I know BBC have highlights for non-live races, but if F1 went from terrestrial altogether (which I think will happen :-() how many people would get Sky?
Printable View
I know BBC have highlights for non-live races, but if F1 went from terrestrial altogether (which I think will happen :-() how many people would get Sky?
Have Sky and watch the races on Sky, so do I click Yes or is the poll just for those who don'y subscribe to the F1 channel currently?
Good question. If you already have Sky, you can click YesQuote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
just watch it free on VIPBOX.
Here F1 has always been on paytv (Star tv- which is basically Sky or Fox now)
I will be illegally downloading the races afterward should F1 go behind Rupert's paywall in Oz. They are already doing this by stealth to the V8SC from next season. I will be rogered with a big black dog before I give Rupert any of my hard-earned.
Except for the odd race on over-air network, F1 races in the U.S. have been on various pay channels (ESPN, Speedvision/Speed Channel, NBCSports and CNBC) for years. My ultimate dream for 2015 is to be able to find a way of watching my F1 races and not have to subscribe to a cable or satellite package that includes trash channels that I wouldn't watch even if threatened with a loaded pistol: Bravo, Lifetime, Women's Entertainment, Logo, RealTV, shopping channels and all of the pointless, retarded reality TV shows that pollute American television. I don't mind paying for a package that includes F1. But since F1 (and GP2) is about the last sports broadcast that I can't receive without being forced to subsidize these trash channels, I feel trapped.
I would much rather just buy a digital antenna and a TiVo or Roku unit and watch my races for (basically) free. But F1 is my last passion on TV. So I'll do what I have to do and pay whatever I have to pay. Also, if old man Ecclestone would finally realize that he's out of touch with this new digital and technology age, and allow/encourage a refresh of the broadcasts, that would make the $ I spend seem more worth it.
http://www.foxtel.com.au/shop/channel-pack/default.htm
"Esstentials" = $49 / per month
"Sports" = $25 / per month extra
So let me get this straight Foxtel, you want to charge me $888 a year for something I currently see for free. On top of this, Speed channel disappears on Nov 1 this year and will be replaced with Fox Sports 4.
I suspect that I'm going to have to arrange some sort of a kickstarter project to buy out Holden's manufacturing operations in Australia and then set up my own F1 team. That's more likely than me wanting to further line Rupert's pockets - especially when one of his former columnists is currently the PM and is eroding the national public broadcaster.
If F1 jumps to pay-TV only then I'll see as many races per season as I do Formula E; which is currently nil.
To piggyback on what Rollo said, I'd be less bothered about paying for F1 if there was more and better content. Maybe some of the Europeans here get more and better coverage than we do in the U.S., but I look at what NASCAR has here and that's what I want from F1. Even back in the old CART days, way back when dinosaurs were just learning about computers and the interwebs, PacWest Racing and other teams had live feeds from their garages. I just don't feel like there's been all that much progress in the TV viewing experience. In-car cameras? Really? And that dopey thermal camera? It's just perverse that a NASCAR race broadcast is a world above Formula One when it comes to TV viewing technology. What happened to the super-slow-mos and the overlays, where we could see cars "going through" other cars during practice and qualifying??? Why can't we get panning in-car camera shots? That technology has only been around for about 15 years!
Already have Sky so I clicked yes.