BBC To Drop F1?

[Ardius]

The former.

Broadcast television is a subscription service (and almost run as a cartel, like the car insurance industry) in the United Kingdom and there is no provision for any live, free-to-view channel.

Indeed, but some people choose to ignore the TV license as you have no choice in the matter. Sure its not free, but when we are comparing BBC to Sky (or any other broadcaster) the difference is the additional fee, the TV license always applies.

Perhaps we shouldn't use the word free, but I'm sure you understand the real point people are trying to get across when they refer to it as such.

The TV license doesn't really factor into what TV channels you choose to watch (other than choosing to not watch TV at all). The additional subscription payments for Sky, etc do.

 

[Famine]

Indeed, but some people choose to ignore the TV license as you have no choice in the matter. Sure its not free, but when we are comparing BBC to Sky (or any other broadcaster) the difference is the additional fee, the TV license always applies.

It's still a fee to watch any broadcast medium - including the broadcast portion of iPlayer. And of course the proceeds do fund the BBC - so it is in a very real sense a subscription. You can opt out - by never watching any broadcast medium, and getting your TV fix from iPlayer, ITV player, 4OD, Sky AnyTime (which needs a Sky subscription) or DVDs and legal downloads.

Perhaps we shouldn't use the word free, but I'm sure you understand the real point people are trying to get across when they refer to it as such.

Nevertheless, it's important to point out the distinction - the Concorde Agreement doesn't permit the only broadcasts of F1 to be on free-to-air TV channels because neither the BBC is nor is the example brought up even earlier by our Finnish representative.


It's also far more interesting to discuss than a made-up story by the Daily Fail.

 

[Ardius]

I'm not arguing that it isn't a subscription or that it isn't free. I'm just pointing out why its conveniently ignored in these discussions, because its effectively irrelevant to the "problem" (or at least irrelevant to those observing it as "free").
But yes it is more interesting, really this thread should be edited so we don't even mention that news source. But I guess that would make us as bad as them.

 

[Robin]

I'm sure I recently saw (probably a popup on the iPlayer website) that even watching recorded programs on iPlayer requires a license, or maybe that comes up with any video. I don't see the big deal anyway, if you want to watch TV pay the damn thing!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yeah, when I got a television, I even had to pay for it.

What is the world coming to?

 

[IceMan PJN]

if BBC stop covering F1 i will die. Here in Canada TSN usually broadcasts the BBC feed, occasionally they give us the SPEED feed which is terrible. Too many commercials and they don't know what they are talking about!

The only place I can view F1 is on Speed, so I have nothing to compare it to. (Well, unfortunately four races during the summer go to Fox, which is absolutely criminal. If you dislike Speed, you'd charge into the Fox offices and burn the place down.) I'm not sure where exactly they're overrun with inaccuracies ("don't know what they are talking about"). How often do the commentators say things that are just plain erroneous?

Granted, the Speed commentators aren't anywhere near on par with having people like Martin Brundle, David Coulthard, or Eddie Jordan, but Speed comes from NASCAR country and consequently isn't going to invest in or snag bigger F1 names. They still have a lesser former F1 driver, albeit one that didn't spend much time in races and scored zero points, but also has driven at the 24 Hours of Le Mans many times and the Indy 500 four times, among other things, so at least he is a professional race driver and not just some random bloke off the street. They also have a former Benetton F1 team race mechanic who was with the team through most of the 1990s, so at least he should know his way around the mechanical aspects of an F1 car. Again, it's not the same as having Brundel or Coulthard, but it's something. They shouldn't be completely ignorant, I would think.

 

[F1 fan]

if BBC stop covering F1 i will die. Here in Canada TSN usually broadcasts the BBC feed, occasionally they give us the SPEED feed which is terrible. Too many commercials and they don't know what they are talking about! So i hope BBC never stops covering F1 !!!

Having just moved to canada, I'm suffering withdrawals symptoms from the BBC F1 feed. As for Speed, they're ok, but things like pronouncing Renault "Rayknow" can be annoying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How often do the commentators say things that are just plain erroneous?

That depends. The BBC coverage is fantastic, largely because Brundle and Coulthard are former racers, know the sport inside-out, they have good rapport and aren't afraid to disagree with one another. If ever they make a mistake, it's usually calling the wrong car or driver in the thick of the action (ie mistaking a Toro Rosso for a Red Bull). But factually, they know just about everything there is to know, and often provide a lot of insight into exactly what is going on. As for the others, Ted Kravitz seems to know everyone in the pits and can generally get information very quickly (even if he only seems to visit McLaren and Red Bull and occasionally Renault), Lee McKenzie seems to be the journalist who gets the first English-language interview with a driver if and when they retire from a race, and while I can see why Eddie Jordan gets criticised, he also reminds me of a mad uncle who you love simply because you know you shouldn't. I don't know too much about Jake Humphrey beyond the fact that he finds every excuse that he can to use his iPad. Overall, the BBC coverage is pretty much everything you want commentary to be.

On the other hand, Australia gets the BBC feed, but we also have to put up with a trio of morons from OneHD: Greg Rust, Cameron McConville and either Darryl Beattie of Craig Barid depending on who is available. Rust skews absolutely everything with a pro-Webber bias, and he'll sledge anyone who gets in Webber's way. Thankfully, he's been relatively quiet this year, probably because he cannot explain away the difference between Vettel and Webber. Meanwhile, Cameron McConville seems to think that he should be a Formula 1 driver, and seems to resent everyone who is simply because they made it and he didn't. He wasn't even any good in a V8 Supercar, so he's clearly off in fantasy-land if he thinks he can be a Formula 1 driver. Then you've got Beattie and Baird, both of whom are pitched as the "expert" commentator because they're both racers, even though Beattie races motorcycles and Baird competes in sports cars. They're probably the most beign of the bunch, and also the least-used. They usually only resort to repeating headlines. James Allen also does some guest work for them, and while I know he was endlessly bashed at ITV, his segments are all pre-recorded and generally very good (I believe Allen's problem was that when he was commentating live, he didn't have any time to prepare material), especially for newcomers to the sport. The OneHD team are a bunch of uneducated morons who like to offer their opinions to audiences who would rather be listening to the Beeb. Although they appear to have been told to cut back this year - when Hamilton got that penalty in Valencia last year, they spent an entire block between ads discussing it (and getting it wrong). Cut to the BBC, and Brundle was wrapping up some interesting analysis of the Hamilton situation. Now it's not so much of a problem; when Australia cuts back from ads, the presenters appear to be on a time limit of how much they can say.

 

[Peter.]

The only place I can view F1 is on Speed, so I have nothing to compare it to. (Well, unfortunately four races during the summer go to Fox, which is absolutely criminal. If you dislike Speed, you'd charge into the Fox offices and burn the place down.) I'm not sure where exactly they're overrun with inaccuracies ("don't know what they are talking about"). How often do the commentators say things that are just plain erroneous?

Granted, the Speed commentators aren't anywhere near on par with having people like Martin Brundle, David Coulthard, or Eddie Jordan, but Speed comes from NASCAR country and consequently isn't going to invest in or snag bigger F1 names. They still have a lesser former F1 driver, albeit one that didn't spend much time in races and scored zero points, but also has driven at the 24 Hours of Le Mans many times and the Indy 500 four times, among other things, so at least he is a professional race driver and not just some random bloke off the street. They also have a former Benetton F1 team race mechanic who was with the team through most of the 1990s, so at least he should know his way around the mechanical aspects of an F1 car. Again, it's not the same as having Brundel or Coulthard, but it's something. They shouldn't be completely ignorant, I would think.

The SPEED guys are great. I have a choice ot either watch F1 on SPEED or TSN, which shows BBC coverage, and I always choose SPEED, but switch to TSN during commercials. SPEED has a good commentary lineup, who show little bias, if at all, and they know the sport inside out. Varsha is lead, and he's been doing it since F1 used to be broadcasted on ESPN, so that's back in the 1980's. Hobbs was a racing driver, so he provides us with information about racecraft, in regards to overtaking, or accidents. Matchett was a mechanic for Benetton back in the 90's ,so provides us with the technical side of F1 ,and he does a very good job at explaining things to viewers. Buxton is also very good, i'd rate him higher than Kravitz on the BBC side.

Plus, SPEED's segments, like their flasback, or RPM, are a good addition.

 

[Terronium-12]

Agreed all around, Peter. 👍

I just wish they'd cut down on the commercials. It's far less than FOX but still too much.

 

[chromatic9]

I don't think I'd subscribe to sky sports even though I've watched F1 since being a young lad in the eighties. The BBC coverage is fantastic. I love the practice sessions, F1 forum after show but still wouldn't subscribe if it moved on. I would miss it terribly though. Hopefully they'll be some highlights show.

I doubt the move would happen but I feel I'm in a minority who baulk at the idea of Sky subscription costs.

I'm reading though that the total amount of Sky subscribers right now is around 10million and looking back to 2002 its was around 10 million. I'm sure even the the mid-to-late nineties it was was 8-10 million. Seems the same group of people coff up but never goes any further.

People were very skeptical about Football moving but its been very successful on Sky. Don't quote me saying how you believe they're different, I'm not saying it'll work because football seems to.

I do remember before 1992 and Football wasn't so cool with the average person. If you followed football you were a bit of an anorak and it was really working class, a bit nerdy. Then it went all glossy and mainstream and gained a whole new audience and image, suddenly all men now support a team. Again not saying F1 will become like that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm reading though that the total amount of Sky subscribers right now is around 10million and looking back to 2002 its was around 10 million. I'm sure even the the mid-to-late nineties it was was 8-10 million. Seems the same group of people coff up but never goes any further.

It's certainly a motive for Murdoch to make a play for the commercial rights to the sport, or to try and steal broadcast rights away from the Beeb ...

 

[Tired Tyres]

It's certainly a motive for Murdoch to make a play for the commercial rights to the sport, or to try and steal broadcast rights away from the Beeb ...

It's a total non starter. The sponsors would not tolerate losing mass market viewing figures.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Famine's right... the W&T '49 requirement that 'equipment enabled to receive' be licenced is no longer in place - it's the act of watching at least once per-year-per-household that is now licenced. My bad

Still, the payment is a tax in law and not a service fee... this is similar to the excise that we pay on our cars. I don't think anyone considers their car to be a specific pay-per-drive commodity.

In the context of F1 we've heard the Bernster refer to the BBC as a 'free-to-air' service when specifically discussing the Concorde agreement. I guess this makes the (admittedly interesting) topic of "Is All UK TV Pay-per-View?" argument irrelevant in that context... but carry on

 

[Famine]

I'm sure I recently saw (probably a popup on the iPlayer website) that even watching recorded programs on iPlayer requires a license, or maybe that comes up with any video.

Then contact OFCOM to report it - that's completely untrue. The TV Licence is for operating equipment to receive/decode broadcast television as it is aired (iPlayer does have a segment for that), including cable, satellite and live internet feeds. On-demand services do not require a TV Licence.

I don't see the big deal anyway, if you want to watch TV pay the damn thing!

You do. When you buy it. And then you pay a £12 a month subscription which goes to the BBC (less if your television is monochrome) to watch any broadcast channel.

Which largely means that you get to give the BBC £12 a month to watch or record television when the television channels (including Mr. Murdoch's) want you to, perpetually missing the beginnings and ends of things, rather than nothing at all to watch television when you choose to watch it - running your life around television as you have to watch this thing right now, or set your Sky+/V+/VCR to record it, rather than it being just an entertainment medium to be bent around you.

Say you like Casualty, but you're never in on a Saturday evening. Videoing (or equivalent) it costs you £12 a month. Watching it on iPlayer on Sunday morning is free. Same with Coronation Street (ITV player), or Countdown (4OD), or Soccer AM (Sky Anytime - though you'd need a basic Sky subscription for that, even if your satellite equipment was disconnected), or even BabeStation (is BabeStation available on-demand? I can't even begin to imagine if - or why - it is).

The TV Licence is just a convenience tax, and so long as we, as a society, lazily continue to allow our lives to revolve around TV programmes rather than using the tools that we have to bend TV programming to suit us, we'll continue to pay it.

Still, the payment is a tax in law and not a service fee... this is similar to the excise that we pay on our cars. I don't think anyone considers their car to be a specific pay-per-drive commodity.

One word: Fuel.

And I can use my car to drive around without VED. I just can't use public roads. Be nice if I could use my TV to watch stuff without TVL, just not public broadcasters...

In the context of F1 we've heard the Bernster refer to the BBC as a 'free-to-air' service when specifically discussing the Concorde agreement. I guess this makes the (admittedly interesting) topic of "Is All UK TV Pay-per-View?" argument irrelevant in that context... but carry on.

On the upside, there's a whole lot more truth in this discussion than in the Daily Fail article. About 100% more, in fact.

 

[Centura]

I'm sure I recently saw (probably a popup on the iPlayer website) that even watching recorded programs on iPlayer requires a license, or maybe that comes up with any video. I don't see the big deal anyway, if you want to watch TV pay the damn thing!

You'll receive this popup when you try to watch live television.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Interesting... it seems the Daily Mail Group isn't actually owned by News Corp, I thought it was! The quality would certainly suggest that

Any road up; The Times most certainly is owned by News Corp which makes the Bernie Ecclestone quote that they printed today all the more interesting;

We want Formula One to stay free to viewers, that is 100%. The BBC have done a great job for us and we like their shows and the people obviously like it because so many are watching. They did warn me that they were facing problems but, so far, nothing more has been said. I hope they want to keep us because it is such a success and I will do my best to keep Formula 1 on the BBC.

I wonder if Rupert Murdoch knows they printed that or if there's some method in his madness? There's no doubt that he's as shrewd a businessman as Bernie...

 

[F1GTR]

Interesting... it seems the Daily Mail Group isn't actually owned by News Corp, I thought it was! The quality would certainly suggest that

However, The Sunday Times (which ran the story yesterday) is owned by News Corp.

 

[TenEightyOne]

However, The Sunday Times (which ran the story yesterday) is owned by News Corp.

Fair enough - but I did point that out in my post. I was referencing comments about the OP in which I (and others) erroneously pointed to the Daily Snail's owners being News Corp... I'd forgotten that there is still 2.53% of the world that Murdoch has yet to buy

 

[Robin]

@ Famine,

Well thats fine if your know exactly the type of stuff you like to watch but I have found that some of the best programs I have ever watched were ones I sumbled across when flicking through channels and thats the charm of live TV. I also actually find it more trouble to have stuff on demand because I keep putting it off thinking of a time period I can fit it in then end up never watching it!, having a TV schedule forces me to be there.

We do get quite a few BBC channels on freeview all with no adverts for the licence and the quality of shows is generally high so its worth it in my opinion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

JH has posted a letter that was published in today's Telegraph (maybe his cat has diarrhoea?). [Link[url]]

If the BBC lose F1 I don't think it will be because they didn't try. If the new Concorde agreement doesn't include the 'free-to-air' provisions of the existing agreement then News Corp will be eligible to bid for the sport's TV rights in the UK.

Can they outbid the BBC? They could probably outbid the US...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the new Concorde agreement doesn't include the 'free-to-air' provisions of the existing agreement then News Corp will be eligible to bid for the sport's TV rights in the UK.

The teams want the sport to remain free-to-air. It will be one of their major demands in the negotiations for a new Concorde.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

Famine's right... the W&T '49 requirement that 'equipment enabled to receive' be licenced is no longer in place - it's the act of watching at least once per-year-per-household that is now licenced. My bad

Still, the payment is a tax in law and not a service fee... this is similar to the excise that we pay on our cars. I don't think anyone considers their car to be a specific pay-per-drive commodity.

In the context of F1 we've heard the Bernster refer to the BBC as a 'free-to-air' service when specifically discussing the Concorde agreement. I guess this makes the (admittedly interesting) topic of "Is All UK TV Pay-per-View?" argument irrelevant in that context... but carry on

I thought that still applied as well. So does that mean, if I had a phone that could recieve TV, I could watch it as long as it wasn't in my house?

Back on topic I think the BBC will be fools to drop Formula One again. They may as well get rid of all the soaps while they're at it.
The Sunday Telegraph article was apparently written by the head of their Arts department. Considering BBC4 (the BBC's arts channel) is also under threat of the axe I would consider most of the information to be biased.

 

[Famine]

I thought that still applied as well. So does that mean, if I had a phone that could recieve TV, I could watch it as long as it wasn't in my house?

No, you're covered by the TV Licence wherever you watch it - the same as if you had a TV in your car, boat, caravan, motorhome or wherever. There's an odd exception for battery-powered televisions requiring a separate licence if they're used to watch TV while plugged into the mains - let me know if anyone figures the reason out for that one - but otherwise you're fine.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The teams want the sport to remain free-to-air. It will be one of their major demands in the negotiations for a new Concorde.

EJ seems to think otherwise. The teams who are in F1 for brand awareness would like free-to-air. However, EJ seems to feel that the smaller teams might take a cash-on-the-table offer very seriously in the case of a prospective News Corp bid.

The Sunday Telegraph article was apparently written by the head of their Arts department. Considering BBC4 (the BBC's arts channel) is also under threat of the axe I would consider most of the information to be biased.

I didn't realise that's who he was! Clearly he'll show some not inconsiderable bias towards the BBC... but in this case I agree with him

There's an odd exception for battery-powered televisions requiring a separate licence if they're used to watch TV while plugged into the mains - let me know if anyone figures the reason out for that one...

British law... let's not try to work out the logic. We'll be here forever*

*And probably taxed for the privelege...

 

[lbsf1]

Ignore.

Trying to point something out that I thought Famine had missed, however he hadn't.

 

[chromatic9]

Without trying to compare football too much but what about all the advertising hoardings, shirts sponsors and adverts that are within football broadcasts. Would it not be better for them to air it on ITV or BBC if thats the argument. Global subscription even if the audience is smaller outweighs it. Football went exponentially bigger when it went to a niche payperview, more attractive and trendy.

With F1 all the teams race at the same time (obviously) with football I might watch a game on ITV between Chelsea and Arsenal on a sunday but I'm not going to pay or go to the pub to watch it, nor will I watch Aston villa vs Westham but I might flick it on for a few minutes if its on ITV/BBC, so they miss out on a lot of advertising. Worldwide the cumulative audience for the English league is said to be around 3 billion, maybe a billion, not sure what the viewing figures are like in the UK only for Premier league matches but if that's true then they don't care if they narrow down the UK audience to a Sky only. F1 attracts 500million global but its not on as much.

F1 seems perfect for Sky in that it all takes place in one event whatever fan or persuasion you are. Wouldn't surprise me if F1 went pay per view in Europe as the global money intake and possible different image and branding could change the sport to be more accessible to the average male who watches football.

Apparently UK viewing of a typical Football match is 500k - 1million on Sky. If this was on the beeb they'd get 3-4 million and 7-10 million on big matches. BBC f1 gets 5 million. They just don't care that only 1 million watch a Premier league match just like they wouldn't care if only 1 million watch F1 instead of 5 million. The bubs and bars I can't see them generating much, probably 500k as there's only around 50k pubs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We've had it on ITV... and even that sucked. They often missed SC restarts because they were showing adverts and once they even managed to miss the end of the race.

I shudder at the thought of that happening ever again!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They usually cut to adverts because it's a safety car. There's not usually a lot of excitement to be had there.

Could be worse, though. In Australia, they cut to ads when the first round of pit stops begin, despite the fact that this used to be the one time a driver could resonably pass others ...

 

[TenEightyOne]

They usually cut to adverts because it's a safety car. There's not usually a lot of excitement to be had there.

Quite rightly so... but ITV never seemed to have a plan for the SC lights going out. The ad breaks were of a preset length and if they overran the restart then so be it.

Dreadful days