Paris Roubaix on tv?

bmxboy10
bmxboy10 Posts: 1,958
edited April 2014 in Road general
If so which channel? Can't find any info?

Comments

  • Father Faff
    Father Faff Posts: 1,176
    Eurosport - they have all the cycling races. Tour of Flanders was brilliant and mad last weekend,
    Commencal Meta 5.5.1
    Scott CR1
  • bmxboy10
    bmxboy10 Posts: 1,958
    Great don't have that channel...
  • Philly8mt
    Philly8mt Posts: 552
    Hello!

    If you've got a iPad you can download the Eurosport app and subscribe ... It's £2.99 per month and you'll get all the cycling :D
    Still thinking of something clever to say!
  • Chris87
    Chris87 Posts: 224
    http://www.wiziwig.tv/competition.php?p ... ne=cycling

    though the eurosport sub is a good deal, if theres a games console in the house you can watch it through that on tv too!
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,388
    There's a sticky in Pro Race that deals with all of this.Welcome to the world of the dodgy internet stream! ;)
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • You can purchase Eurosport for a month. Will cost you £4.99 or something. Maybe cheaper if they have some deals on.

    Might as well keep it for a coupple of Month though and watch the Giro d'Italia. Then there's The Tour... :wink:

    It's not bad value really, when you can pay that to rent a single movie.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    + 1

    You can get the Eurosport Player app. for most platforms, e.g. ipad, PC, and it works very well. Just subscribe with the "crowd pass" option for a month and then immediately unsubscribe so that the payment doesn't recur. You will still have the one month access.

    These days I only do it for the month of Tour of Flanders and Paris Roubaix, because these are the only races I have time to watch live. For the big tours I download highlights from Cyclingtorrents.nl. If Eurosport made their highlights programmes available on demand I would gladly have a permanent subscription, but I don't have time to fit my life around their broadcast schedule.

    I have no problems watching UK Eurosport Player abroad through a VPN over broadband either, it works a lot better than (for example) the BBC iplayer does.
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Online streams can be found via www.cyclingfans.com - likely will be Belgian TV coverage
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,244
    or steephill... problem with the illegal streaming is you get a lot of adverts and popups and typically the connection is lost just before the sprint.
    I would say flemmish comments are a bonus
    left the forum March 2023
  • Yeah, cyclingfans will have the Eurosport stream going.
  • If your into your cycling and enjoy watching the big races then put your hand in your pocket - a months subscription is less than the price of an inner tube!
  • Gotta love Eurosport for cutting straight to an advert literally as Sagan attacks. GOOD ONE.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,244
    I am not sure about paying to see adverts... I am happy to pay the BBC as they do no commercials, if they start, I will stop paying the licence... simple... :wink:

    The ITV coverage of the TdF is 50% commercials... but at least it's free of charge... still, I can't stand it and I don't watch it
    left the forum March 2023
  • southdownswolf
    southdownswolf Posts: 1,525
    I am not sure about paying to see adverts... I am happy to pay the BBC as they do no commercials, if they start, I will stop paying the licence... simple... :wink:

    The ITV coverage of the TdF is 50% commercials... but at least it's free of charge... still, I can't stand it and I don't watch it

    Of course if you do not want to pay for a TV license, you do not need to. As long as you only watch BBC on catch up, then you do not need to pay for a license. It is only if you watch "live" that you need to pay.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,244
    Of course if you do not want to pay for a TV license, you do not need to. As long as you only watch BBC on catch up, then you do not need to pay for a license. It is only if you watch "live" that you need to pay.

    I am happy to pay... I like the BBC, but if they find other streams of funding, then I will withdraw mine... :wink:
    left the forum March 2023
  • southdownswolf
    southdownswolf Posts: 1,525
    Of course if you do not want to pay for a TV license, you do not need to. As long as you only watch BBC on catch up, then you do not need to pay for a license. It is only if you watch "live" that you need to pay.

    I am happy to pay... I like the BBC, but if they find other streams of funding, then I will withdraw mine... :wink:

    I would imagine that sooner or later they will have to change the way they get funding and commercials are the obvious choice. Once they go to commercials, I can't imagine that a license fee would be applicable. Like you, I personally would like to keep it advert free, even if that meant we had to pay a little more.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,244
    I would imagine that sooner or later they will have to change the way they get funding and commercials are the obvious choice. Once they go to commercials, I can't imagine that a license fee would be applicable. Like you, I personally would like to keep it advert free, even if that meant we had to pay a little more.

    In Italy the equivalent of BBC is called RAI... it is funded via a licence and up to a few years ago it was adverts free during the shows, with only commercials before and after. Then it started to feature commercials even during the shows, but the licence fee hasn't gone down. Interestingly, the licence fee is comparable to the UK one, but the quality is immensely different... RAI programs are junk with no exception... and the funny thing is that before the commercials era, they use to make better programs with bigger budgets, while now they only broadcast quiz shows and politics debates, which are notoriously cheap to make... a massive scam to the taxpayers
    left the forum March 2023
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    In Italy the equivalent of BBC is called RAI... it is funded via a licence and up to a few years ago it was adverts free during the shows, with only commercials before and after. Then it started to feature commercials even during the shows, but the licence fee hasn't gone down. Interestingly, the licence fee is comparable to the UK one, but the quality is immensely different... RAI programs are junk with no exception... and the funny thing is that before the commercials era, they use to make better programs with bigger budgets, while now they only broadcast quiz shows and politics debates, which are notoriously cheap to make... a massive scam to the taxpayers

    yeah, thats the problem, once you start selling commercials you have to broadcast what the majority of people want to watch and on the whole it is complete rubbish like x factor or Britain's got talent or something like that so i hope the Beeb sticks to the licence fee and commercial free. maybe the odd sponsored programme would get a bit of extra cash in.

    also, people don't always realise what the licence fee actually funds, its much more than just BBC tv channels, its also radio and freeview brodcasting (including ITV, channel 4, 5 etc) among other things.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    The silly thing about the license fee is that it is separate from the rest of taxation. I completely support a public funded BBC without any commercial content, but why not just increase income tax appropriately and fund it from that? Finland effectively just switched to doing that a year ago. Instead of the license fee there is now a specific income tax of 50 - 140 Euro per year depending on income, which is just deducted from your earnings like the rest of your income tax. Fairer (because it is income based), and cheaper and more efficient to collect (also less hassle for individuals because you don't need to go to the effort of paying it).

    Of course there would be an outcry from the tiny percentage of people who don't watch TV, but at the end of the day they are part of society and benefit indirectly from the educative and other social value of public funded broadcasting.
  • southdownswolf
    southdownswolf Posts: 1,525
    Because everyone that watches BBC should pay it, not just those that work for a living.
    I realise that some people might argue that they have to pay, but do not watch/listen to BBC, just the other channels.
    Why should it be dependant on income? Just because somebody earns more, why should they have to pay more? There is a good chance that they watch tv less than those that do not work or only work a few hours.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    Because everyone that watches BBC should pay it, not just those that work for a living.
    You could say the same for any other public service. People who (whether necessarily or unnecessarily) are not working get their income from the state in any case, so it's a pretty irrelevant point.
    Why should it be dependant on income? Just because somebody earns more, why should they have to pay more? There is a good chance that they watch tv less than those that do not work or only work a few hours.
    It's called progressive taxation. It's the price you pay for a functional society that you would want to live in. Income imbalance might be a necessary evil in a democratic market economy (teachers work as hard and do a more important job than insurance brokers but get paid far less, and this may be a difficult situation to change economically), but at least we can partially redress that by properly funding public services and requiring everyone to contribute what they can afford.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    Actually, strictly speaking it needn't even be progressive taxation if everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
  • southdownswolf
    southdownswolf Posts: 1,525
    Correct, it doesn't need to be progressive taxation. It should be based on usage, similar to petrol, smoking etc.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,467
    Correct, it doesn't need to be progressive taxation. It should be based on usage, similar to petrol, smoking etc.
    You're missing the point - which is that BBC programme making and broadcasting should be a public service, because it is good for society and most people's well being. Smoking and petrol consumption are not good for society and not necessary (in fact they incur costs to society) so are paid for and taxed based on usage.

    If you agree that BBC programming should be a public service then it makes sense to pay for it with income-based taxation just like other public services.