planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:34 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

What do you think? Is it a reversal of Bernies thinking, or just to get the interest for the French GP?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2538
Location: UK
That is very encouraging. Liberty's stated aim is to build their investment by increasing F1's fanbase and widening its appeal, although they have appear to have been largely focused on race-day crowds thus far. This is the total antithesis of Bernie and CVC's horrendous short-term approach of making F1 an exclusive club for small numbers of wealthy people to throw their money around (Rolex as an official sponsor? How many F1 fans are buying those???).

I think a return to free-to-air TV fits with what Liberty are trying to achieve. A shame that here in the UK we are tied into Bernie's Sky contract.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:25 pm
Posts: 387
Pay TV is the fastest way to maximize short term income and lose audience share that that doesn't want pay TV.

Feature Liberty saw the light, that is why the bought out the little troll.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
During the press conference with the Honda change over, this came up

Q: (Graham Harris – Motorsport Monday) A question for Moriyama-san. Now that Honda has committed to come back with Toro Rosso and stay in Formula One for the next three years, what do you think Formula One needs to do to attract more Japanese automakers to come into Formula One as manufacturers?

MY: One important thing at the moment is that in Japan at the moment Formula One is not broadcast on free-to-air TV. So we believe that the most important factor is that at the moment the fans can only watch through satellite/pay TV, so that is maybe the biggest issue to increase the number. Obviously, us as Honda, it would improve our promotional ways of improving our Honda F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1105
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 861
Location: Far side of Koozebane
This is a quote from a Canadian TV thread in June last year and it makes Bernie's actions almost criminal when it comes to increasing the marketability and popularity of the sport.

Jezza13 wrote:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/20/f1-has-lost-one-third-of-its-tv-audience-since-2008/

200 million, or 33.3 % of television viewers, lost globally since 2008.


One of the biggest steps forward Liberty could make in bringing the sport back to the masses is to get it back on FTA TV and it's fantastic that it seems that's what they're trying to do.

_________________
Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way when you do judge him, you're a mile away, and you have his shoes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20907
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.

There's not much choice for many people, though. Where I live, I can either pay or never watch something I love. I used to get it included as part of my SKY package, so I technically got it for free as I never actually paid separately for it, but sadly that's no longer possible.

I don't so much object to paying for it as I do the model that gives consumers zero choice, but that's as much the fault of digital rights law as it is of F1. It's ridiculous, in this day and age, that you can't watch a stream from one country if you live in another, especially if you live in something like the European Union where trade is supposed to be unrestricted. Digital rights hasn't caught up with digital reality. I can't even watch a clip of an interview that no-one else may actually have, just because I live in the wrong post code. It's insane. If trade was truly free, I could then choose to watch SKY, or RTL (ugh), or Ziggo etc etc, depending on whether I felt their offering was worthwhile. Now, I don't have that choice, so paying feels more akin to extortion. I refuse to pay for my local service, because it's only available if I change my entire TV and internet supply, which I object to being forced to do. At least in the UK SKY offered NowTV, which allowed you to pay for individual races with no contract and I don't think that kind of model is particularly oppressive. If Formula One would offer a non-subscription internet stream at a reasonable rate I suspect they may add quite a fair number of viewers worldwide. People's viewing habits have moved on from static TV subscriptions. Many don't even own a TV any more (my kids do the bulk of their watching through their laptops).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12297
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.


Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


And yet, in Britain at least, all the biggest sports except perhaps Tennis are largely behind a paywall and many have grown massively whilst behind it. Darts and premier league football are particular success stories. I would rather not have to pay to watch F1 but I have never understood why it should be viewed as a special case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.


Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


And yet, in Britain at least, all the biggest sports except perhaps Tennis are largely behind a paywall and many have grown massively whilst behind it. Darts and premier league football are particular success stories. I would rather not have to pay to watch F1 but I have never understood why it should be viewed as a special case?


I do not think it should be a special case. sponsors use sport for people to see their name. If only a particular type of people are interested enough in that sport to pay, they have a very small sector of the market.

I understand that in the day there were companies who only wanted their adverts to reach the segment with lots of cash to splash about, but they have to have an interest to be there in the first place.

I wonder what the average age of an F1 audience is now compared to 5 years ago? If you do not like something you do not pay, if you have not tried it, ... etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20907
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.


Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


And yet, in Britain at least, all the biggest sports except perhaps Tennis are largely behind a paywall and many have grown massively whilst behind it. Darts and premier league football are particular success stories. I would rather not have to pay to watch F1 but I have never understood why it should be viewed as a special case?

I largely don't, either, but other sports are more accessible, as a rule. Darts and football both have a large following who actually play the game for fun, so watching is just a natural extension of existing hobbies. Motor sports are out of the reach of most, so watching is the hobby, which means the drive (no pun intended) to watch it is probably less prevalent IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


When we are talking about pay tv, are we speaking of just cable tv, or a specific channel that one has to purchase in addition to a standard cable package?

It's the latter situation that I think hurts the most. Here in the states, I dont know a single person who does not have cable tv, so going that that pay tv route is not very limiting. I can see that if you had to buy a particular channel, that would add even more cost.

Free, over the air TV, has the most commercials and the least amount of specialists who cover motor racing. A guy calling an F1 race might be calling baseball on another day. On cable they tend to specialize more and thus have more knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


When we are talking about pay tv, are we speaking of just cable tv, or a specific channel that one has to purchase in addition to a standard cable package?

It's the latter situation that I think hurts the most. Here in the states, I dont know a single person who does not have cable tv, so going that that pay tv route is not very limiting. I can see that if you had to buy a particular channel, that would add even more cost.

Free, over the air TV, has the most commercials and the least amount of specialists who cover motor racing. A guy calling an F1 race might be calling baseball on another day. On cable they tend to specialize more and thus have more knowledge.


It is just the one channel, so on options, no competition.

Wouldn't that be a monopoly? (Why is there only one monopolies commission)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


When we are talking about pay tv, are we speaking of just cable tv, or a specific channel that one has to purchase in addition to a standard cable package?

It's the latter situation that I think hurts the most. Here in the states, I dont know a single person who does not have cable tv, so going that that pay tv route is not very limiting. I can see that if you had to buy a particular channel, that would add even more cost.

Free, over the air TV, has the most commercials and the least amount of specialists who cover motor racing. A guy calling an F1 race might be calling baseball on another day. On cable they tend to specialize more and thus have more knowledge.


It is just the one channel, so on options, no competition.

Wouldn't that be a monopoly? (Why is there only one monopolies commission)


One channel that you have to pay extra for or is it included as a whole package?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Herb Tarlik wrote:
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


When we are talking about pay tv, are we speaking of just cable tv, or a specific channel that one has to purchase in addition to a standard cable package?

It's the latter situation that I think hurts the most. Here in the states, I dont know a single person who does not have cable tv, so going that that pay tv route is not very limiting. I can see that if you had to buy a particular channel, that would add even more cost.

Free, over the air TV, has the most commercials and the least amount of specialists who cover motor racing. A guy calling an F1 race might be calling baseball on another day. On cable they tend to specialize more and thus have more knowledge.


It is just the one channel, so on options, no competition.

Wouldn't that be a monopoly? (Why is there only one monopolies commission)


One channel that you have to pay extra for or is it included as a whole package?


When I say both, I mean you have to have a 'base' set of channels before you can have the F1.

It was included with the package at one time, I had it then even though I never watched the others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
moby wrote:


When I say both, I mean you have to have a 'base' set of channels before you can have the F1.

It was included with the package at one time, I had it then even though I never watched the others.


Got it. Yeah, that's the worst case scenario. Usually with a base package here in the US you can get Formula One. That's more reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5036
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.


Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


And yet, in Britain at least, all the biggest sports except perhaps Tennis are largely behind a paywall and many have grown massively whilst behind it. Darts and premier league football are particular success stories. I would rather not have to pay to watch F1 but I have never understood why it should be viewed as a special case?

The main issue with comparing F1 in the UK to sports like football is that football is watched massively by people in bars so gets more viewership than f1 from an advertisers point of view straight away. Darts is a bit different simply because it is such a cheap sport to run compared to football and especially f1.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1105
Zoue wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.

There's not much choice for many people, though. Where I live, I can either pay or never watch something I love. I used to get it included as part of my SKY package, so I technically got it for free as I never actually paid separately for it, but sadly that's no longer possible.

I don't so much object to paying for it as I do the model that gives consumers zero choice, but that's as much the fault of digital rights law as it is of F1. It's ridiculous, in this day and age, that you can't watch a stream from one country if you live in another, especially if you live in something like the European Union where trade is supposed to be unrestricted. Digital rights hasn't caught up with digital reality. I can't even watch a clip of an interview that no-one else may actually have, just because I live in the wrong post code. It's insane. If trade was truly free, I could then choose to watch SKY, or RTL (ugh), or Ziggo etc etc, depending on whether I felt their offering was worthwhile. Now, I don't have that choice, so paying feels more akin to extortion. I refuse to pay for my local service, because it's only available if I change my entire TV and internet supply, which I object to being forced to do. At least in the UK SKY offered NowTV, which allowed you to pay for individual races with no contract and I don't think that kind of model is particularly oppressive. If Formula One would offer a non-subscription internet stream at a reasonable rate I suspect they may add quite a fair number of viewers worldwide. People's viewing habits have moved on from static TV subscriptions. Many don't even own a TV any more (my kids do the bulk of their watching through their laptops).


Zoue, I really do sympathize with your predicament. Your situations is very different than mine, and I do understand that you have been painted into a corner by the actions of others. All I can do is hope that soon Liberty opens things up so you have the option on what payment method is available. IMO a two-tier system makes sense, where free to air just covers the race while pay TV covers everything.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 1191
It seems pretty fundamental in my view that if you want to attract more viewers and fans then you need MORE/EASIER ways to watch F1 not less!

The alleged viewer drop off is absolutely replicated around my circle of friends and acquaintances, in the space of 5 or 6 years we’ve gone from a strong group of around 10 long-term fans who would regularly get together to watch races to only two!

I hope Liberty get it right - they seem pretty switched on!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
What Bernie and co did with it reminds me of what our local council did with the town centre.
There was far too much choice of parking for them, and it was too easy to park, walk across the footbridge and through an arcade and be right in the middle of a thriving town.

They closed the close in carparks, took some fore their own offices and built 'social housing' and office space whit some, and the ones not so close, they increased the parking charge. That will keep the traffic down.

Now they are realising that without the number of cars, yes, you guessed it, people are not coming to town and half the shops are closing, so the other half have nothing to cone for.

Seemed like a good idea to SOMEONE at the time even though everyone told them you need lots of people to make things work


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 1191
moby wrote:
What Bernie and co did with it reminds me of what our local council did with the town centre.
There was far too much choice of parking for them, and it was too easy to park, walk across the footbridge and through an arcade and be right in the middle of a thriving town.

They closed the close in carparks, took some fore their own offices and built 'social housing' and office space whit some, and the ones not so close, they increased the parking charge. That will keep the traffic down.

Now they are realising that without the number of cars, yes, you guessed it, people are not coming to town and half the shops are closing, so the other half have nothing to cone for.

Seemed like a good idea to SOMEONE at the time even though everyone told them you need lots of people to make things work


Yep, if you attract lots of customers then why on earth would you change things to attract less customers? The only plausible answer is you want to attract a 'different' type, or more 'elite' customer? Clearly not happening in terms of F1 if this forum is anything to go by ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 267
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
moby wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
This is the most damning part of that article:

In France F1 has been behind a paywall since 2013 and audiences have fallen from around 4 to 5 million on TF1 to 750,000 on Canal Plus
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/09/free-to-air-f1-tv-are-there-any-lessons-for-sky-and-the-uk-in-new-french-tv-move/

If any sport does not have an easy portal for prospective fans to watch races, the sport eventually dies.

Personally, I am very happy Liberty bought the rights to Formula One and sacked Bernie. He did develop the sport, but recently all he has done is rape the fields of any crop. And that is not good for the future of the sport. Liberty seriously want to grow the sport into a larger and wider audience.

Personally, I will never pay to watch a race on TV.


When we are talking about pay tv, are we speaking of just cable tv, or a specific channel that one has to purchase in addition to a standard cable package?

It's the latter situation that I think hurts the most. Here in the states, I dont know a single person who does not have cable tv, so going that that pay tv route is not very limiting. I can see that if you had to buy a particular channel, that would add even more cost.

Free, over the air TV, has the most commercials and the least amount of specialists who cover motor racing. A guy calling an F1 race might be calling baseball on another day. On cable they tend to specialize more and thus have more knowledge.


It is just the one channel, so on options, no competition.

Wouldn't that be a monopoly? (Why is there only one monopolies commission)


One channel that you have to pay extra for or is it included as a whole package?


When I say both, I mean you have to have a 'base' set of channels before you can have the F1.

It was included with the package at one time, I had it then even though I never watched the others.

That's the problem here in Canada. A two tier system where F1 content is viewed mostly on the second tier. In Canada the premium tier is called TSN2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:33 am
Posts: 178
Location: Adelaide, Australia
It's good to see F1's returning to free TV. In Oz if you want to watch F1's live and in full ( Some races are on Free TV but not many ), You need Foxtel ( Pay TV ).
The absolute cheapest package is $50 a month and for someone like me, I rarely watch TV except for sport so $50 a month is a bit rich, Although it does give me access to every match of Football ( AFL ) live and also the V8 Supercars ( Which apart from a few races are behind Pay TV now too ).

I'd be much happier to pay Liberty directly each month and stream every race, If it were $20 a month, I'd be happy with that.

_________________
Any and all opinions are my own, they do not reflect the opinions of the FIA, FOM, Teams, Drivers, PlanetF1, Phase of the Moon, Rotation of the Earth or Aliens.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group