BBC to axe F1 to save BBC4

[kevbaz]

But if you own a computer you can get access to iplayer etc and they get you that way.

 

 

Not true

 

You do not need a television licence to catch-up on television programmes in BBC iPlayer, only when you watch or record at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast or otherwise distributed to the public.

 

BBC iPlayer - Help - Do I need a TV licence to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer?

[farquea]

the BBC's coverage of the F1 is infinitely better than it was on ITV, and thats why they recently won a Bafta i think for said coverage. I also always prefer the Football coverage on BBC1 over ITV and Sky. It just always seems more light hearted and watchable for me so for that and to keep it advert free i'm happy to pay a license fee.

[laserblazer]

Cricket is one of the few sports that lends itself to commercial tv because they can slip an advert in between overs. ITV F1 was a nightmare.

[AyatollahPies]

Why should i have to disconnect my TV? I use it for watching DVDs and playing XBOX and if you don't pay your license you get harassed by the licensing gestapo.

 

Buy a new TV or reciever? Have to fill in a form with your address so they can check that you have a license.

 

Scumbags.

[synaesthesia]

Not at all. You are perfectly able to have a TV will full reception capability as long as you can prove you don't use it to actually receive communications. Good way of doing so especially now is having a TV without a built in digital tuner - without a set top box, you have all the proof you need. No-one is being forced to watch TV or the F1, and you're not paying for the F1 directly. Just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay for the entirity of someones programming.

[JHeaton]

Cricket is one of the few sports that lends itself to commercial tv because they can slip an advert in between overs. ITV F1 was a nightmare.

 

But cricket on Sky just does not work. Ratings were fantastic in 2005, national interest was growing again and then it was taken over to Sky, where coverage has gotten worse and viewing figures have dropped sharply.

 

Why should i have to disconnect my TV? I use it for watching DVDs and playing XBOX and if you don't pay your license you get harassed by the licensing gestapo.

 

Buy a new TV or reciever? Have to fill in a form with your address so they can check that you have a license.

 

Scumbags.

 

As said above, you don't need to pay your licence fee if you don't use your TV to receive live broadcasts. Don't use it and don't want to pay? Don't pay. Inform the TV licensing company of this and off you go. If it wasn't for the F1, I doubt we'd even have one. It's pretty much the only thing we really watch - we already got rid of Sky because it was an absolute waste of money. If F1 moves over to a pay TV channel, I'm not sure there would be any point in us paying the licence fee, to be honest.

 

 

I can't see much sense in a decision to drop the coverage, really. The average viewing for a grand prix is 5-6 million people. Canada saw 8.4 million; that's the kind of figure you would expect to see for a season finale where the title was going down to the wire. Compare this to the highest figures for a programme on BBC4 - 1.6 million - and it just doesn't add up. It would be much better to cut some of the crap from BBC1 and BBC2, axe BBC4 and put the few good shows from there on the mainstream channels. Otherwise, merge BBC3 and BBC4 and show the best programmes from each, as both channels are clogged with repeats and pointless filler. That they are only on for half a day each (or has this been changed?) is another issue with this: they can still manage to fill both with programmes that are not top-quality.

 

If it turns out that the sports budget is a specific area where money needs to be saved, how about getting rid of Match of the Day instead? Apparently over the course of a year it's more expensive and pulls in less viewers. This adds more to the theory that this is a bargaining tool to get a better deal from Bernie, in my opinion.

[laserblazer]

But cricket on Sky just does not work

 

Never watched it on Sky, so I can't comment but C4 wasn't so bad. The IPL coverage, where they kept showing shots of a motorbike, Passat covered in graffiti and a load of slappers with pom poms was p!ss poor.

[teejay]

With Test Match Special, cricket is the only sport that's better on radio than TV:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiYayt6IgtM&feature=player_detailpage

 

and

 

YouTube - &#x202aFunny Cricket Commentating&#x202c‏

 

I rest my case

[Guest Guest]

What if you want to watch Sky tv at £17/m but dont watch BBC - you still have to pay your licence. As much as I don't like Sky I'd still say it's infinately better to have 100 channels with FA on most of the time than 4 channels with FA on.

[AyatollahPies]

Not at all. You are perfectly able to have a TV will full reception capability as long as you can prove you don't use it to actually receive communications. Good way of doing so especially now is having a TV without a built in digital tuner - without a set top box, you have all the proof you need. No-one is being forced to watch TV or the F1, and you're not paying for the F1 directly. Just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay for the entirity of someones programming.

 

You're missing my point. (I love F1 by the way)

 

I'm not forced to watch TV. But if I own a TV, I am forced to prove that I do not recieve broadcasts on it. That is a ridiculous concept in this day and age. Threats of £1000 fines, court appearence etc? Give me strength. I don't like being threatened for not buying a service.

 

You're last sentence doesn't make sense as I'm objecting to the fact that I have to pay one company, for their services, even if I don't use them. I have no objection to what the BBC shows.

 

This makes for an interesting read. Dealing with TV Licensing - the TV licence "police" Particularly the personal accounts of having to deal with licensing.

 

I have derailed the thread somewhat and apologise for doing so.

[teejay]

The TV Licence is classed legally as a tax, so you are paying the tax for receiving TV broadcasts, the fact the money raised goes to the BBC is a side issue.

[synaesthesia]

Heh no worries - otherwise there'd surely be millions of threads continuining on from the natural course of conversation

 

Sorry, didn't quite read your original post properly. And yes, the way it's policed is often too harsh. Trouble is though, there are 2 ways of doing it - proving you do you have to have a licence, or proving you don't. The latter is naturally the easiest route, unfortunately.

 

Sometimes I do think that perhaps ditching the licence fee altogether is a better approach, replacing it with a subscription method. The technology is already in place to allow for that sort of thing but no doubt the initial setup cost would be just $illy.

[john]

The F1 is much better on the beeb than ITV, so much good action was missed on ITV when they had it and they just didn't do it justice, I remember celebrating its return to the beeb as it means much better programming which is true as its all on and you don't miss anything for a 5 minute ad break for them to say well welcome back you just missed the most amazing over-take but FOM isn't giving the clip out at this moment so we'll have to tell you about it Much better on BBC and it needs to remain, maybe reduce some of the costs, I cannot imagine all the extras and stuff they do with it being that cheap but cut some wages, and some corners and maybe some of the extra stuff with each show then maybe that will help, as much as I enjoy some of the extra features do we really need 1hr pre-qualifying and then 1hr pre-race chatter?

[SimpleSi]

I'd still say it's infinately better to have 100 channels with FA on most of the time than 4 channels with FA on.

I think your maths is a little suspect

 

(100 * FA) * 0.51 !> (4 * FA)

 

(assuming FA == 0)

 

Si

[Guest Guest]

Don't get me wrong, the BBC are second to none at what they do well, documentaries, [comedy] current affairs and their website (well apart from the search feature) but the vast majority of what they do is absolute garbage. I like to watch half an hour of iPlayer on my lunch but there's only so many times you can watch repeats of Qi, HIGNFY, Top Gear. Even the likes of Panorama has gone down hill; scare mongering more suited to ch5 than the BBC.

 

Personally I don't think a season of Qi, HIGNFY and top gear plus coverage of Glastonbury and maybe a 4 part documentary is worth £150. I could buy the DVD box sets each year for that.

[speckytecky]

Crikey j17sparky - bit of a stinging comment that but fair dos as the UK is all about freedom of choice and freedom of speech.

 

I certainly don't agree with you. Having been a F1 fan for eons now I can only say you must have switched channels when the recent Canadian F1 was being screened. The coverage by the Beeb during the 2 hour rain storm and each side was brilliant (the 2 interviews with the ice cool Webber during the rain were special) and the actual race was certainly one of the best I have ever seen. It came close to rivalling the only one I have ever been at - that was the Monaco this year where I had a unique view from an office block overlooking La Rascasse!

 

l

Good good. What a waste of time sport it is. I've tried to give it a fair chance this season and watched the last 5 or 6 races, the only one I even half enjoyed was monaco. I'd much rather the money be spent on doing proper documentaries like Attenboroughs

[pcstru]

Personally I don't think a season of Qi, HIGNFY and top gear plus coverage of Glastonbury and maybe a 4 part documentary is worth £150. I could buy the DVD box sets each year for that.

 

As others have pointed out, it is a Tax on receiving equipment (properly active receiving equipment). It's an unusual tax in that it nominally goes to the BBC although various other companies make a living out the other end (Capita for one and lot's of independent production companies that probably wouldn't exist otherwise). The funding guarantees that you will have something to watch on your receiving equipment and perhaps more to the point, that some, not all of it will be catering for some of your interests. No commercial company has that aim but in the UK they have to compete against an organisation that does have that aim. That competition (IMO) tends to drive up quality across the board. If you don't believe that, look at TV in the USA or even (god forbid) Italy. So even if you don't watch the BBC itself, if you watch any UK TV, you benefit from the presence of the BBC.

 

It must be time for someone to say "The BBC is terrific value for money. I would gladly sell my house and all my possessions to fund it". Instead, I'll say how sick I'm getting of people who "don't use it, don't want to pay for it". It's getting to the point where they will demand coin slots on lamp posts so they can put a penny in each one to light their way up the street but don't have to pay for the next person "I didn't use that light, I was SITTING ON THE TOILET when it was switched on" [*1]. As a society we all pay for things that we don't use - that's part of the bleeding POINT and we are better off for it. The BBC has a big influence on our culture and society, IMO a hugely beneficial one. Wish it gone at your peril.

 

[*1] - 'borrowed' (ahem) from Mark Steel.

[Guest Guest]

Crikey j17sparky - bit of a stinging comment that but fair dos as the UK is all about freedom of choice and freedom of speech.

 

I certainly don't agree with you. Having been a F1 fan for eons now I can only say you must have switched channels when the recent Canadian F1 was being screened. The coverage by the Beeb during the 2 hour rain storm and each side was brilliant (the 2 interviews with the ice cool Webber during the rain were special) and the actual race was certainly one of the best I have ever seen. It came close to rivalling the only one I have ever been at - that was the Monaco this year where I had a unique view from an office block overlooking La Rascasse!

 

l

 

Na, watched it, what a waste of my existence. Obviously just my opinion.

 

 

As others have pointed out, it is a Tax on receiving equipment (properly active receiving equipment).

 

But they have so much money from what could be argued as "over taxing" people that they don't know what to do with it, hence the proposal to spend the excess on broadband. And besides there are 2 alternatives to terrestrial; Satellite and Cable.

 

The funding guarantees that you will have something to watch on your receiving equipment and perhaps more to the point, that some, not all of it will be catering for some of your interests.

 

I very rarely find something I want to watch though. In the past the BBC was brilliant, like I said their documentaries are second to none.

 

Take a look at todays TV guide on the BBCs premier channel; BBC - BBC One Programmes - London Schedule, Tuesday 21 June 2011

There isn't a single thing I would watch, not one.

 

OK, what about BBC2; BBC - BBC Two Programmes - England Schedule, Tuesday 21 June 2011

Nope, nothing again.

 

Now people might say I'm being awkward but take Wimbledon, Eastenders and the News out of the mix and can you honestly say you will be watching anything on the BBC today?

Edited June 21, 2011 by Guest

[mthomas08]

I did watch it, even watched the whole thing again on IPlayer, but then I am a big F1 fan and since the start of 2007 F1 has been much better. With the BBC coverage it has been as good since I can remember, after watching the Senna movie I am thinking that maybe it has not been good since the Senna years. Full of the good, the bad and the ugly with a side order of courts, politics and stewards.

 

Sitting on air for a good few hours is no easy task and Martin and David did a brilliant job, EJ adds some spice because he is never afraid to ask that uncomfortable question and Jake balances it out spot on. One thing I hate is "Fake" and I want to see personality and MB and DC showed that when on air while it is down pouring, even got good ratings in the papers for their talk of "Birds". No easy task to keep talking when nothing is going on, they could have switched over to some thing else but my opinion is who cares about the antiques road show, it is a very low budget program which surely only old people watch?

 

Then again, thats all my opinion, the fact the news pays attention to F1 more in the last 3 years then what they had done for about 10 years put together to me says some thing. Canada was probably the best race of the season, it had everything. F1 and Football are the only things I put the TV on for, if F1 goes then I will consider not caring about a TV License.

[sted]

cable for most people isnt an option ive not seen them lay any new cable in doncaster for 20 years or so

[TechMonkey]

I'm not forced to watch TV. But if I own a TV, I am forced to prove that I do not recieve broadcasts on it. That is a ridiculous concept in this day and age. Threats of £1000 fines, court appearence etc? Give me strength. I don't like being threatened for not buying a service.

 

You don't have to prove it they just try and strong arm you into doing that. Just tell them you do not receive TV signals. They have no power to access your home without a court order and the police & that is rarely done. If they harass you can withdraw implied consent from them meaning they can not walk up your path (if you have no path or front garden you are a bit stuffed). If you live in a block of flats it is even easier, do not buzz them in and do not answer the door to anyone you didn't buzz in. Recycle any letters they send and get on with your life. Treat them as anyother cold caller offering a service you do not want.

 

As for where I am, we are stuffed as cable will never come out this way, freeview reception is shocking so Satellite is our only option, which I really do not like. Once I move I am not getting a license and probably not getting a TV.

[Grounce]

It's unsubstantiated rumour at the moment - the article in TheTimes and TheMail were full of statistical inaccuracies. Watch #bbcf1 and Jake on twitter. Bear in mind that TheTimes is one of Murdoch's papers, and he's wanting to do as much damage to BBC as possible to assist his bid to takeover from CVC as main investor (which Bernie / FOA denies is happening).

 

Not trying to take anything away from your previous statement as it was correct when you commented but it has turned out to be true. It means a lot of people are not going to be able to follow the F1 season properly which is a great shame. I for one will never give a penny to Murdoch regardless of how much I enjoy the sport.