BBC / Sky Sports

[Just_a_fan]

The BBC don't do commercials at all. That's why so many people are happy to pay the licence fee.

Adverts are annoying and distracting - especially in something like F1 coverage. ITV did some really stupid advert breaks at times - like a 5 minute break during the last 10 laps of a closely fought race. They got some stick for it too and did improve a bit thereafter.

What's annoying about the Sky thing is that you'd have to pay to watch the race and still be bombarded by crass marketing drivel...even if I didn't count Sky to be the spawn of the devil (Murdoch and his brood appear to have no morals) the thought of paying and adverts would be too much.

[Richard]

LOL - I was stunned the first time I saw Sky, they still play ads after you have forked out all that cash.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I have no issue paying for Formula 1 coverage, let's get that clear.

My issue is that there is no way for me to pay for JUST F1 coverage, I have to pay for the whole SKY package, and that's exactly why they want F1 so bad, they essentially wan't to force people to buy SKY, it's blackmail.

My biggest concern is F1 will go the way of A1GP etc.

Only 'hardcore' f1 fans will pay the SKY charges to see the races. The 'casual' f1 fans (which are probably the bigger percentage) simply won't watch those paid tv races, and the ratings will bomb. Sponsor commitments won't be met, teams & races will struggle, and the sport will start to crumble. It's nearly happened before when all the manufacturers started to pull out during the recession.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Richard/JAF


Sky are reportedly promising no ad breaks(on twitter).

[beelsebob]

I have no issue paying for Formula 1 coverage, let's get that clear.

My issue is that there is no way for me to pay for JUST F1 coverage, I have to pay for the whole SKY package, and that's exactly why they want F1 so bad, they essentially wan't to force people to buy SKY, it's blackmail.

My biggest concern is F1 will go the way of A1GP etc.

Only 'hardcore' f1 fans will pay the SKY charges to see the races. The 'casual' f1 fans (which are probably the bigger percentage) simply won't watch those paid tv races, and the ratings will bomb. Sponsor commitments won't be met, teams & races will struggle, and the sport will start to crumble. It's nearly happened before when all the manufacturers started to pull out during the recession.

I don't believe even the hard core fans will pay £600 a year to see 10 races when they could go to 2 races and watch the other 8 delayed a little.

[donskar]

Interesting that many of those opposed to paying for the races have seldom (or never) posted here before.

Yes, we have always paid for F1 in the USA. AND we have to buy an entire package -- not just F1. AND the coverage IS interrupted by lots of ads. At least Sky say they will NOT interrupt with ads. One more thing: here in the USA dedicated F1 fans have to get up around 0600 or earlier to see the races live.

No, F1 does not belong to England, it is a global marketing enterprise, with more races outside of the EU than in.

Whitmarsh has provided us with a scintilla of hope -- this may be illegal with re: the Concorde agreement. Viewership will almost certainly go down, making F1 less attractive to sponsors. Of course, Bernie can counter that the teams don't need so much money -- budget cap, remember?

Bottom line: Bernie and the suits he pimps for will do ANYTHING they can get away with in order to make more money. It's a BUSINESS, guys. Has not been a sport for a long, long time.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Sorry to hear that donskar, maybe all F1 teams should relocate to America and all the races should be night races so you can watch them during the day?

Can you please quote the pricing structure of the american tv packages required to view F1, I want to see how it compares.

F1 was born in the UK, and it's heritage is here.

The concorde agreement says F1 must be broadcast on free-to-air TV WHERE POSSIBLE. So if it's not free in the US, you can blame the free-to-air TV stations there, just like we are laying the blame on the BBC here.

[JamesS]

With all due respect, so?

I've had to pay for every Grand Prix I've ever seen. And the coverage for which I've paid leaves a lot to be desired when compared to anything available in the UK.

I'm completely OK with UK fans having to pony up to watch all of the races. Maybe a local outcry will do something to stop Ecclestone's greedy fees.

(I doubt it.)

I don't know what it's like where you live, but the problem is here in the UK we already pay a "TV license fee" of £145.50 per year, which is used to fund the BBC, (all aspects of their services: TV, Radio, their web site etc). You HAVE to pay the license fee if you own a TV with a receiver, you cannot opt out and will go to prison if you don't pay. This is why BBC programs have no adverts.

Sky is very expensive for many people. It will cost at least £30 per month to watch F1 through Sky. There are potentially cheaper alternatives, for example BT Vision and TopUp TV offer Sky Sports channels over Freeview for around £20 per month.

It is also Murdoch bashing season. It would take a spineless midget to do a deal with them at a time like that. Oh ---, forgot, Ecclecake is just that!

This is a sport us British excel at. The majority of teams are UK based, we have British drivers competing for race and championship wins and the British GP is always the most attended race of the season. The Government have had a part to play in this also. They had the opportunity to add F1 to the protected rights list of sports, whereby it is put in to law that a sport must remain on free to air TV, for example the Football World Cup and the Olympics are on this list.

It is a disgraceful decision by the BBC. They should be completely ashamed. But instead they come out with bullshit propaganda "oh it's actually a really good situation", no it's not!

[Pup]

Those prices are pretty much the same as what we pay in the states.

[wesley123]

Richard/JAF


Sky are reportedly promising no ad breaks(on twitter).

Sky is american right? In that case you can dream on, the ads will be shoved in your throat, the naming of the program will be something like 'Bud Light formula 1 grand prix of Singapore' and you will see the same add during the race a million times.

Sure you pay a fee for the television you recieve, but that isnt like 45 euro's per month that you pay for it. If I was watching 24/7 then it is a decent price, but I will not and no one will pay 600 euro's a year to watch 4 hours of F1 every 2 weeks. Plus I believe we dont even have Sky as an optional package. I really dont care if BBC is funded by the television fee you pay, they can show commercials before and after the race, that is in any way a better option than jus showing half of the races and for the rest say 'screw you formula 1 watchers who really enjoy bbcf1, you are going to pay 600$ a year if you want it or not'. Simply ridiculous. And to further cut the cost you could for example take away Humphrey's iPad and replace it with a cheaper tablet which is essentially the same thing

[SiLo]

I couldn't give a monkeys if Sky are promising no ads. I don't want Sky TV, and I don't want to pay to watch something that has been free since the first day it aired.

[JamesS]

Richard/JAF


Sky are reportedly promising no ad breaks(on twitter).

Sky is american right?

No, it's British: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Sky_Broadcasting

[i70q7m7ghw]

It's part owned by News Corp/Int. and the chairman of BSkyB is James Murdoch, so it's under american control to some degree.

[munudeges]

LOL - I was stunned the first time I saw Sky, they still play ads after you have forked out all that cash.

Yes, because they don't make enough from the subscriptions and they have to subsidise other stuff.

That should tell you all you need to know about how much business sense this makes.

[Just_a_fan]

Like most large companies these days it's multi-national but in this case it has its headquarters in the UK. For now.