Ta ta Decent F1 Coverage

135

Comments

  • neiltb
    neiltb Posts: 332
    nicklouse wrote:
    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.

    what could cost 6 gbp? TV, if I wanted I could have those 8 channels for nowt, if I want F1 I need TSN, that needs cable etc at (actually) 20gbp a month basic + theme pack (12gbp) and + HD reveiver (1st must be PVR for my service) 15gbp. So 47gbp a month for F1 in HD
    FCN 12
  • roger_merriman
    roger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    people say a lot of things, quite often are wrong.

    Just having a computer isn't enough and the fact that iplayer is not live but has a buffering delay.
  • CyclingBantam
    CyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    But you are ignoring the point. Eastenders doesn't cost what F1 does!

    That is all this upset is about, you want it free and it isn't going to be. Annoying? Hell yeah. Disgusting, clearly not.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    But you are ignoring the point. Eastenders doesn't cost what F1 does!

    That is all this upset is about, you want it free and it isn't going to be. Annoying? Hell yeah. Disgusting, clearly not.

    Why are you so hell bent on either my changing my view or convincing me that it is not disgusting. Are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? Of what, having a subjective opinion?

    In your opinion it isn't. Fine. In my opinion it is disgusting because essentially we have to pay twice to watch a sport. Likewise I think it's disgusting that the best boxing matches are Pay-per-view and that Premier League/Champs League matches are mostly played on Sky. I think it is disgusting that Sky charge in excess of £50 for this.

    I do not need you to tell me that it is not disgusting, that is our differing subjective view. However, how we come to determining disgust can be discussed which we have done (exhaustively so).

    You may not think it is disgusting but I do. We have a different view on this.

    .

    ^^That dot is a full stop.^^
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    Oh I absolutely appreciate that if you don't have Sky it is very annoying but that is basically the issue isn't it. That people are going to have to pay for something that they didn't have to previously.

    I can quite easily come back with the question as to why should I have to pay for F1 within my TV licence when I don't watch it. With it being so expensive to the BBC it is taking a disproportionally high percentage of the license fee.

    To me it just seems a bit tough luck if you are a fan of F1 but you can't really be outraged.

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

    This. Football is a far more popular sport than F1 and footie fans have just got on with paying Sky for years. Footie is a British Institution to a far greater extent than F1.

    I'm not really into F1, and the idea of my licence fee going towards paying DC a salary is pretty annoying. He's already rich enough and dull as f*ck to boot. And don't me started on Jordan...

    Sky do pretty good job with the footie. No reason to expect they'll naff up F1.

    Anyway get sky and you'll at least have access to some decent drama, unlike the utter dross served up by the likes of ITV.
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    But you are ignoring the point. Eastenders doesn't cost what F1 does!

    That is all this upset is about, you want it free and it isn't going to be. Annoying? Hell yeah. Disgusting, clearly not.

    Why are you so hell bent on either my changing my view or convincing me that it is not disgusting. Are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? Of what, having a subjective opinion?

    In your opinion it isn't. Fine. In my opinion it is disgusting because essentially we have to pay twice to watch a sport. Likewise I think it's disgusting that the best boxing matches are Pay-per-view and that Premier League/Champs League matches are mostly played on Sky. I think it is disgusting that Sky charge in excess of £50 for this.

    I do not need you to tell me that it is not disgusting, that is our differing subjective view. However, how we come to determining disgust can be discussed which we have done (exhaustively so).

    You may not think it is disgusting but I do. We have a different view on this.

    .

    ^^That dot is a full stop.^^

    Christ, then why bother posting an opinion on it if you get so wound up then people post theirs.

    Pro tip. Assume that when someone says "It is not disgusting" that they're actually saying "In my opinion it is not disgusting". In fact, prefix everything which appears to be an opinion with "In my opinion" and you'll find 99% of the rubbish on the internet far easier to cope with.
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    Il Principe wrote:
    ITV.

    Oi, don't start on ITV, they're the best argument for the license fee ever :wink:
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Asprilla wrote:
    One of the biggest issues F1 fans seem to have is that Sky will break for ads, like ITV used to to and this would usually correspond to the exact time when the only overtake in the entire dreary procession took place.

    I watched a Nascar race on Sky. They ran adverts when the cars crossed the finish line - and it was a tight race :lol:

    Not paying money to that organisation taa very much. Still, not the end of the world if BBC keeps the European races and Sky looks after all the pointless looky likey Far Eastern ones.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    Pretty p*ssed off about it myself, but Sky are saying that races will be shown complete without adverts
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    @DDD modern sport is a business. Businesses exist to make money. Sky have more money than the beeb. That's the commercial reality. I don't understand why you think you have the inviolable right to watch these things for free. Anyway It's not that expensive.

    Basically pay up, or shut up.


    :lol:
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    dhope wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    But you are ignoring the point. Eastenders doesn't cost what F1 does!

    That is all this upset is about, you want it free and it isn't going to be. Annoying? Hell yeah. Disgusting, clearly not.

    Why are you so hell bent on either my changing my view or convincing me that it is not disgusting. Are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? Of what, having a subjective opinion?

    In your opinion it isn't. Fine. In my opinion it is disgusting because essentially we have to pay twice to watch a sport. Likewise I think it's disgusting that the best boxing matches are Pay-per-view and that Premier League/Champs League matches are mostly played on Sky. I think it is disgusting that Sky charge in excess of £50 for this.

    I do not need you to tell me that it is not disgusting, that is our differing subjective view. However, how we come to determining disgust can be discussed which we have done (exhaustively so).

    You may not think it is disgusting but I do. We have a different view on this.

    .

    ^^That dot is a full stop.^^

    Christ, then why bother posting an opinion on it if you get so wound up then people post theirs.

    Pro tip. Assume that when someone says "It is not disgusting" that they're actually saying "In my opinion it is not disgusting". In fact, prefix everything which appears to be an opinion with "In my opinion" and you'll find 99% of the rubbish on the internet far easier to cope with.

    Because we've gone past the point of constructive discussion. I've argued my view as he has done his own. We don't agree and in my post earlier I did say "Let's agree to disagree".

    Now all we are doing is going around in circles with the guy trying to argue the "it's not disgusting" to my "it is disgusting". So now we aren't even debating the impact or unfairness of the decision but the end point of our opinions. It's pointless and thus my post.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Why are you so hell bent on either my changing my view or convincing me that it is not disgusting. Are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? Of what, having a subjective opinion?
    Chill out, DDD, this is the internet and not everyone's gonna agree with you on everything!

    If you really want to watch F1 and still not pay for a sky subscription, then on race-day get yourself down to a pub that's showing it.
  • CyclingBantam
    CyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    dhope wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    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.

    But you are ignoring the point. Eastenders doesn't cost what F1 does!

    That is all this upset is about, you want it free and it isn't going to be. Annoying? Hell yeah. Disgusting, clearly not.

    Why are you so hell bent on either my changing my view or convincing me that it is not disgusting. Are you trying to tell me I'm wrong? Of what, having a subjective opinion?

    In your opinion it isn't. Fine. In my opinion it is disgusting because essentially we have to pay twice to watch a sport. Likewise I think it's disgusting that the best boxing matches are Pay-per-view and that Premier League/Champs League matches are mostly played on Sky. I think it is disgusting that Sky charge in excess of £50 for this.

    I do not need you to tell me that it is not disgusting, that is our differing subjective view. However, how we come to determining disgust can be discussed which we have done (exhaustively so).

    You may not think it is disgusting but I do. We have a different view on this.

    .

    ^^That dot is a full stop.^^

    Christ, then why bother posting an opinion on it if you get so wound up then people post theirs.

    Pro tip. Assume that when someone says "It is not disgusting" that they're actually saying "In my opinion it is not disgusting". In fact, prefix everything which appears to be an opinion with "In my opinion" and you'll find 99% of the rubbish on the internet far easier to cope with.

    Put better than I could.

    Jeez DDD - Take a step back and look at your posts. The point on here is to discuss things, chat about nonsense like this. You don't know me and, despite probably thinking you do from various posts you don't even know my detailed opinion's on things. Just chill out a bit and enjoy this for what it is. How often do you get angry on here, it is almost daily.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Il Principe wrote:
    @DDD modern sport is a business. Businesses exist to make money. Sky have more money than the beeb. That's the commercial reality. I don't understand why you think you have the inviolable right to watch these things for free. Anyway It's not that expensive.

    Basically pay up, or shut up.


    :lol:

    You vote Conservative don't you?

    Serious question because accessibility to Sport for all, even televised, is rooted in my socio-political values and thus mostly exempt from my capitalist business mind.

    In short I understand that businesses need to money. I think sport has a duty to society to be accessible to all, even televised, and beyond and above the need to make ever increasing sums of money. Naive I know. I think the Country would be richer if F1 remained on the BBC, Premier League matches and Championship football was on Terrestrial TV and Boxing was no longer pay-per-view.

    In fact I'd happily pay a little extra to my licence fee if the BBC launched a Digital Sport Channel that broadcasts things like F1, athletics, swimming, cycling, boxing, gymnastics etc. What the sport wouldn't get from money it would gain in spectators, followers, fans and exposure and probably a larger pool of future generations wanting to take up a given sport.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,624
    If you want someone to be disgusted at, try Mr Ecclestone, rather than the BBC.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    @DDD modern sport is a business. Businesses exist to make money. Sky have more money than the beeb. That's the commercial reality. I don't understand why you think you have the inviolable right to watch these things for free. Anyway It's not that expensive.

    Basically pay up, or shut up.


    :lol:

    You vote Conservative don't you?

    Serious question because accessibility to Sport for all, even televised, is rooted in my socio-political values and thus mostly exempt from my capitalist business mind.

    In short I understand that businesses need to money. I think sport has a duty to society to be accessible to all, even televised, and beyond and above the need to make ever increasing sums of money. Naive I know. I think the Country would be richer if F1 remained on the BBC, Premier League matches and Championship football was on Terrestrial TV and Boxing was no longer pay-per-view.

    In fact I'd happily pay a little extra to my licence fee if the BBC launched a Digital Sport Channel that broadcasts things like F1, athletics, swimming, cycling, boxing, gymnastics etc. What the sport wouldn't get from money it would gain in spectators, followers, fans and exposure and probably a larger pool of future generations wanting to take up a given sport.

    Not sure that this is the time/place to ask personal questions re political leaning.

    This isn't the 70's. Paying to watch major sport on TV is the norm throughout the world. I don't see what should make the UK any different.

    Freedom/democracy etc should be available to all, not sport. Besides which, think about how much money the real fans have to spend to watch F1 etc live. But you're not moaning about ticket/travel prices are you? Nope. It's a case of have cake eat cake.

    Besides which, you take a trip to any deprived area of the Uk and you will see plenty of houses with SKY dishes. Like it or lump it, those that want to watch sport on TV find the money to pay for it.

    And yes you are being naive, ridiculously so.
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    F1, athletics, swimming, cycling, boxing, gymnastics etc.
    One of these things is not like the other - wanna guess which? I'll give you a clue: €199,000,000 budget for two drivers.
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    rjsterry wrote:
    If you want someone to be disgusted at, try Mr Ecclestone, rather than the BBC.
    Amen.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,624
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    You vote Conservative don't you?

    Yeah, but he's going on a demo this evening. I reckon marriage has changed him.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    You vote Conservative don't you?

    Yeah, but he's going on a demo this evening. I reckon marriage has changed him.

    IP, you're not signing up with the unwashed masses on Blackfriars Bridge, are you?

    Say it ain't so!
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    I am indeed. In my defence all parties in the London Assembly voted against TFL's plans, not just the looney fringe...
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Il Principe wrote:
    I am indeed. In my defence all parties in the London Assembly voted against TFL's plans, not just the looney fringe...

    Oh man. You've changed, dude, you've really changed....
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    Greg66 wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    I am indeed. In my defence all parties in the London Assembly voted against TFL's plans, not just the looney fringe...

    Oh man. You've changed, dude, you've really changed....

    I blame Nick.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Il Principe wrote:

    Not sure that this is the time/place to ask personal questions re political leaning.

    This isn't the 70's. Paying to watch major sport on TV is the norm throughout the world. I don't see what should make the UK any different.

    Freedom/democracy etc should be available to all, not sport. Besides which, think about how much money the real fans have to spend to watch F1 etc live. But you're not moaning about ticket/travel prices are you? Nope. It's a case of have cake eat cake.

    Besides which, you take a trip to any deprived area of the Uk and you will see plenty of houses with SKY dishes. Like it or lump it, those that want to watch sport on TV find the money to pay for it.

    And yes you are being naive, ridiculously so.

    Even though I understand it as largely accurate, words cannot express how much I disagree with it in principle.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • roger_merriman
    roger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:

    Not sure that this is the time/place to ask personal questions re political leaning.

    This isn't the 70's. Paying to watch major sport on TV is the norm throughout the world. I don't see what should make the UK any different.

    Freedom/democracy etc should be available to all, not sport. Besides which, think about how much money the real fans have to spend to watch F1 etc live. But you're not moaning about ticket/travel prices are you? Nope. It's a case of have cake eat cake.

    Besides which, you take a trip to any deprived area of the Uk and you will see plenty of houses with SKY dishes. Like it or lump it, those that want to watch sport on TV find the money to pay for it.

    And yes you are being naive, ridiculously so.

    Even though I understand it as largely accurate, words cannot express how much I disagree with it in principle.

    So what is the bbc to do? Sport is exespensive and they only get so much per year, and lets not forget sport is not watched by every one f1 in partical is hardly something the nation watches.

    BBC is also funding S4C etc and should take lessons from S4C's mirsable postion now.
  • Aguila
    Aguila Posts: 622
    prawny wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9550930.stm

    :(

    Who cares, without doubt the most tedious televised sport available.
    www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6277
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    More people watch F1 on the BBC than watch MOTD and live matches on Sky put together (6-8 million per race).
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • Aguila
    Aguila Posts: 622
    Asprilla wrote:
    More people watch F1 on the BBC than watch MOTD and live matches on Sky put together (6-8 million per race).

    So what, how many people watch X factor? Its still utter toss.
    www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6277
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    Aguila wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    More people watch F1 on the BBC than watch MOTD and live matches on Sky put together (6-8 million per race).

    So what, how many people watch X factor? Its still utter toss.

    You asked who cared. If you don't like the answer that's your problem.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • Paul E
    Paul E Posts: 2,052
    Aguila wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    More people watch F1 on the BBC than watch MOTD and live matches on Sky put together (6-8 million per race).

    So what, how many people watch X factor? Its still utter toss.

    So is football, bunch of guys running about after a ball, that's boring to me, but that's my opinion and that's all it is, it doesn't make it a fact.

Categories