Paying for F1

[Jericoke]

Smart TVs have already blurred the line between computer and TV - the PC is just another channel on the TV remote, and with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse there's no need even to hook another computer to it, wirelessly or otherwise.

I agree with you Irisado, watching a decent TV set is always better than a mobile or computer screen, but if there's the choice then you needn't miss a GP just because the TV is being used by someone else. Or as a car passenger, or at the office, onlibe screening would be very handy!

Of course, Sky Go already caters for that, and a very good job it does. Borrowing someone's Sky ID during last season I watched a GP on an iPad on a 3G network - no problem.

In the UK at least, Sky have this neatly sewn up, unlike Virgin or anyone else, and it works well because one company is in control of the tech. Virgin's 'TV Anywhere' is still awful. Streaming on YouTube, apart from looking awful with those ads and 'suggested videos' everywhere, would entail re-negotiating ALL other TV channel deals - a nightmare. So I guess it will be a while if GPs get streamed anywhere else other than via Sky Go.

As for pay-per-view - if you wanna watch them all then we already do don't we??

Edit:

One thing's for sure, streaming shouldn't be left to the teams! Ferrari's online launch was lo-resolution! And I've just watched a pitifully poorly synched Mercedes launch on YouTube. Incredible - cars to die for but video tech from the dark ages.

The limits involved in this aren't 'broadcast rights'.  Bernie can make the rights work with a few phone calls.  The issue is guaranteed level of service.  ANYTHING done over the internet can be disrupted with disturbingly little effort.  (Wasn't the whole point of the internet to eliminate communication disruption?)  No one is going to pay any amount if there is the possibility of Anonymous taking it down.  And FOM isn't keen on issuing refunds to the people who do take a chance on watching the Bahrain GP, only to find 5 minutes of the race blacked out.

[vintly]

ANYTHING done over the internet can be disrupted with disturbingly little effort. 

Ah yes, this is true enough. There is no way to guarantee against DDoS attacks such as the ones Anonymous are infamous for. Bernie's such a t*t for racing in Bahrain anyway. I hope it bites him on the bum.

[Scott]

As I said before, I guess Anonymous going after Youtube would be counterproductive considering most of their propaganda is on YouTube.  They would be more likely to take down the F1 website again or a government website for their protests.

I wondered for a minute if Anonymous had takend down the power into the Merc Dome during yesterday's Superbowl.  Was a bit of a bad time to suddenly lose power to half of the building.

[Irisado]

All this connecting televisions to your PC, and streaming the internet via your television is completely beyond me, so I hope that they never go down that route, because I'll never be able to set it up.

Jeri's right about the service.  There's nothing worse than the internet crashing when you're in the middle of something, and denial of service attacks are not, as far as I know, easy to prevent.

[Scott]

If you buy a TV these days, or have in the last year or two, they often come equipped with WiFi (or more - SMART TV's, just a step behind SMART phones).  All I had to do was enter the password and voila, I had YouTube and limited surfing capabilities and other various online features.  Least complicated thing I've hooked up in ages.  Plays movies from a memory stick as well. 

Taking down the internet is quite a bit more complicated than you make it sound.  I don't think the actual 'internet' has ever crashed.  Only tiny fingers of it, and just like in F1, it is usually the $5 piece that fails. 

[lkjohnson1950]

Anonymous usually takes down a site by overwhelming it with hits. If enough computers attempt to access a site the server will shut down to prevent damage from an overload. It becomes more difficult to do if you have to pay for access.

[Scott]

But Lonny, do you understand the volume of hits a site like YouTube gets legitimately?  Their capacity is literally tens of millions times that of a sleepy old DOJ site.  Plus it is mirrored all over the world.  Anonymous would have to hijack most of the computers in the world to take down something like YouTube.  Trust me, if YouTube goes down, it's due to something internal, not Anonymous.

[Jericoke]

But Lonny, do you understand the volume of hits a site like YouTube gets legitimately?  Their capacity is literally tens of millions times that of a sleepy old DOJ site.  Plus it is mirrored all over the world.  Anonymous would have to hijack most of the computers in the world to take down something like YouTube.  Trust me, if YouTube goes down, it's due to something internal, not Anonymous.

Youtube (or whichever service) will have to successfully stage a large scale live event before F1 will consider it.  And it must be LIVE, not even delayed a few seconds.  People gamble on the sport, and being behind by a few seconds means there's no point on betting on something that's already happened.

CTV streamed the olympics in high definition in Canada.  It looked amazing, but watching a 'live' stream quickly fell behind 'live' as seen on TV, and I'm pretty sure no one was trying to disrupt it.

[Ian]

That's where sky are stupid, if they would split their F1 channel from the sports package I would seriously consider paying virgin to receive it if it was a sensible amount.

[vintly]

That's where sky are stupid, if they would split their F1 channel from the sports package I would seriously consider paying virgin to receive it if it was a sensible amount.

But if Sky did that, you'd stay with Virgin. They wan't you to leave Virgin, and have you ALL to themselves! HAHAHAHAHAHA evil laughs all round.

[Ian]

But it'd be a win win for both sky and virgin vintly, I wouldn't even consider joining sky or taking the sports package, but if sky sold virgin the F1 channel separately I'd probably take the F1 channel so they'd both profit.

[vintly]

Not a big enough win. Sky are happy to pass on, say, a Ģ10 a month F1 bung from Virgin customers wanting only F1, if it means they'll either pay Ģ25 for the whole sports package or switch entirely to Sky. Virgin don't have a say, and get what they're given. Anyway, whateva, that's my take on it.

[vintly]

France goes exclusively pay per view: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/02/france-follows-uk-and-italy-to-pay-tv-model-for-f1-coverage/

[Ian]

That's the trouble with these greedy moguls, they want it all, in my book 10% of something is better than 10% of nothing, perhaps that's why I'm still a pauper, not greedy enough.

[F1fanaticBD]

I read a comment in the internet, saying he has been a fan of F1 since he was 10, and he was the only one in the family who was interested in the sports. If he was not given the free to air coverage of F1, there would have no way he would become a massive fan today. It also goes same from me, if I had to pay for F1 in my early days, I would be definitely shoved aside as because except my younger brother no one has any interest in F1. Making it exclusive does cut off these young future fans.

I think solution would have been the general people getting only the race coverage while the people who are massive fan may be able to get the full exclusive coverage. That would have satisfied everyone. But due to the narrow minded people on top of management and their greed for profit, will really hurt the sports in long run.