F1 going to Sky

How quickly you all were spoiled. ;) Public TV is far different in the UK than here. We would never have had racing of any sort on public television. Sorry. Terrestrial (broadcast) TV is all but a worthless attempt at frustration due to poor signal in my area. I essentially have to have cable or Satellite TV or I can get about two channels, so I already pay for television which includes Speed in my basic package. In the US we get our F1 Coverage from Murdock whether you like it or not. We get 4(?) races broadcast through the Fox Network but the majority of the race coverage and all practice and quallys is on Speed TV, or you don't watch F1 at all. Both have commercials..... Actually the Speed TV coverage package is far superior to the Fox telecasts which are limited to two hours and mostly tape delayed. Fox and Speed simply broadcast the F1 world feed, but with a very good boradcast team announcing from a studio.

Yet again, Bernie is following the lead of Indycars. Splitting broadcasters, half broadcast, half cable/satellite, all poor. There will be no cross promotion, confucion over who is covering what, and no consistency. At least NASCAR which dies a similar split is smart enough to split the races mid season so you only have to really change networks for the second half of hte season, not inconsistently every other race.

Another couple of thoughts regarding Sky's costs.

On top of all the other prices discussed you have to pay Sky an extra £10 per month if you want HD, which the BBC already gives if you have the correct equipment.

Then there's the onboards etc. When F1 Digital+ was running you had to choose which feed you wanted, you couldn't do what I do now and have several screens at once without paying a multiroom subscription: yet another £10 per month.

Don't forget that Sky also have a 12 month minimum subscription which rules out only paying during the F1 season (though admittedly the calendar is fast approaching a full year anyway!)

So for me, with the basic Sky package, I'd have to pay nearly £40 per month extra to replicate my viewing exerience. I don't watch much other sport so simply couldn't begin to justify the price.

its not like we don't pay for "Public" TV though. We all pay £145 for a TV licence every year, the funds from which go to fund the BBC. The F1 is regularly the highest watched programme on sundays yet they give up the coverage cos it costs too much. So now if you want to watch the sport you have to pay for your TV licence, a cable or satellite pacakge and a premium on top for the sports channels for what was until a few years ago, a protected sport.

I don't care if they are keeping 10 races, thats irrelevant. They woulnd't show half a series of Doctor Who, or let Sky screen 2 episodes of Eastenders every week.

Apparently Sky have already had to come out on the defensive to say there won't be any adverts during the races. Their funders will be thrilled by that, at least in the football they can cram 3 ad breaks into the halftime after a whole 45mins of action. How will they react to 1 and half hrs. Can you imagine what the canadian GP would have been like? wall to wall ads and then "sorry, we've got a Football match to show".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

its not like we don't pay for "Public" TV though. We all pay £145 for a TV licence every year, the funds from which go to fund the BBC.

---

Most of the funds. It also pays for the terrestrial broadcast infrastructure and - for the moment - towards the costs of digital switchover. Plus the government recently forced the BBC to fund the World Service, which was previously paid for by general taxation.

Quote:

---

The F1 is regularly the highest watched programme on sundays yet they give up the coverage cos it costs too much.

---

Indeed the German GP last week got the highest viewing figures since 1996.

Quote:

---

So now if you want to watch the sport you have to pay for your TV licence, a cable or satellite pacakge and a premium on top for the sports channels for what was until a few years ago, a protected sport.

---

Only protected by the Concorde Agreement, not by Parliament in the same way as say the World Cup.

Quote:

---

Apparently Sky have already had to come out on the defensive to say there won't be any adverts during the races.

---

Damned right, for that sort of money!

Quote:

---

Their funders will be thrilled by that, at least in the football they can cram 3 ad breaks into the halftime after a whole 45mins of action. How will they react to 1 and half hrs. Can you imagine what the canadian GP would have been like? wall to wall ads and then "sorry, we've got a Football match to show".

---

In fairness to Sky, they do treat their sports well with plenty of buildup and analysis. They'll produce a better experience than ITV ever did. The problem is that I don't know what on earth they'll do to improve on the BBC's coverage. Practice in HD is about the only possible gain, but at considerable expense for us as viewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Another couple of thoughts regarding Sky's costs.

On top of all the other prices discussed you have to pay Sky an extra £10 per month if you want HD, which the BBC already gives if you have the correct equipment.

Then there's the onboards etc. When F1 Digital+ was running you had to choose which feed you wanted, you couldn't do what I do now and have several screens at once without paying a multiroom subscription: yet another £10 per month.

Don't forget that Sky also have a 12 month minimum subscription which rules out only paying during the F1 season (though admittedly the calendar is fast approaching a full year anyway!)

So for me, with the basic Sky package, I'd have to pay nearly £40 per month extra to replicate my viewing exerience. I don't watch much other sport so simply couldn't begin to justify the price.

---

Your several screens you do is very niche mate, you will just have to make do with one TV like the rest of us !

Also, regarding subscription, Sky Sports subscription can be cancelled at any time. Therefore you can begin in March and cancel it in November at the end of the season, as I currently do with the football season (August - May).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I think when everyone has calmed down it won't be as dreadful as it is being made out to be. And I think is less of a step backward than in 1997 when it went to ITV.

---

It's far far worse.

ITV1 is available to over 99% of the population at no cost (usual caveats about TV licence and the loaded cost of advertising apply) even if you've got nothing more than an old analogue telly and a bit of wet string for an antenna.

Sky Sports isn't universally available - plenty of areas aren't allowed dishes and can't receive cable - and requires additional equipment and subscriptions. F1 is routinely netting 4 - 6 million viewers on the BBC, even big-name Premiership matches struggle to get a third of that on Sky. Look at Test Cricket: the interest in the sport has gone through the floor since Sky bought the rights.

Reports of the death of Formula One may be greatly exaggerated, but this is a very poor day for the sport and the viewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Your several screens you do is very niche mate, you will just have to make do with one TV like the rest of us !

---

Maybe so, but in this day and age I still regard HD as a minimum requirement. I've just been on Sky's website and it would cost me £30.50 extra per month to watch F1 in HD. On top of the £20 or so I already pay them. On top of the ~£12p/m I already pay for a licence fee.

Quote:

---

Also, regarding subscription, Sky Sports subscription can be cancelled at any time. Therefore you can begin in March and cancel it in November at the end of the season, as I currently do with the football season (August - May).

---

The small print on the website would appear to disagree but I bow to your real-world experience. Besides it's a moot point with the span of the F1 calendar these days!

Just a small point, the timing of which sticks in the craw somewhat:

Quote:

---

BSkyB has reported pre-tax profits of £1bn in the year to the end of June, as the company announced a £750m share buy-back to appease investors unhappy after the failure of News Corporation's bid to takeover the satellite broadcaster.

BSkyB, which also announced on Friday that it has partnered with the BBC for the live rights for Formula One from 2012 to 2018, said that News Corp will participate in the share buy-back programme but that its 39.1% stake in Sky will remain unaffected.

---

BSkyB reports £1bn pre-tax profits | Media | guardian.co.uk

Fair play for a private company to make a profit, that's the essence of the free market, but it wrankles me that I'd be contributing even more to them if I chose to watch their F1 coverage next year.

I was on holiday for the Canadian GP and didn't record it (I did stay up and watch it though, amazing race!) When I came back it took me three hours to torrent the whole thing in 1080HD. Unlawful perhaps but I didn't lose any sleep over it as I'd only have recorded it off the telly anyway. Now, faced with giving Sky £360 per year for no real gain, what do you suppose I - and many other people - will do next year?

Internet streams for the online-savvy I suppose. I use them to watch some of the American racing that is unavailable in the UK and the quality can be very high, if a little temperamental. The casual fan, of course, will not seek out such things and lose out on half the races.

I'm ambivalent to the Sky move. I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports (cricket, darts, Indycar, football, etc.) but I appreciate that others are not in the position to be able to obtain Sky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrewmcm

I'm ambivalent to the Sky move. I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports (cricket, darts, Indycar, football, etc.) but I appreciate that others are not in the position to be able to obtain Sky.

---

Or, increasingly, can but refuse ever to do so.