americans have to subscribe to watch NFL or NBA.

I used to buy loads of bike stuff but as stuff seems to get more expensive I have cut back. Annoying but just a fact of life.

Not the same thing.

CyclingBantam

So are you saying they are contravening this agreement? If they are then I agree they shouldn't be but I wasn't aware they were.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Is this the BBC's retaliation for not being able to put up license fees? Is F1 broadcast on free-to-air TV channels in other Countries? Is this just another case of rip-off Britain because a number of the F1 teams are based in Britain ergo relatively large fanbase so many will make the switch to Sky, as the British often do, quietly disgruntled while the BBC maintains it's profit margins and Sky lines it's pockets more so.

I'm - mybreakfastconsisted levels of - annoyed at this.

And mybreakfastconsisted levels of confused - surely this is F1 deciding which bid they prefer, rather than the BBC 'giving away' the contract. They are under huge pressure to cut costs (cf. cuts to executive and 'talent' pay) to justify maintaining the license fee they have (let alone putting it up), so they can't just bid 'whatever it takes'.

DonDaddyD

prawny wrote:

I'm not fussed that it's not n the beeb really, just wish it wasn't sky sports and it's extortionate prices, it'll probably be pay per view soon like the boxing/wrestling.

Those two were killed by Sky IMO.

daviesee

Here's a thought.....

It's happening. Deal with it.

Harping on and on in a cycling website isn't going to change anything.

However, for the sake of a Friday debate - carry on

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Is this the BBC's retaliation for not being able to put up license fees? Is F1 broadcast on free-to-air TV channels in other Countries? Is this just another case of rip-off Britain because a number of the F1 teams are based in Britain ergo relatively large fanbase so many will make the switch to Sky, as the British often do, quietly disgruntled while the BBC maintains it's profit margins and Sky lines it's pockets more so.

I'm - mybreakfastconsisted levels of - annoyed at this.

And mybreakfastconsisted levels of confused - surely this is F1 deciding which bid they prefer, rather than the BBC 'giving away' the contract. They are under huge pressure to cut costs (cf. cuts to executive and 'talent' pay) to justify maintaining the license fee they have (let alone putting it up), so they can't just bid 'whatever it takes'.

True, I don't know the circumstances around the bid. At the time of writing I thought the cost of broadcasting F1 was exactly the same as it has been and the BBC decided to get rid as oppose to getting rid of bids elsewhere.

CyclingBantam

But DDD - Now F1 is getting SO expensive, why should the millions of people who don't watch it have to pay so much out of their TV licence just for the fwe who do watch it? Can't you accept that when things get SO expensive the BBC cant reasonably pay for them?

Like I said right at the start this is simply (and understandably to be fair) people who watch F1 being annoyed because they have to pay for it when it was free.

Everything around that is just fluff to try and justify why the BBC should pay a large chunk of their money for a minority sport (which it is, along with most sports other than football really)

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

stuartturbo

Oddly what seem to forgotten is the race will be the same ( not sky cameras) it will be the hours before and after analysis with a few ad breaks put in. I don't watch all the races but it appears the one I want to watch are ffree

neiltb

F1 is not free to air in North America, it costs me, oh, about 60 quid a month for TV (30 minimum), F1 is on a sport channel and costs extra. we get a feed from beeb and adverts. So breaks and then struggle to understand what the commentary is about for a bit.

If sky could buy corrie they would.

nicklouse

seen what it will cost to watch next year?

so to watch F1 next year it will cost at least £381 and upto £504 if you want HD.

No way Mr M.

prawny

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

dhope

It'll be F1 to blame, not the Beeb.
Current Concorde agreement expires at end of 2012 and has always included the proviso that F1 should be free to air in the major markets. I'd assume the teams have relented on this and will probably take a larger slice of profits in exchange for allowing a move to pay TV. And if they're relenting on free to air (at least partly, but keeping the prestige events on the Beeb) then they'll need to recoup some of the lost advertising money so flogging to Sky was always going to be the logical step.

nicklouse

neiltb wrote:

F1 is not free to air in North America, it costs me, oh, about 60 quid a month for TV (30 minimum), F1 is on a sport channel and costs extra. we get a feed from beeb and adverts. So breaks and then struggle to understand what the commentary is about for a bit.

If sky could buy corrie they would.

it could cost you about £6 a month.

dhope

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to pay the license fee if you have a PC.
You pay the license fee if you watch live TV on a PC, not because you own a PC.

prawny

dhope wrote:

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to pay the license fee if you have a PC.
You pay the license fee if you watch live TV on a PC, not because you own a PC.

My bad, mis-read DDD's original post.

Paul E

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Ohh good I can get iplayer at quite good pic quality through my ps3 and my tivo box.

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to pay the license fee if you have a PC.
You pay the license fee if you watch live TV on a PC, not because you own a PC.

Semantics. The assumption on their part (and this is true in my case due to actual personal experience) is that if you have a PC then you can and will be watching live TV.

It's a bit like owning a TV, never using it to watch er TV - you could be using it as a monitor and still being chased to pay the TV licence.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

I want a TV and I watch channels that aren't paid for by subscription or by the TV licence. But to own a TV is to pay for the TV licence. It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

I am annoyed I can't watch cycling on 'free' tv but I have decided to get Sky so I can watch it. If I got to the point where I was struggling to afford it I would get rid.

Your decision not mine.

Cycling, as much as I love it doesn't have the following or the history or industry motorsport (specifically F1 in this case) has in England. It's (F1) equivalent would be like making Americans have to subscribe to watch NFL or NBA.

I used to buy loads of bike stuff but as stuff seems to get more expensive I have cut back. Annoying but just a fact of life.

Not the same thing.

TV isn't free nor is it ever going to be in the foreseeable future, and frankly, I'd always take a license fee over ad breaks, but that's me. It would be good if F1 stays on non-subscription, but it's still got to be paid for somehow.

BTW, Cycle racing has a lot more history than F1, and was firmly established before Herr Benz had even invented the motor car (1863 vs 1885). It's only its lack of popularity in this country (as opposed to, say, Belgium) that stops it being regularly broadcast on non-sub channels.

DonDaddyD

CyclingBantam wrote:

But DDD - Now F1 is getting SO expensive, why should the millions of people who don't watch it have to pay so much out of their TV licence just for the fwe who do watch it? Can't you accept that when things get SO expensive the BBC cant reasonably pay for them?

Like I said right at the start this is simply (and understandably to be fair) people who watch F1 being annoyed because they have to pay for it when it was free.

Everything around that is just fluff to try and justify why the BBC should pay a large chunk of their money for a minority sport (which it is, along with most sports other than football really)

So I and the millions who don't shouldn't have to pay for Eastenders, Cash in the Attic, Casualty et al. :roll:

Look, lets just say that we agree to disagree.

jamesco

prawny wrote:

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Absolutely true, but once you start watching stuff online it's hard to avoid watching the live stuff. Sooner or later there'll be Wimbledon or live news or something else that you want to watch right now and then you ought to get the license.

Surely it'd be best if the license was dropped and the funding just came out of the general pool? It'd save a lot of administration and those creepy notices the authority sends out when they've been informed of someone buying a telly. We don't have a telly at home and don't have a license, but we use iPlayer all the time and love the BBC; it does feel like we're getting away with something dodgy...

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I want a TV and I watch channels that aren't paid for by subscription or by the TV licence. But to own a TV is to pay for the TV licence. It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

I am annoyed I can't watch cycling on 'free' tv but I have decided to get Sky so I can watch it. If I got to the point where I was struggling to afford it I would get rid.

Your decision not mine.

Cycling, as much as I love it doesn't have the following or the history or industry motorsport (specifically F1 in this case) has in England. It's (F1) equivalent would be like making Americans have to subscribe to watch NFL or NBA.

I used to buy loads of bike stuff but as stuff seems to get more expensive I have cut back. Annoying but just a fact of life.

Not the same thing.

TV isn't free nor is it ever going to be in the foreseeable future, and frankly, I'd always take a license fee over ad breaks, but that's me. It would be good if F1 stays on non-subscription, but it's still got to be paid for somehow.

BTW, Cycle racing has a lot more history than F1, and was firmly established before Herr Benz had even invented the motor car (1863 vs 1885). It's only its lack of popularity in this country (as opposed to, say, Belgium) that stops it being regularly broadcast on non-sub channels.

Sigh... et tu Sterry?

Cycling racing does have more history than F1. Would you say the cycling racing industry is bigger here than F1? Because that's my point. You can't say "Well they don't show the Tour de France on BBC" and compare that to F1. F1 and motor racing in general is bigger here than cycling as spectator sport and as an industry.

TV isn't free, you're right.

The question was "why have a TV?" or a question to that effect. My answer was:

"I want a TV and I watch channels that aren't paid for by subscription or by the TV licence. But to own a TV is to pay for the TV licence."

I don't mind paying a licence if I get a range of programmes I could watch or want to watch. F1 being one of them. More and more there are less programmes on the channels that the licence covers that I would actually watch.

I don't have a choice not to pay it. - Though that isn't part of the point.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

dhope wrote:

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to pay the license fee if you have a PC.
You pay the license fee if you watch live TV on a PC, not because you own a PC.

Semantics. The assumption on their part (and this is true in my case due to actual personal experience) is that if you have a PC then you can and will be watching live TV.

It's a bit like owning a TV, never using it to watch er TV - you could be using it as a monitor and still being chased to pay the TV licence.

It's not just semantics. Who is 'their part'? TV licensing or the courts?

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

dhope wrote:

prawny wrote:

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It goes further if you have a PC then the assumption is (and this has been argued officially) that you need to pay a TV licence as you have the ability to watch TV from it. I.e. you need to prove that you don't.

Source? Sounds like rubbish.

It's true, you can't watch live broadcasts but iPlayer is free to use, I'll have a dig for a source.

Edit - from the horses mouth
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/h ... /tvlicence

Of course, but that doesn't mean you have to pay the license fee if you have a PC.
You pay the license fee if you watch live TV on a PC, not because you own a PC.

Semantics. The assumption on their part (and this is true in my case due to actual personal experience) is that if you have a PC then you can and will be watching live TV.

It's a bit like owning a TV, never using it to watch er TV - you could be using it as a monitor and still being chased to pay the TV licence.

It's not just semantics. Who is 'their part'? TV licensing or the courts?

TV licensing. And look, I'm not saying they (person on the end of the phone) were right. But that's what the person said to me.

Sewinman

On the plus side, hopefully we will see the back of those silly ponces in regulation white jeans, tw@tish polo belt and Liberty shirts with floral collar and cuff detail.

*derogatory rhythmic hand gesture in Jake Humphrey's direction*

Paul E

Sewinman wrote:

On the plus side, hopefully we will see the back of those silly ponces in regulation white jeans, tw@tish polo belt and Liberty shirts with floral collar and cuff detail.

*derogatory rhythmic hand gesture in Jake Humphrey's direction*

Ohh it will be a shame to miss daves disco trousers lol if you want a laugh look up what they say on sniffpetrols website about the coverage at times.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

TV licensing. And look, I'm not saying they (person on the end of the phone) were right. But that's what the person said to me.

Not to dismiss your personal experience but I'd doubt the random on the end of the phone in customer services has any clout or real knowledge of what they're entitled to assume. Would imagine you could happily tell them to shove it.