GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Scott on November 19, 2017, 02:00:07 PM
-
I'm all for some 'new blood' added to the broadcast expertise. I prefer they try out new things incrementally rather than overhaul the entire broadcast as is often the 'American Way'. But change is certainly welcome. I would like more hours of content, including a lot of behind the scenes documentaries that maybe could be only over internet or something. But beware anything they do on the internet should be offered for free for at least an entire season before they throw a pay wall in there so we have a good idea what we want and they get a good idea of the viewership out there, and how to access it properly.
https://www.pitpass.com/60727/Carey-turns-to-Fox-colleague-for-TV-boost
-
Making F1 totally pay per view will kill the sport. Many
on our site said they aren't paying the high fees Sky wants.
NASCAR has free racing for the viewers why not F1
-
In Britain F1 is going to pay TV. Not PPV per say, but you will no longer be able to get it free-to-air. I would be willing to pay a subscription, but only if I could have it in English, and run it through whatever device I feel like - phone, pad or HDTV, and I would expect a lot more content. If I had to pay more than 50.- per year for it, I would start watching something else. For the moment it is still 'free' over SRF (the Swiss broadcaster), so I can always watch it in German.
Switzerland has a bit of a different format change, they are shutting down free-to-air TV entirely. I think it is starting next year, but they will no longer have TV over antenna, shutting down am and fm broadcasts as well. For those with cars older than 3-4 years when they started selling DAB radios standard, you can buy a 300.- adaptor to re-broadcast DAB to your FM radio. There will also no longer be separate phone lines. All phones will be changed in the next 2 years to internet based phone systems. We changed our hotel phones over already 3 years ago.
I'm good with it. TV, phone and radio over internet cuts down on infrastructure costs. We've had internet TV in our house for 7 years now as well. Our little town is scheduled to get fibre optic in the next two years just because of the coming changes.
When we move we aren't even installing a land line telephone. Our entire family have mobile phones, so what is the point of having a land line?
The Swiss have found the best way to force new tech down our throats is to pull the plug on the old tech as fast as they can. Makes everyone stand up and pay attention.
-
That sounds like absolute hell. It was bad enough when our government forced the Great Digital Debacle on us a few years ago. Broadcast TV just isn't available to many homes here in Appalachia. Cable rates have skyrocketed since then. Satellite often isn't available if you live in a hollow. The only good thing I can see is that any suggestion of a system like the Swiss are forcing on their people would now cause rioting in the streets.
As to Liberty's idea: Anybody but Fox. ANYBODY!!!! We used to have an outstanding motorsports channel here in the States. It was called Speedvision. Fox bought it out and turned it into Speed. It went straight down the tubes. Commentators like David Hobbs, Sam Posey, Sterling Moss and Alain de Cadenet were replaced with the "Boogity, Boogity, Boogity" of Darrell Waltrip and his sidekick, a cartoon gopher. Programming like the WRC and Legends of Motorsport were replaced with "reality" shows. :sick: It finally went away and was replaced with FS1.
-
That sounds like absolute hell. It was bad enough when our government forced the Great Digital Debacle on us a few years ago. Broadcast TV just isn't available to many homes here in Appalachia. Cable rates have skyrocketed since then. Satellite often isn't available if you live in a hollow. The only good thing I can see is that any suggestion of a system like the Swiss are forcing on their people would now cause rioting in the streets.
As to Liberty's idea: Anybody but Fox. ANYBODY!!!! We used to have an outstanding motorsports channel here in the States. It was called Speedvision. Fox bought it out and turned it into Speed. It went straight down the tubes. Commentators like David Hobbs, Sam Posey, Sterling Moss and Alain de Cadenet were replaced with the "Boogity, Boogity, Boogity" of Darrell Waltrip and his sidekick, a cartoon gopher. Programming like the WRC and Legends of Motorsport were replaced with "reality" shows. :sick: It finally went away and was replaced with FS1.
Yeah, the laws for internet access in the USA are best described as laws enabling customer gouging. Canada isn't great, but compared to the USA we're paradise. (Of course, with cell phones it's the opposite)
Considering how closely people cling to some parts of the constitution, it's amazing those same people are willing to let things like freedom of the press/expression evaporate.
As for Speedvision, there was a time that would be the only channel I needed. Their programming was great (I wasn't a fan of their F1 coverage compared with BBC, but still lightyears ahead of non ABC IndyCar or any NASCAR) and provided a vast coverage of all motorsport series, and great behind the scenes and documentaries.
-
Someone told me Sky will be charging 500 pounds
to watch F1 next year. If that's true I can see many
fans leaving.
I ditched cable 2 years ago. Downside was they raised
my internet $29 a month. I pay $25 monthly for a no
frill mobile...calls only
-
Most Swiss welcome it. There is mobile coverage in 99% of the country, in every valley, on every mountain top and valley floor. There are more nooks and crannies in Switzerland than there probably are in all of the US, but the digital infrastructure is fantastic and there are only a few blind valleys where mostly only cows and sheep live. Heck, we have free wi-fi on our little mountain buses.
And no, there is no rioting in the streets because the providers are under strict rules for how much they can charge vs how much it costs them to provide. It's all logical in the Swiss view. Rates go up when high costs of infrastructure are taken on, otherwise the rates are quite reasonable. My complete internet-TV-mobile phone bill is about half of my cousin's in Toronto for a similar package. Everybody has a right to make money, but nobody has a right to rob the public.
Like Jeri, I can't believe Americans would riot in the streets to take a step forward in infrastructure, yet they live in the 18th century when it comes to gun laws all the while having 21st century weaponry. Most of the world scratches it's head in wonder when they look at what the USA seems to accept without concern, and what it gets all worked up about.
-
Most rioting in the streets is....best not to get into that.
What kind of guns laws would stop criminals shooting
people or using guns in robberies? Druds are illegal and
the last I checked there's a big drug problem here.
-
Sorry Scott, I think Colorado would have more nooks and crannies all by itself. We have this thing called the Rocky Mountains out here. Pretty rugged stuff. Then there are the Appalachians, The Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. Oh and Alaska.
-
Lonny, I'm not saying the entire US could ever have the coverage that Switzerland does, I was trying to point out the fact that when there is a will and the internet providers are given a mandate to cooperatively build it, infrastructure can be miles ahead of what it is in Canada and the US.
Dare, look around. There are plenty of countries with gun laws that work. Australia is a glaring example. They used to have gun laws loosely resembling the US. Then in 1996 in Port Arthur, there was a massacre of 35 people by some lunatic. The government came out within weeks of new gun legislation banning guns and buying them from the public (650,000 were bought by the government). Handguns were completely banned from private ownership and only self loading rifles and shotguns were allowed any longer. Since then there hasn't been ONE multiple shooting of more than 4 people...in 22 years, not one.
Sensible gun laws can't eliminate everything, and it takes time to get the majority of the guns out of the hands of criminals, but they do work. Having an insane entity like the NRA crafting gun legislation makes it impossible to improve or at least get some sanity involved, like waiting periods and background checks (with no loopholes).
Switzerland has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But there are some important differences:
To start with, education. Nobody is allowed to touch a gun without completing comprehensive firearm training which you are only allowed to take once you have completed a mental assessment. Then there is accountability of ammunition. The control and accountability of ammunition is more strict than even guns. It is sealed and registered when sold. Every casing is identified from an easily traceable lot. Unusual large purchases - more than a weekend at the shooting range or hunting for example - is noted and investigated, and can result in forfeiture of your gun permit and guns. The types of guns allowed and accessories sold are strictly restricted. Military assault rifles are the most common guns of all in Switzerland, but to clarify, most Swiss households have a military weapon at home for any member of the household who is actively in the reserves. Ammunition for these rifles is not sold privately and can only be attained when you show up for your annual duty, or for periodic weapon training.
Very few Swiss have private weapons, and none view weapons as a form of personal protection. Gun possession in Switzerland is really more of a duty than a right.
I can quote statistics for you, but they can be interpreted however the author wanted them to be, but lets just say there is nowhere near the problems in Switzerland that we read about in the US, yet we have almost as many guns per capita...with gun laws.
And for the record, I have never owned a gun (and never will), but my mother was at one time the Provincial Champion in Pistol target shooting in Ontario.
-
Scott,I don't have any guns either but I support citizens
having the right to own guns. I could go along with banning
assault rifles and clips with over a certain amount of shells.
-
Scott,I don't have any guns either but I support citizens
having the right to own guns. I could go along with banning
assault rifles and clips with over a certain amount of shells.
Apologies for opening this can of worms every one.
The biggest issue in the USA is the constitutional right to private property. The government can't create laws that take things away (hence the issue with slaves being property). A 'grey area' solution would be to buy back the weapons, but I would expect the budget for such a programme to be immense, even if it was a popular decision.
As for wireless internet access, how many people are served by the average tower in Switzerland, and then just try to convince me the same proportion of towers could serve the entire population of Canada or the USA. Even if our countries were flat, the population density just isn't there. Broadcast technology is far simpler and cheaper.
-
Switzerland has 15,940 square miles. Ohio is one of the smaller states in the U.S. (36th out of 50). It is almost 3 times larger at 44,825 square miles.
Just because a technology is newer doesn't mean that it is better. Digital TV is a prime example. Before the forced conversion, most of the homes in rural areas got slightly fuzzy TV pictures. Now they get blank blue screens.
The right to keep & bear arms is guaranteed in the second part of of our Bill of Rights, just behind freedom of speech & freedom of the press. I own firearms, as do most of my friends and family. Everyone but one person that works for the company I work for owns them. We have a very peaceful town.
Brazil requires all firearms to be registered at a cost of R$1000 (Brazilian Real). There is also an annual fee. Ask the Mercedes team how well that system works.
-
The right to keep & bear arms is guaranteed in the second part of of our Bill of Rights, just behind freedom of speech & freedom of the press. I own firearms, as do most of my friends and family. Everyone but one person that works for the company I work for owns them. We have a very peaceful town.
That's what amendments are for: the constitution was literally meant to be changed on the fly. If there was enough political will to outlaw firearms, there is a perfectly simple legal infrastructure to do so. (Conceding that is a big 'if').
The bigger constitutional issue is seizing people's property. I can't imagine anti-gun crowd would be willing to surrender their right to own things just to take guns away from people. (FYI, Canada's Constitution does NOT guarantee property rights, and I imagine neither does Australia's, hence their ability to round up weapons legally)
-
Backing up to internet and infrastructure, I was actually trying to point out that Switzerland along with many other European countries simply isn’t ALLOWED to monopolize or gouge their customers a la Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw and the American counterparts that seem to be able to charge as much as they like while building mediocre infrastructure. My cousin who I have already mentioned in this thread, lives one block from the town centre in Tottenham, granted, a very small town, but although he can drive through town using his mobile phone, his own house seems to be a dead spot unless he’s on the 3rd floor. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen here.
-
Backing up to internet and infrastructure, I was actually trying to point out that Switzerland along with many other European countries simply isn’t ALLOWED to monopolize or gouge their customers a la Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw and the American counterparts that seem to be able to charge as much as they like while building mediocre infrastructure. My cousin who I have already mentioned in this thread, lives one block from the town centre in Tottenham, granted, a very small town, but although he can drive through town using his mobile phone, his own house seems to be a dead spot unless he’s on the 3rd floor. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen here.
It's mostly a matter of market forces though. If you let a phone company only cover people that were inexpensive to cover, then Toronto would have dozens of companies with rates that make Switzerland look draconian, and NWT (the Northwest Territories, most of those islands in northern Canada) would have one that charges out the nose because of their immense costs per person.
By requiring the companies to create massive networks at great expense, you have to offer an incentive. If Rogers and Bell weren't allowed to gouge customers, they wouldn't build a network at all.
Now, we could go to government monopolies running telecommunications, keeping everything at cost, but in Canada we don't generally believe the government should run things (and I'm aware that sentiment is even stronger in the USA)
On the other hand, you can get a bank loan in Switzerland and pepper the country with functional towers. So there's a certain irony that Canada and the USA bow to the god of 'Market Forces' more readily than many European countries, and in this case, we have to pay the price for it.
-
The cheapest sky sports package here is around £31 a month I think, no chance just for the one sports channel I'd watch.
-
Jeri, the government doesn't run things here either, but they keep a much closer eye on it. We actually have mandatory private health care insurance, kind of like Obama was trying to get put into place. We can change back and forth company to company as we like, but nobody (i.e. insurance companies or hospitals) can rob us, and I can get an MRI or elective surgery in about a week if I want. It's a fraction the cost of the US insurance, yet it is miles ahead of Canadian care (at about 250.- per person per month).
Same goes for the internet providers. They can charge for high infrastructure costs, but they don't only charge the customers, they also charge the townships that require the internet, almost like a utility (which it really is, after all). The township can vote to improve the service, but the people know that will mean higher taxes in the year that the improvement is made. It's all quite logical and acceptable.
I know it won't work in parts of Canada that have distance challenges, but I bet the Swiss would find a logical and clever answer to that as well. The amazing thing is simply that stuff works here, it works well, it works fast, and it works for a reasonable price.
-
If the FCC goes through with it's repeal of "Net Neutrality", I may have to give up GP Wizard! Many experts are predicting the internet will be stratified and sold in "packages" like cable TV. My only hope is that the greed of Republicans and billionaires will lead to a Democratic landslide next November.
-
The cheapest sky sports package here is around £31 a month I think, no chance just for the one sports channel I'd watch.
Yeah but you still have to have a basic Sky or other tv supplier package before you can access Sky sports Ian. So Dare' s estimate of £500 a year is probably right.
The only cheaper way is with a Now box and a weekend pass for Sky on race weekends.
-
I don't think it's the greed of any party just the
greed of people that never have enough money.
-
Jeri, the government doesn't run things here either, but they keep a much closer eye on it. We actually have mandatory private health care insurance, kind of like Obama was trying to get put into place. We can change back and forth company to company as we like, but nobody (i.e. insurance companies or hospitals) can rob us, and I can get an MRI or elective surgery in about a week if I want. It's a fraction the cost of the US insurance, yet it is miles ahead of Canadian care (at about 250.- per person per month).
Same goes for the internet providers. They can charge for high infrastructure costs, but they don't only charge the customers, they also charge the townships that require the internet, almost like a utility (which it really is, after all). The township can vote to improve the service, but the people know that will mean higher taxes in the year that the improvement is made. It's all quite logical and acceptable.
I know it won't work in parts of Canada that have distance challenges, but I bet the Swiss would find a logical and clever answer to that as well. The amazing thing is simply that stuff works here, it works well, it works fast, and it works for a reasonable price.
I didn't mean to imply that the Swiss government was involved, I was suggesting that an alternative to private companies would be a government monopoly in Canada.
Telecommunications is a geographical issue, so it's no coincidence that many breakthroughs come from Canada (trans oceanic radio, telephones, domestic satellite communication, asyncrhonous transfer which is the networking idea that allows the internet to function at a large scale).
As wireless transmission becomes more reliable, prices in Canada will continue to drop.
-
John, I forgot to say that the £31 would be on top of my virgin package which would take it to over £100 a month, no chance.
-
The cheapest sky sports package here is around £31 a month I think, no chance just for the one sports channel I'd watch.
Yeah but you still have to have a basic Sky or other tv supplier package before you can access Sky sports Ian. So Dare' s estimate of £500 a year is probably right.
The only cheaper way is with a Now box and a weekend pass for Sky on race weekends.
It's £38 a month to have a standard Sky package with only the F1 channel added for 18 months, then £40 a month after that. This make it £456 / £480 per year.
Now TV is £10.99 per race, because they've removed the weekend pass and replaced it with a slightly more expensive week pass. It would be cheaper to spend £199 for a 12-month Now TV Sky Sports pass (deal on until the end of November), but even after the deal ends, it is only £399 for a standard-issue Now TV 12-month Sky Sports pass.
Hope this helps.
-
The £31 is on virgin media Jeri if you're already a customer.