GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Scott on November 19, 2015, 07:26:58 PM
-
Well according to Bernie that won't happen at least for the remaining term of their contract, which is through 2018. I hope Bernie won't have any say in how things are done in F1 by then, but you never know.
http://www.pitpass.com/55226/BBC-to-lose-F1
You know the BBC (and a lot of other networks, but I single out BBC because of the high quality - imo - shows and specials that they create) are a bit like Bernie in that they are looking at broadcasting and broadcast rights using a very old model. For example I don't imagine they get much revenue from Swisscom (our version of cable TV and a mobile provider as well), yet I get 6 BBC channels as part of my basic package of channels, I also get all the ITV channels and a few others from the UK I can't think of off the top of my head. Yet if I want to watch even a news clip on the BBC site, it tells me I am not entitled to it because of my geographical region.
I would be willing to pay for a subscription on their site as a non resident, but only if I had full access including streaming TV for all original BBC shows and specials (american content I can get elsewhere, I understand the copyright infringements of re-broadcasts). Don't they realize that in Europe they are THE standard in english broadcasts? Take advantage of that. There are many millions of english spoken expats, Canadians, Americans, Australians, Indians, southern Africans (not just SA) and of course around every corner, British...all living outside the UK, most with only a cursory grasp of the local language, yet all unable to watch decent BBC content on their devices or computers without either stealing it or getting it from some dicey streaming service full of annoying pop-ups. I guess it's a rather large market, and most in income brackets where £10-20/month is just change they would be happy to pay for full access.
rant over... :D :D
-
TV in general is changing rapidly and the broadcasters are struggling to keep up. Used to be you could stream CBS from Hulu or NetFlix, but CBS has now initiated their own service at a price. We are witnessing the beginning of the "cablization" of streaming. You will have to pay each network a fee for their programming, but you will have to approach each individually. Bleah. I recently bought a ROKU which helps organize your content, but its still a bit of a pain. I rarely watch anything on broadcast networks anymore, even my cable is being used less and less. I pick up old series, movies and what not off the ROKU. Recently however I just turn it off and read. Lots and lots of good printed material out there.
-
The BBC is caught between a pincer movement. On the one hand, there is the iplayer loophole which allows people to watch television programmes after they have aired (i.e. not live) for free, which is impacting on their income from a fall in licence fee revenues. On the other hand, there are the cuts from the government which have hit the organisation very hard, especially the World Service, which lost a huge chunk of its budget in the previous parliament when the Foreign Office (The Foreign Office funds the World Service division of the BBC) was hit with brutal cuts by the Conservative led coalition.
These two factors combined mean that the BBC is struggling to find the necessary cash to maintain red button services and pay for live sport packages. Ecclestone is being his usual unhelpful self about this as far as F1 is concerned. He claims that he wants the BBC to stay, because free-to-air television is very important for Formula 1, and the money he receives isn't important; yet at the same time, he says they cannot renegotiate their contract, because it's set in stone and there will be no cut in the price. Talk about sending mixed messages.
If Formula 1 is no to be pay-per-view only in the future, there will be no way I can watch the races, at least in the short-term. It has to stay free-to-air in my opinion. It's also interesting to note that the BBC remains more than happy to fork out plenty of money for premier league highlights. I understand why, but as someone who really dislikes football, I'm not impressed.
-
The red button will be discontinued very soon, I didn't catch the date but it's not far off. If the BBC lose it that will be me out of F1, I'm not paying Sky. I got HD because it was free initially, but as soon as I hot HD you then had to have sports package, well no interest there.
-
Have to agree with you Irisado, earlier in the year the BBC stated that they coudn't screen live all of Wimbledon, but they did, also like you I can't stand football, I was over the moon that BBC screened live all of the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup, a real ball game, plus they can't be beaten on documentaries.
-
Sky is cagey about the future of its F1 channel (they're already making it share with darts), which makes me think Britain will lose both of its current broadcasters, BBC due to lack of money and Sky due to lack of interest. We could see a less-than-enthusiastic bidding war between BT Sport, Virgin, Channel 4 and Five (the only four channels with enough resources and - possibly - enough interest to enter any bid whatsoever). I reckon a BT Sport/Channel 4 partnership akin to the Sky/BBC one is the most likely result... ...but I would not be surprised if Bernie got 20% less money from Britain next contract period than this.
The BBC has been promised the loophole allowing catchup TV via internet-only being exempt from the license fee will be closed. This will make a huge difference to its revenues (as it will basically return it to "anyone who watches the channel must help pay for it"), so I expect it to be back in the bidding for 2023 (or whenever the 2018 contract ends) - very likely with a winning bid for at least part of the rights. Now, some people will stream BBC to get round the proposed license fee change, but that's going to be a relatively small number of people (ignoring international people who likely wouldn't be offered the chance to pay the license fee in the first place!) The bigger threat will remain the streaming internet-only channels... ...though security issues mean I suspect they won't be able to persuade Bernie to accept their bids while he remains alive. (Bernie's successor, on the other hand...)
Scott, your network provider pays the BBC a fee for you to get the Freeview channels (or a portion thereof - I doubt they pay for channels that would be duplicated in the USA, and I'm not sure if BBC offers all its channels to international markets). That amount is separate from the full-service fee. It's a pity people can't opt into the full-service fee regardless of location - something I believe should be possible now that internet TV has shown itself to be so popular.
I think it would work not only for the many Anglophone speakers who want full access to the BBC, but also for non-native speakers (many of whom still respect the BBC's reputation). (In case you are wondering, full-service license fee for an individual house here is £12.13 a month, unless you have only a black-and-white TV, in which case it is £4.17 a month, or you fit certain exemption categories. A single business can in most cases be covered by a license for the same fee, with exceptions for situations like hotels that allow TV in their rooms (1 license will cover 15 guest rooms plus all non-guest rooms; extra guest rooms require extra licenses).
-
Now it seems (according to The Judge - http://thejudge13.com/2015/11/20/bbc-plays-hardball-with-ecclestone/ ) the BBC is trying to get out of their live broadcasts and just show the replays next year. This will supposedly save them £12m per year and there may be a loophole in the contract for Sky to buy them out of their live broadcast. Bernie's problem of course is that would mean there would no longer be any free-to-air live broadcast in the UK, one of F1's (and F1's sponsors - who else buys Rolex's?) largest markets. Your move Bernie.
-
He may persuade Sky to offer a percentage of the races free to air, well free of you have an existing sky contract.
-
It's a pity people can't opt into the full-service fee regardless of location
It's also a pity we can't opt out of this full service fee in Britain. :P It's just a bloody tax on TV whichever way you try to portray the value.
-
By definition, it is not a tax on television at all; that's your perception, nothing more ;).
Having read a number of articles on this issue since I last logged in here, I get the impression that the BBC is going to go down the highlights only route next year, unless Ecclestone is willing to renegotiate the contract. There is no way that they will be able to justify continuing to spend that amount of money on Formula 1, in view of the cuts they are being forced to make. I would argue that they could save enough money to keep the current Formula 1 coverage by axing Match of the Day/Football coverage, but that's my idealistic vision. Realism dictates that this is not going to happen.
-
Not really any surprise is it, F1 is not politically correct enough for the BBC, plus there are vastly more football fans than F1 fans in this country. If the BBC never sent so many flunkies to other events( many times more than other broadcasters) they could have afforded to show every race.
-
It's a pity people can't opt into the full-service fee regardless of location
It's also a pity we can't opt out of this full service fee in Britain. :P It's just a bloody tax on TV whichever way you try to portray the value.
I do, legally and successfully. The perks of having a fully-equipped gym* run by the local council 30 minutes from home...
* - 40 stations, soon to increase to 80, at the smaller site (the one nearer me) and 150 stations at the other site, almost all with their own TV showing Freeview channels. The smaller one also has a BT Sport big screen. Both gyms are very quiet most weekends; the only race I haven't been able to see F1 on the big screen since I joined the gym in August so far was that time Roma v Lazio clashed with the F1 race.
-
By definition, it is not a tax on television at all; that's your perception, nothing more ;).
Having read a number of articles on this issue since I last logged in here, I get the impression that the BBC is going to go down the highlights only route next year, unless Ecclestone is willing to renegotiate the contract. There is no way that they will be able to justify continuing to spend that amount of money on Formula 1, in view of the cuts they are being forced to make. I would argue that they could save enough money to keep the current Formula 1 coverage by axing Match of the Day/Football coverage, but that's my idealistic vision. Realism dictates that this is not going to happen.
That would be pointless. Unless Bernie renegotiates the contract, BBC will be charged exactly the same whether it shows half-live, highlights or nothing at all. It might as well screen half-live, even if it decides not to bother with commentators or presenters and just show it with natural sound...
-
Not really any surprise is it, F1 is not politically correct enough for the BBC, plus there are vastly more football fans than F1 fans in this country. If the BBC never sent so many flunkies to other events( many times more than other broadcasters) they could have afforded to show every race.
I've put the actual reason in bold ;). The rest is unsubstantiated hyperbole, unless you'd like to provide some examples to back up any of those points :).
-
Not really any surprise is it, F1 is not politically correct enough for the BBC, plus there are vastly more football fans than F1 fans in this country. If the BBC never sent so many flunkies to other events( many times more than other broadcasters) they could have afforded to show every race.
I've put the actual reason in bold ;). The rest is unsubstantiated hyperbole, unless you'd like to provide some examples to back up any of those points :).
The "more flunkies than others" I can prove - at least compared to other European broadcasters, and for events that are not F1. This isn't a problem for BBC in F1, partly because Bernie Ecclestone strictly limits the number of people each media outlet can send to each race. For example, the BBC sent 493 people to the Beijing Olympics (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jul/17/london-2012-olympics-bbc) and 765 to London (they had "home broadcaster" responsibilities for the latter). Note that NBC sent 2700 to London despite not being the home broadcaster, so BBC isn't the worst offender. At the other end of the scale, the BBC sent 20 people to the eviction of a local Traveller site (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8839523/BBC-accused-of-overstaffing-as-protesters-pull-out-of-Dale-Farm.html), to much mockery. (To be clear, covering it with BBC people made sense. Using 20 people to cover it did not).
I don't think the BBC's degree of political correctness has anything to do with this, except that it is politically incorrect to exceed one's budget at the moment unless you are the British government. I'm not sure if reducing the flunkie budget would enable the BBC to afford F1 full-time, but it might allow it to have more options.
-
I'd like to know what each of these staff actually did before saying whether it was necessary or unnecessary to send them though. The amount of detail available is so sparse that is strikes me as very difficult to condemn the organisation for sending too many staff to events on the basis of what we know.
The Dale Farm coverage doesn't look good on the face of it, but there are two points to consider there. First, the Daily Telegraph, like all right wing newspapers is more heavily biased against the BBC. Second, the devil is in the detail. A documentary team would be independent of a live reporting team, so I wouldn't count that. What does seem odd is to have a local and national reporting team there, when they could easily have had the local team report for national and local services.