andartop wrote:I am not going to pay a single penny to watch F1, and that's NOT because I expect to get everything for free: I subscribe to Lovefilm and still buy original CDs, DVDs, BDs and games, rather than download everything for free. I am convinced the Sky package is good value for money, and could easily afford it, but refuse to contribute to F1 broadcasting becoming a paid for only service, which is exactly what will eventually happen worldwide if the Sky experiment succeeds. I believe everyone involved in the F1 circus is already making enough money out of it to be able to offer me a decent broadcasting service free of extra charge (I still have to pay for a TV license), and only charge for features like high definition, live race data, camera selection, etc. Just because media barons take advantage of sports fans' love for football, rugby, F1 or whatever in many countries doesn't make it right.
+1
Hopefully F1 won't sell exclusive rights to a single platform, subscription only broadcaster.
I hate the fact that if a broadcaster gets exclusive rights to a sport, they can hold it to the randsom of having to subscribe to their platform and other channels.
The broadcaster borrows money for a bid, then charges a subscription fee as well as adding it's own sponsorship deals and adverts to get even more revenue.
We end you paying twice through sitting through ads as well as subscription.
You could argue that it's just charging what the market will bear, but once a deal is signed, there is no market, it's a monopoly.
Should video on demand be offered directly from FOM, I would pay even on a ppv basis. I don't mind paying, but don't give anyone a monopoly on paid for services, and ideally don't allow ad breaks if it's a subscription service - only let them charge you once.
It's what drove football players pay so high and changed the sport forever. Hopefully they'll leave Rugby Union internationals alone for a few years yet!
