uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[henners88]

Here is a good blog I follow and analyses just about every aspect of the coverage in an impartial sort of way:

http://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/...ease-slightly/

It seems both channels had an increase in the first half of last year but the second half suffered possibly due to the boring season. The BBC remained popular though and basically made sure F1 was even worth a mention in the UK. Sky lost 12% of their viewers overall in 2013 when compared to the year before which is a hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things. A few of my F1 mates have cancelled their subscriptions since the new year due to increasing utility prices and a lesser need for pay TV.

F1 is declining unfortunately at the moment and I can't see it improving. The BBC are losing interest and winding down the operation it feels, and if Sky get sole coverage, we can more of less kiss goodbye to F1 maintaining its 20 year high of popularity.

Its frustrating to watch because the BBC are holding the mantle of primary F1 coverage yet appear to be less convinced about holding onto the rights, yet Sky appear to be making an effort and attracting an embarrassing amount of viewers. Oh well, I'm sure somebody near the top knows what they are doing whilst the rest of us start to lose interest lol.

[Born Racer]

Good points henners about the BBC doing a good show but losing interest. I would say that those at the top don't know what they're doing. They might not even be lining their own pockets as well in the future. F1 needs free-to-air to be popular. It's not like football which is more accessible.

Greed runs the world. Money makes things turn.

At least Sky provide decent customer service (no call centre from abroad; well, Scotland ).

But I have had to scale back and have had to cut Sky. I don't want to use that just .. in.. thing that was full of dead links, etc. But I want to watch them all live.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Good points henners about the BBC doing a good show but losing interest. I would say that those at the top don't know what they're doing. They might not even be lining their own pockets as well in the future. F1 needs free-to-air to be popular. It's not like football which is more accessible.

Greed runs the world. Money makes things turn.

At least Sky provide decent customer service (no call centre from abroad; well, Scotland ).

But I have had to scale back and have had to cut Sky. I don't want to use that just .. in.. thing that was full of dead links, etc. But I want to watch them all live.

You are one of many people I have heard from lately who are cancelling their subscription because of factors, mostly involving the rising costs of living and the fact Sky really doesn't seem worth it. Sky F1 seem to put on a good show, but is it better than what the BBC put out when they are live? I am not really convinced on that even after watching races on both during the last 2 years. People blast on about the HD being better and it being played in Dolby and I really have to say, so what? I just want to watch the race and see the action, not worry about the slight difference in picture and sound quality.

I held out buying it mostly relying on streams which were standard definition quality. Every race I have wanted to watch that has been exclusive to Sky I have been able to watch live this way and I know some grumble at that, but I don't see why some of us should miss out.

The fact of the matter is £43.50 a month for a package that only gives you 10 live races a year really isn't worth it for me. I have better things to blow my money on and listening to Martin Brundle is way down my list lol. 2014 is another year where I will make do with what is available and have more money in my pocket as a result. You can't fault that.

[chunder]

Very similar opinions here to autosport who have an identical topic.

I think it might pick up if 2014 is a better season overall.

but it simply isnt value for money, at least you know what you are getting with football, and the vast majority of fans buy into the product and that it is expensive (Lord knows why but they do undeniably).

But I still feel that if someone like Sky said OK Sunderland fans, we will show you every one of your home games for 200 quid a year, they would get thousands of takers, but it must be more profitable to offer any game for everyone than offer every game for certain fans.

But imagine the takers at Liverpool or Man U, worldwide, how many subscribers would you get from Far East, Eastern Europe, I reckon millions.

F1 would never get this as most fans are fair weather.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by henners88

The fact of the matter is £43.50 a month for a package that only gives you 10 live races a year really isn't worth it for me. I have better things to blow my money on and listening to Martin Brundle is way down my list lol. 2014 is another year where I will make do with what is available and have more money in my pocket as a result. You can't fault that.

I think there are 2 ways of looking at it. As you say, paying £43.50 per month just to get an extra 10 races live doesn't seem like good value for money. But if, like me, someone who has the full package, pre-Sky F1, then to get all 20 races, including free practices, qualifying and regular re-runs, for no extra cost on top of what i was paying beforehand then it represents excellent value for money.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I think there are 2 ways of looking at it. As you say, paying £43.50 per month just to get an extra 10 races live doesn't seem like good value for money. But if, like me, someone who has the full package, pre-Sky F1, then to get all 20 races, including free practices, qualifying and regular re-runs, for no extra cost on top of what i was paying beforehand then it represents excellent value for money.

For you yes it is obviously very different I agree. My circumstances are affected because I've never had to pay for a TV service, therefore it's an extra just for one type of sport. We are not avid television watchers in my household really so this is another reason it's not value for money overall. My wife calls me a couch potato as it is if I want to spend a Sunday afternoon watching the F1

For families who are very TV orientated I think Sky is value for money when you consider how many hours of TV you can get out of it. Unfortunately this doesn't suit everybody which is fine and I'm happy to watch a stream when needed. I like free

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Mr V

for no extra cost on top of what i was paying beforehand[/b] then it represents excellent value for money.

It's a good deal for you but it's a lousy deal for Sky as all they are doing is providing existing subscribers with more viewing with no increase in revenue.

I think the truth is their delivery system and business model is living on borrowed time. I know quite a few young couples and singles, none of whom own or would even dream of owning a TV let alone a satellite dish. Everything they watch they watch when THEY want to watch it, streamed to an HD monitor in the lounge from a laptop, tablet or even a phone.

If Formula One had any brains they'd employ someone sixty or so years younger than the current boss and catch up with the way life is lived today, not twenty years ago. If they don't by the time they wake up it'll just be pensioners watching.

[Adam43]

The streaming and catch-up offered by sky is excellent.

[henners88]

I am assuming that is separate to the appallingly unreliable Sky go service they offer subscribers?

[Adam43]

Well we have different experiences then. I've watched GP and rugby in a moving car via a tablet and tethered phone (only 3G) and it has been very good. I actually go in via the sports app, but I assume that is just the same as sky go in terms of streaming.
The sky box is good too for catch up downloads and, of course, in very good quality. I have pants broadband too.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Well we have different experiences then. I've watched GP and rugby in a moving car via a tablet and tethered phone (only 3G) and it has been very good. I actually go in via the sports app, but I assume that is just the same as sky go in terms of streaming.
The sky box is good too for catch up downloads and, of course, in very good quality. I have pants broadband too.

I've had a sky go login since the end of 2011 and have used it via my laptop and ipad. I've used both in various locations and found the service unpredictable. Buffering is my main annoyance. I think something is very wrong when you can watch a stream coming out of Bulgaria that is both constant and provides better picture quality than the official sky service.

I certainly wouldn't entertain paying a monthly fee to sky for their online service based on this past experience I must say. I tried to use sky go for one GP and just under 20 minutes into the race it stopped working and an apology message came up. I wasn't the only person at that time after discussing it with other forumers. So no my experience has been OK but not brilliant and I'm glad I wasn't paying for it. If I was one of those people who were paying monthly for the two races they had that month, I would have been getting the money back.

Sky have a long way to go with their online content if they want to catch up with other top broadcasters and with the profits they make, it really shouldn't have been this bad for this long. Sky aren't the only company to offer catchup and downloads now either. My FreeSat box does all that with no monthly fee and enables you to use the internet and download apps if ever you feel the need. I don't, but its there. The only thing Sky offer that others don't is exclusive rights to certain programs. The service aside from that is way behind the likes of Virgin for instance. They still charge a premium for HD too which I can't understand.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Sky go is a high bit-rate service that requires a reasonable min download speed, if you are experiencing buffering it's due to not having sufficiently high speed broadband.
A low rate broadcast will play on lower speed broadband and look reasonable, but not great.

One race two years ago...what a shockingly bad product
And since you weren't even paying for it, honestly you have little right to complain.

As for an HD premium, BT Sport is £3 more expensive to have it in HD, to non-BT broadband customers using a Sat dish. Oh and Virgin simply include their HD premium in their package price...go ask Virgin how much for SD version only.

[henners88]

I wasn't just basing my whole opinion on one race, I just gave an example from a number of such.

I am perfectly entitled to complain about a service I have used whether I paid for it or not. There are no regulations/laws that state a person cannot complain about something unless they have directly paid for it. It may not be ideal from Sky's point of view that I have used their service with permission of the bill payer, but I am entitled to form an opinion on it. My Sky Go pass was possibly the most legal method I used to watch F1, but seeing as there are streams out there that provide better quality viewing, its no wonder people go down that route. Everyone wins if we all get to watch the F1.

I don't need to analyse Virgin's price plans because I have no interest in buying what they offer. They all rip you off and when BT start charging me instead of giving me BT Sport as part of my high speed internet package, I will ditch them and find a cheaper supplier.

[bella]

beg to differ about virgin offering a crap price for a crap product. my uncle has telly, phone, uber high speed internet and everything thrown in with them for an exceptionally reasonable price. you do need to barter though, which is a terribly un-british thing to have to do

[garcon]

And we're perfectly entitled to ignore or contradict your complaints, especially when they're riddled with factual errors.

It always amuses me how rarely the self-righteous feel the need to check their facts.

[henners88]

Whose post is filled with factual errors? It would be interesting to understand what these are.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by henners88

Here is a good blog I follow and analyses just about every aspect of the coverage in an impartial sort of way:

http://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/...ease-slightly/

It seems both channels had an increase in the first half of last year but the second half suffered possibly due to the boring season. The BBC remained popular though and basically made sure F1 was even worth a mention in the UK. Sky lost 12% of their viewers overall in 2013 when compared to the year before which is a hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things.

There doesn't seem to be any consideration given to the fact that Sky changed their packages relating to how F1 could be viewed. How much of that 12% was able to view but chose not to, how much was due to package change in the knowledge that they'd lose F1 coverage.
That 12% isn't that clear cut.

Originally Posted by henners88

The fact of the matter is £43.50 a month for a package that only gives you 10 live races a year really isn't worth it for me. I have better things to blow my money on and listening to Martin Brundle is way down my list .

Personal choice, but for accuracy £43.50 gives you access to 35 entertainment channels and 6 Sports channels, the On Demand service, access to Sky Go, Sky Email services (with the up to 9 additional email addresses), Full access to the Sky Sports and Sky News Apps ... Oh I almost forgot, exclusive coverage of Free Practice, Qualifying and Racing at 10 of the 19 F1 events.

[henners88]

Firstly the blog welcome considerations like that so feel free to mention it.

Secondly the list of things you feel are benefits with having Sky are all commonly known. I certainly knew about them and that hasn't changed my opinion that I don't think it justifies £43.50 a month. I did state it was my opinion. Having 9 email addresses and 6 sports channels that I won't use would not be value for money for me. The problem with sky's pricing strategy for me is how they lump it altogether and market it like it is all needed. For some people like yourselves who watch a lot of TV I'm sure it is, but I think it would be more popular if people could subscribe to various channels without all the bumf. Just my opinion but to be honest I just don't like the way F1 has headed, and when ever I have wished to watch a Sky race, I've found a way. Have a good weekend everyone

[chillibowl]

all you need to know about cable companies is that they think they are offering us value by giving us free email addresses.

i bought a new car the other day but before i figured out what i wanted i naturally shopped around. so i walk into a competitors dealership and the salesperson spent literally 5 minutes talking about intermittent wiper blades. i asked him why he was wasting my time and if he could name an alternative car brand that didnt have at least 3 speeds for their wipers and he looked at me perplexed that i was not equally amazed by the cutting edge technology of the Toyota Camry's intermittent wiper blades ('but but but sir, perhaps im not explaining properly but you can pick the speed of the blades')...the analogy is you can sign up for a million free email address on gmail if you want so why do cable companies act like email is some new and fancy thing you cant find anywhere else which adds value to their useless product. have they been sleeping for the past 20 years???

for a service based industry the contempt they have for their customers is unparallelled!

simply put they are not in the business of offering value but rather trying to squeeze as much as they can before their industry dies.

henners i totally agree with you.
rant over

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by henners88

I am perfectly entitled to complain about a service I have used whether I paid for it or not.

You're perfectly entitled to offer an opinion. If you complained to them then they'd be perfectly entitled to dismiss you as someone who didn't pay. Maybe they should listen as you may one day pay for their product?

My point was simply that the service, for me, is fine and not as bad as you made out. Not saying it is the best. Certainly not the worst. I'm happy with it as it is more than fine, it is good. A convenient way for me to get some programmes I want, when I want and where I want. When it isn't, or there is an alternative with significant advantage, I won't pay.

They've never offered me an email address as a good thing I don't think any provider has done that since the '90s!

[garcon]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

... Toyota Camry ... intermittent wiper blades ...

Oh boy, you really are in the automotive dark ages over that side of the pond aren't you?

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Adam43

You're perfectly entitled to offer an opinion. If you complained to them then they'd be perfectly entitled to dismiss you as someone who didn't pay. Maybe they should listen as you may one day pay for their product?

My point was simply that the service, for me, is fine and not as bad as you made out. Not saying it is the best. Certainly not the worst. I'm happy with it as it is more than fine, it is good. A convenient way for me to get some programmes I want, when I want and where I want. When it isn't, or there is an alternative with significant advantage, I won't pay.

They've never offered me an email address as a good thing I don't think any provider has done that since the '90s!

I have always said I would consider buying their product if it was available at a sensible monthly price and I know that is subjective but 43 quid a month just for a few extra channels is far too much for me. Again I am perfectly entitled to share my opinions on a forum among fellow F1 fans on a product that delivers coverage. It doesn't matter if I watch it on Sky go, a stream, matey boys hacked box, down the pub whilst buying a few pints, in my Nan's lounge where she has a full Sky subscription or stood in Curry's where it happens to be on the screen. The fact of the matter is I have experienced what is on offer and have an opinion on it. There are things I like on Sky of course too.

You've had a great experience with Sky go and mine has been ok. Whether you think the service has not been as bad as I made out is your own opinion too. You can't really comment on my personal experience because you haven't witnessed it first hand. I didn't suggest you haven't had a good experience did I? This is all rather silly Adam. You are happy to pay and have justified it, good for you. I am not happy to pay and have found alternatives that have enabled me to form my opinion, wow big deal. I hope we all enjoy the coming season and Sky's viewership doesn't continue to fall.

[Adam43]

That's what I said.

[henners88]

You did try to discredit my opinion slightly because I'm not a paying subscriber or that is how it came across. It seems we agree we had different experiences though so we've wasted a bit time arriving at that conclusion. The off season can be slow eh?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by garcon

Oh boy, you really are in the automotive dark ages over that side of the pond aren't you?

If they had thrown in a tshirt maybe a sticker or two and I would have bought it.