Petition to keep F1 on BBC

[FullSpe3d98]

I'm not the only one who wants F1 to stay on the BBC. Please sign the petition! http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57

 

[Tornado]

Even ignoring the typical problems with online petitions, from what I understand based on lurking the other thread is that it was unrealistic to ever expect the BBC to keep the F1 licence exclusive in the first place, so I have to imagine it is even more unrealistic to think that outcry is going to bring it back.

 

[FullSpe3d98]

The thing is, this is an official petition site, by the HM Government.

e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.

 

[MitchZ06]

Is the BBC run by the Government? (just asking)

 

[Akira AC]

I dont think that is possible, since the FOM is the one that controls who should receive the concessions for broadcast, I found very difficult(probably impossible) that the UK government could potentially have an effect on a private entity like the FOM.

I like to see F1 back on the BBC too, but is more down to FOM business decisions, than BBC's.

 

[Alex.]

Hey we have 100k fans of the show, which we already knew anyway, let's keep it then.

Not going to happen when it costs 300m a year.

 

[dhandeh]

But F1 is staying on BBC, Just in a slightly reduced format.

 

[Ardius]

Contracts are all signed it seems now, so a petition is hardly going to do any good. Its far too late for this kind of thing..

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Contracts are all signed it seems now, so a petition is hardly going to do any good.

And if it did, it would be the beginning of a long, hard fight. I strongly suspect that if the petition were successful, then the BBC - or whoever broadcast the races - would have to scale back their coverage to keep costs down. That would probably mean commercial breaks (at the very least), the removal of the pre- and post-race coverage and the occasional delayed broadcast (particularly for the Asian races). And you know what the end result would be? The fans would be upset, as if they hadn't brought this on themselves.

 

[Lizard]

If this gets through the harshest thing the government can do is revoke skys broadcasting licence so its worth a try as the government can get it back to free to air although if that happens I see ITV getting it..

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why would the government revoke Sky's broadcasting licence? The only time they'd do something like that would be for a serious violation of the broadcasting code. Sky hasn't done anything wrong, and the deal is legal under the Concorde Agreement. The Concorde only states that the sport should be broadcast on free-to-air "where possible". If no free-to-air networks purchase the rights to the sport, it is not possible for the sport to be broadcast on free-to-air, and so the bidding process can be opened up to pay-per-view networks. Even then, the terms of the Sky-BBC deal mean that Formula 1 will be shown on free-to-air television in some form, satifying the conditions of the Concorde Agreement. The Concorde might be a legally-binding document, but it is not actually a law. Sky have done nothing wrong; certainly nothing to justify having their broadcasting licence revoked.

This is something I posted on another forum about the petition. It's actually a very, very flawed document:

Taking a closer look at that petition, I think it might be dead in the water already. Take a look at the wording of it:

Formula 1 will be shown half on BBC and half on Sky from 2012. Formula 1 signed the Concorde agreement which specifically states that viewing should be “free to air where possible”. The UK has great coverage already by the BBC, which shows it is possible. This petition is to show the support of F1 in the UK and keep it free to air.

The wording of certain sentences mean that this is not a particularly strong petition. Observe:

Formula 1 will be shown half on BBC and half on Sky from 2012.

Patently untrue. The BBC have stated that they will show ten races live, and extended highlights of the remaining ten races on a delayed broadcast. All twenty Grands Prix are being covered; this statement, however, suggests that the BBC will only show ten races.

Formula 1 signed the Concorde agreement which specifically states that viewing should be “free to air where possible”.

Formula 1 will be on free-to-air next year, albeit in a reduced form. But all twenty races are being broadcast – nothing is being held back. Secondly, the Concorde Agreement does not prevent a shared free-to-air/pay-per-view arrangement. The teams would not have agreed to it if the Concorde did not.

In addition to this, the “where possible” is open to interpretation. If no free-to-air networks are willing to broadcast Formula 1, then it is not possible to keep Formula 1 on free-to-air. Based on the wording of the petition, it may be argued that the Concorde Agreement only gives free-to-air networks priority over pay-per-view, and that the sport may only be broadcast on pay-per-view when certain conditions are met. If the Concorde Agreement says anything differently, then it is a failure of the petition to communicate this because the House of Commons will only debate the contents of the petition.

The UK has great coverage already by the BBC, which shows it is possible.

Whether or not it is possible is not the issue here. Whether ot not it is feasible, however, is the issue. The BBC have demonstrated that they can broadcast every race live. They also, however, make no secret of the fact that they are scaling back their coverage as a way of cutting costs.

This petition is to show the support of F1 in the UK and keep it free to air.

I believe the government only has the power to make the sport a free-to-air exclusive. It cannot, however, force any broadcaster to show the sport. If the sport is protected, the BBC may elect not to show anything at all because they cannot justify the costs. If other broadcasters feel the same way, they may elect not to pick up Formula 1, either. In such a case, a broadcaster from outside the UK would pick up the exclusive rights. British networks would only pay for syndication, and there is nothing in the Concorde Agreement that states the sport must be broadcast on free-to-air television in Britain. It is likely that the clause demanding “free-to-air whenever possible” only applies to the home country of the exclusive rights holder. In just such a scenario, it is possible that Sky Sports could out-bid all other British networks and be the sole broadcaster of the sport in the UK.

The bottom line is this: the petition is calling for Formula 1 to stay on free-to-air television in 2012. The Sky-BBC arrangement will show Formula 1 on free-to-air television. It also satisfies the terms of the Concorde Agreement. So, technically, the wording of the petition supports the Sky-BBC deal because that deal meets all of the conditions laid out by the petition. This might sound like a semantic difference, but government policy is often dictated by semantics – just look at the “pink batts” episode here in Australia: the government offered a subsidy on insulation batts to home-owners. A lot of people raced out and got them installed cheaply by uncertified companies, with the end result being that houses posed an electrocution risk. There were several episodes where workmen died because the work meant that wiring in the house was not properly grounded. And all because the government did not specify that the insulation had to be installed by accredited companies.

That’s the problem with the petition – it can easily be argued that the 2012 broadcast arrangement satisfies every sentence of it.

I also doubt the ability of the government to "get it back to free to air". In all seriousness, the only event they would have any control over would be the British Grand Prix, because it's the only race that is held in Britain. Any other British presence in the sport - drivers, teams, personnel - is transient. It changes with time, unlike premiership football, which is held exclusively in the UK.

 

[Lizard]

I wasn't saying they would revoke skys licence I was saying the government holds all the cards.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Really? Because your wording implies that revoking the broadcasting licence is an option in this situation. Which it isn't.

 

[Only_in_f1]

Contracts are all signed it seems now, so a petition is hardly going to do any good. Its far too late for this kind of thing..

But if the government decided F1 had to remain free to air, it would therefore be illegal?

Enjoy Tony Jardine.

 

[Northstar]

But if the government decided F1 had to remain free to air, it would therefore be illegal?

Enjoy Tony Jardine.

I don't think the government would have any authority on the matter. Not to mention the anti-trust laws(I'm assuming England has them) would also be broken by such a ruling.

 

[Famine]

I'd quite like a petition to keep government's noses out of business deals conducted between the private enterprise of BSkyB and the private enterprise of FOM representing the private enterprises of the various circuit-owning bodies and Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, Williams, Force India, Sauber, Hispania, Virgin Racing, Lotus and Cosworth.


You know that the BBC had a choice of finding £50m to continue broadcasting F1 in full next year, finding another broadcaster to buddy with for 2012 to continue broadcasting any F1 next year or defaulting on their contract with FOM and being sued by Bernie, right? If you want F1 to stay on BBC in its entirety you should either be lobbying the government to increase the £145.50 licence fee to allow the BBC funding to keep its agreement or lobbying the BBC to cut other shows and services to maintain F1 or lobbying FOM to prevent it making money by selling the rights to races to commercial broadcasters. Making a petition to show the government that F1 is supported well in the UK is... beyond useless.


(incidentally, you quote the 2009 Sixth Concorde Agreement - which expires in December 2012 - but I've never seen any text of it, only the 1997 Fourth Concorde Agreement. Do you have a source? I'd like to read it)

 

[Ardius]

But if the government decided F1 had to remain free to air, it would therefore be illegal?

Enjoy Tony Jardine.

I find it very hard to believe the goverment will make it law that F1 has to be on "free to air". They don't care about F1 or motorsport and have always avoided being seen to, especially after the whole tobacco adverstising thing. Motorsport is seen as a rich-sport and therefore people feel it doesn't need government intervention, right or wrongly.

Its kind of sad that some of the things this country is still quite good at and has a fair bit of industry around, are seen in a negative light by the general public and so the government ignores or falls pray to the stigma. Just as the motorsport industry isn't well supported by the government, neither is our video games industry.

 

[keldabest13]

I have sky sports so it's okay!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You know that the BBC had a choice of finding £50m to continue broadcasting F1 in full next year, finding another broadcaster to buddy with for 2012 to continue broadcasting any F1 next year or defaulting on their contract with FOM and being sued by Bernie, right?

According to Paul Hembrey, there was no free-to-air coverage planned for 2012 just a few weeks ago.

 

[lukecfc]

According to Paul Hembrey, there was no free-to-air coverage planned for 2012 just a few weeks ago.

I have only heard, but don't British people have to pay a yearly fee of a certain amount to watch TV? So technically it's not Free to Air. What's stopping the BBC from bumping that price up by a pound or two to keep Free(ish) to Air Formula One?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes, they do have to pay the BBC for a television licence. However, I believe the government has frozen the price of the licences - the BBC cannot raise that fee because they're not allowed to. And even if they could, a) one or two pounds probably wouldn't be enough to offset the cost of Formula 1, and b) that money would probably go towards something else. The BBC doesn't exist solely to show Formula 1.

 

[Moot]

Just a £1 price rise would easily pay for F1.

£1 would raise an extra £24 million, plus the £18 million they already pay would give them £42m for F1. Estimates of what the contract cost the BBC for f1 were about £40m.
Sky are only paying £36m for it. So the BBC could easily afford to broadcast 100% of F1 live with £42m.

 

[Famine]

No, it'd need to be nearer a £2 price rise with 29.5 million licensable addresses in the UK and the BBC quoting £50m required to show a season of F1. Of course, lest we forget, if the licence fee went up, we'd still be paying the BBC to watch other channels, so it's still a cartel.


The BBC don't levy the Licence Fee (though through an arm of the BBC called "TV Licensing", they collect it). The fee is set by the government, specifically the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the licence is required by the Communications Act (2003).

 

[Ardius]

I have only heard, but don't British people have to pay a yearly fee of a certain amount to watch TV? So technically it's not Free to Air. What's stopping the BBC from bumping that price up by a pound or two to keep Free(ish) to Air Formula One?

Its only referred to as "free to air" in the sense that the cost is unavoidable and in relation to satellite or cable services - which require an additional fee on top of the TV license. It isn't really free, its just you don't pay anything additionally.

 

[Moot]

No, it'd need to be nearer a £2 price rise with 29.5 million licensable addresses in the UK and the BBC quoting £50m required to show a season of F1.

BBC don't need £50m, they need £36m along side a deal with another broadcaster. But in any case if they did need £50m, that would require £32m funds, which would mean a just over £1 increase, not near £2 at all.

 

[Famine]

BBC don't need £50m, they need £36m along side a deal with another broadcaster. But in any case if they did need £50m, that would require £32m funds, which would mean a just over £1 increase, not near £2 at all.

£1 increase = <£29.5m increase.
£2 increase = <£59m increase.

The required increase for £50m is nearer to £2 than £1. Like I said.

 

[F1 fan]

£1 increase = <£29.5m increase.
£2 increase = <£59m increase.

The required increase for £50m is nearer to £2 than £1. Like I said.

So could this have been avoided if the tv license hadn't been frozen? Or would they still have given it up?

 

[DK]

If I was a British resident, I would happily stump up an extra £2.

 

[F1 fan]

If I was a British resident, I would happily stump up an extra £2.

Me too, and I'm heading back to rainy Scotland this year.

 

[Moot]

£1 increase = <£29.5m increase.
£2 increase = <£59m increase.

The required increase for £50m is nearer to £2 than £1. Like I said.

They don't need to raise £50m to have a £50m F1 budget, they need to raise £32, they already have £18m per year within the existing budget.
So like I said, it's about a £1.