Tbh I don't understand how bbcs funding is even justified, it's basicly a market robber.

Maybe the rest of the channels in uk would be at bbcs standard if it didn't rob the entire British market via the licence fee, the other channels can't possibly compete when there is a public controlled monopoly.

Quote from Mustafur :

Either way its not your ''right'' to watch f1, and if it ends up such a failure a so called 'free to air channel' will naturally take its place, unless they add some more regulation to already near socalist british TV market.

It's nothing to do with whether it's my right to watch it, my point is that F1 draws children and teenagers to an industry that is in dire need of new engineers. This country is suffering a massive deficit of new workers in STEM industries, and having F1 free to view was at least drawing some in, making it in our country's interests.

Quote from spookthehamster :

It's nothing to do with whether it's my right to watch it, my point is that F1 draws children and teenagers to an industry that is in dire need of new engineers. This country is suffering a massive deficit of new workers in STEM industries, and having F1 free to view was at least drawing some in, making it in our country's interests.

... and where's your actual evidence to back that up? Totally unfounded

for all you know not-so-free-to-air broadcasting could be drawing engineers away from more profitable and productive ventures and into F1.

Why should F1 enjoy a state-supported monopoly of motorsport broadcasting? For all we know a more competitive market could bring about different motorsports which have less regulatory constraints. I don't know, and neither do you the possible negative/positive consequences of not-so-free-to-air broadcasting of F1

Quote from Intrepid :

... and where's your actual evidence to back that up? Totally unfounded

for all you know not-so-free-to-air broadcasting could be drawing engineers away from more profitable and productive ventures and into F1.

Why should F1 enjoy a state-supported monopoly of motorsport broadcasting? For all we know a more competitive market could bring about different motorsports which have less regulatory constraints. I don't know, and neither do you the possible negative/positive consequences of not-so-free-to-air broadcasting of F1

The link between F1 and engineering is clear, including the F1 in Schools competition. Young people need to be shown that engineering can be cool an exciting, no matter what area they go into. Many of my friends were first drawn to engineering through F1 and motorsport, and then pursued other engineering areas (aerospace, defence, automotive, etc).

I don't have any idea what you're on about with the whole state supported monopoly thing. F1 isn't the only motorsport on the BBC, and other free to air stations play major motorsport series. Besides, the regulations are what makes F1 such an attractive series, unregulated motorsport leads to ridiculous costs to make cars even less relavent to road cars, and working within such strict regulations is a great engineering challenge.

The reason F1 has thrived compared to, say, LMS or Indy is because it's better run with exciting racing that's easier to follow for the average viewer, not because of some government conspiracy.

Quote from Intrepid :

... and where's your actual evidence to back that up? Totally unfounded

for all you know not-so-free-to-air broadcasting could be drawing engineers away from more profitable and productive ventures and into F1.

Why should F1 enjoy a state-supported monopoly of motorsport broadcasting? For all we know a more competitive market could bring about different motorsports which have less regulatory constraints. I don't know, and neither do you the possible negative/positive consequences of not-so-free-to-air broadcasting of F1

Evidence? Renault did a scheme some years back where they tried to encourage young/new engineers into F1 by offering the one(s) with the most potential from the likes of colleges and universities a place in Renaults engineer team.

Sky are rumoured to be chasing after Damon hill for the commentry.

I hope BBC will still have a live radio commentary, then I can dub it over Sky's broadcast haha.

I really can't accept anything other then BBC coverage now, especially their pre-race stuff.

Btw will golfingoverground ever be up again?

You guys must be generally disregarding the fact that when a market has a lack of supply its number tend to get boosted by the extra money those said companies would pay for their services.

Quote from spookthehamster :

The link between F1 and engineering is clear, including the F1 in Schools competition. Young people need to be shown that engineering can be cool an exciting, no matter what area they go into. Many of my friends were first drawn to engineering through F1 and motorsport, and then pursued other engineering areas (aerospace, defence, automotive, etc).

I don't have any idea what you're on about with the whole state supported monopoly thing. F1 isn't the only motorsport on the BBC, and other free to air stations play major motorsport series. Besides, the regulations are what makes F1 such an attractive series, unregulated motorsport leads to ridiculous costs to make cars even less relavent to road cars, and working within such strict regulations is a great engineering challenge.

The reason F1 has thrived compared to, say, LMS or Indy is because it's better run with exciting racing that's easier to follow for the average viewer, not because of some government conspiracy.

You made quite a bold assumption that free-to-air F1 was a defining factor in bringing engineers in. I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

JJ72 - You might find yourself out in the cold IF Sky produce superb pre-race coverage, which they most probably will. This is a loss making venture for Sky. They just want to prove a point.

Quote from Intrepid :

You made quite a bold assumption that free-to-air F1 was a defining factor in bringing engineers in. I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

And you have no proof that it wasn't a factor, so I guess it comes down to what sounds more convincing.
To me, Spook's analysis seems well thought out and highly convincing, where as your reply sounds like desperate playground bickering.

Quote :

..This is a loss making venture for Sky. They just want to prove a point.

It has nothing to do with 'proving a point' - you are being extremely naive thinking that Sky have any moral or philosophical motivation other than making money for their shareholders.
This deal is clearly an attempt to increase their subscriber base by buying up a hugely popular license. If they didn't have business projections that showed it to be profitable in the long term, then they wouldn't have gone anywhere near it.

Quote from col :

And you have no proof that it wasn't a factor, so I guess it comes down to what sounds more convincing.
To me, Spook's analysis seems well thought out and highly convincing, where as your reply sounds like desperate playground bickering.


It has nothing to do with 'proving a point' - you are being extremely naive thinking that Sky have any moral or philosophical motivation other than making money for their shareholders.
This deal is clearly an attempt to increase their subscriber base by buying up a hugely popular license. If they didn't have business projections that showed it to be profitable in the long term, then they wouldn't have gone anywhere near it.

Sky, or more specifically Murdoch, is purely motivated by profit making ventures? I suggest you actually take a look at the books from The Times newspaper or even Sky News. Murdoch is more than happy to 'prove a point' with loss making ideas. That 'highly convincing' enough for you?

Spook's analysis is without foundation. Completely and utterly without foundation. Anecdotal evidence is all he has. it doesn't mean it isn't true, but America/China/Russia etc... all of fantastic engineers and none of them are what we consider 'F1' nations. I don't think the future of British engineering relies on the fact the BBC has F1 coverage. If that were true, we're screwed.

I am not denying F1 is a great place to encourage people to do engineering, but F1 does enjoy a state-funded monopoly on motorsport. This is not fair in a free and open society. Why should Bernie Ecclestone's little series enjoy such an unfair and advantageous position over everyone else? There is an immeasurable, but yet important, cost of F1 receiving vast amounts of tax payers money to concrete their monopoly of motorsport.

You made quite a bold assumption that:

Quote from Intrepid :

There is an immeasurable, but yet important, cost of F1 receiving vast amounts of tax payers money to concrete their monopoly of motorsport.

I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.


Oh, and I think you need to look 'monopoly' up in the dictionary, because it is not even slightly applicable in this context.

Dear Intrepid.

You obviously hold something against our dear blightly's Auntie. And for that I'm sorry. If you can't understand why people are willing to pay for a non commercial Trust based organisation, that promises not to product place in any childrens shows, to offer me top rate documentary's (Blue planet, Madagasgar (come on, the new glut of programmes from the nature unit is absolutly worth the licence fee in its self)) and entertainment (Top Gear, Traffic Cops etc) then my friend, we really are on a hiding to nothing. Because you really are missing the quientisential point of the BBC.

Don't get me wrong, I think even the most Staunch defenders of the faith would agree that the Beeb do not get it right all the time and their failings are many. But that still does not take away the fact that it is the most unique broadcaster in the modern world. My housemate is Australian, and he can't get enough of it and won't stop telling me how lucky we are to have it. The New zealander I worked with listened to Radio 4 constantly and can't understand anyone who berates the station. The south african, the American, the Italian. All of them use the Beeb, listen, watch, admire and respect the Beeb.

And that, the export alone, is also worth the licence fee. So, to sum up. Blue Planet, Top Gear, the foriegners who appreciate the BBC for what it is . . . . . All this and more makes it worth the licence fee. Look beyond your own misconceptions, and whilst you may still not like what you see on the TV, at least understand what it offers to everyone else.

We are very very lucky to have it. And I hope my childrens children get to have it too, and I will fight people like you who wish to see it gone till the day is done.

Commercial station, over public subscription. Come on, take a deeper look into those ideals I beg you.

Aussie v8's, ftw.

Totally, and utterly, agreed Bear.

Quote from col :

You made quite a bold assumption that:
I'm saying you have absolutely no proof whatsoever.


Oh, and I think you need to look 'monopoly' up in the dictionary, because it is not even slightly applicable in this context.

How, BBC is a public funded monopoly destroying the private companies, for example in order to even see those other chanels them you have to fund the BBC with the TV licence.

its completely unfair buissness practise, because they compete with BBC in order to get ratings which give them money through advert money, but when all the ratings are made of people who have funded the BBC in order to even see those said channels how is it even fair.

If they somehow gain more ratings and get a bigger audience, there competetion BBC just gets bigger.

BBC has excellent quality shows and services, but theres no denying its just a massive burden on those other TV companies trying to make a few quid.

Quote from Funnybear :

...

Watch the box set of Deadwood. Makes the BBC look like amateur hour. Unless you consider Miranda of the highest broadcasting quality?

And it still shocks me how at ease people are with the clear bias at the BBC. We have a tax-funded & non-democratically accountable broadcaster with a proven political bias, but because they can afford a nice camera and helicopter to fly over some mountains everyone apparently loves it.

I will admit the BBC has some superb content. I, as a free person, would like the choice whether I pay for it, or not, rather than be threatened with jail if I don't fancy paying for 'Snog, Marry, or Avoid'... yes JAIL. Where's the democratic accountability? None.

The BBC is unqiue in the world. Not many broadcasters can threaten people with jail if they don't pay up for a service that may not even want.

Anyway, the BBC know the game is up. The internet is here, and it's destroying the normal TV broadcasting model and I don't think they can convince anyone an 'Internet Licence' is a viable option.

S'fine mate. I understand where your coming from. And Actually, I quite like Miranda, and wouldn't mind showing Mz Hart and interesting time down the Cowley Rd. But that aside, I still think you miss a pretty fundemental point. Remove the 'unique way the BBC is funded' and what are you left with. Competition. Which, some may argue is fine, Competition breeds better and better viewing.

No, I argue. Competition, doesn't, and never will give society a better way of living. I don't want to be sold stuff ok. I don't want my children to be sold stuff through a medium that they have no 'editorial' control over. I can decide when I'm being sold too. My children can't. So I end up being surprised when my kid can point out every fast food outlet imaginable because she's been watching Disney TV for the last six months.

I really really think you should get past the 'programme' as such, and really examine the content of those programmes, and then onto the employment practices of those programmes, the etitorial breif of those programmes, and then (and herein lies the rub) where the money comes from. Why do you get to see more Coka Cola bottles in Disney Shows. There is a very good reason. Quite frankly, and this might shoke you, I would be more than happy at this moment in time to just pay for the BBC and it's content. I don't subscribe to sky, I just have freeview and that really offers me all I need to bum out on the sofa on a saturday night.

I can tell by the way you talk and argue, that you are of a cetain age and a certain personality. I can't change that and I have no desire too. But lets revisit this debate in 20 years time and then we'll see what your attitudes are. And if you dare say they will be the same as they are now, I'll shall come around your house and Tut very very loudly.

I'm a cheapskate, as much as I love the BBC I do not have a telly. A television does not fit into my lifestyle.

iPlayer does and I use that extensively, but the law says I don't have to pay for it - I just have to live in Britain, which I do.

I'm not bothered about having to pay to use iPlayer, I would.

However the cost of getting a TV, TV licence AND a basic Sky package PLUS the sports (football) channel package just so I can watch F1 is a no brainer, i'm simply not going to pay that much to watch a season of F1.

Television isnt a part of my life, television shows are - but I use on-demand services and televisions cannot offer that.

So for me, an avid fan of F1 who hasn't missed a Grand Prix since Brazil 1984, this deal spells the end of an era. When F1 goes to Sky I simply wont be watching it any more.

The End

I think the BBC is a fantastic organisation BECAUSE of the way it is funded. It can output content that advertisers simply wouldn't back. It has so many good educational programs, things I can let my daughter watch without her getting brainwashed and coverage of sports is great. The internet side is also pretty amazing. I used to pay £55 a month to SKY, but found I was only watching 10% of my TV on sky. The rest was the BBC and the freeview channels. I am now on their basic package as I refuse to pay sky's extortionate prices. BBC Radio is simply the best in the UK also.

When you compare prices you are talking +£500 for Sky, and less than £200 for the BBC, but you get alot more for your money from the BBC. Also you have to consider what the effect that the BBC has around the world. Trust me, ALOT of people the world over who use the BBC know it has the most impartial (yes I know no one is completely) reporting and services "in the world" (said in a Jeremy voice) . BBC World service is one such example.

Another thing that really gets me about sky is why the hell, when I am paying £500 a year do I have to put up with adverts every 5 seconds!! All the other channels in the UK on freeview get their money via advertising, so why the hell do I get charged twice by SKY. They get money from us for subscriptions, then again through adverts. I refuse to watch live tv on sky because of this...

Quote from Mustafur :

How, BBC is a public funded monopoly.....

For the BBC to have a 'monopoly', it would have to be the only supplier of TV broadcasting in the UK. This is obviously not the case.
-----------

If you don't look closely, it might seem that the BBC has an unfair advantage in the market, but it's funding advantage is offset by restrictions and requirements that commercial TV companies do not have to worry about.
-----------

My reason for wanting to keep the BBC is due to the problems I see with advertising funded TV.

Either
#1 we are all subconsciously susceptible to the power of TV advertising
or
#2 Some folks are in some way immune to the influence of advertising - maybe through intellect, education or experience...

if #1 is true, then clearly commercial TV is potentially dangerous as it gives powerful people more power and influence, and provides them with a way to manipulate us to their own gain. It reduces our liberty.

if #2 is true, then commercial TV will tend to develop programming only for those people who are susceptible to advertising. Much of this will entertain everyone, but no programming will be specifically developed for people who are not susceptible - it wouldn't generate enough advertising revenue to be viable.

Personally, I believe the truth is somewhere in-between.

The great thing about the BBC is that neither of these problems exists. This is exactly the point of the BBC. It attempts to provide something for everyone. And it doesn't have to sell product, so scheduling and programming can be more wide ranging, chosen with the viewing public in mind rather than with the sponsor in mind.

Yes, it has it's flaws, but it's way better than the alternative, and definitely worth the license fee.

Long live auntie Beeb !

Quote from Intrepid :

The BBC is unqiue in the world. Not many broadcasters can threaten people with jail if they don't pay up for a service that may not even want.

Not quite... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

Altough for example in here it is not officially a tax... yet.

Quote from deggis :

Altough for example in here it is not officially a tax... yet.

Since all the license inspectors were sacked / forced to retire, I suspect it'll turn into a tax for everyone to pay :|

Quote from Funnybear :

S'fine mate. I understand where your coming from. And Actually, I quite like Miranda, and wouldn't mind showing Mz Hart and interesting time down the Cowley Rd. But that aside, I still think you miss a pretty fundemental point. Remove the 'unique way the BBC is funded' and what are you left with. Competition. Which, some may argue is fine, Competition breeds better and better viewing.

No, I argue. Competition, doesn't, and never will give society a better way of living. I don't want to be sold stuff ok. I don't want my children to be sold stuff through a medium that they have no 'editorial' control over. I can decide when I'm being sold too. My children can't. So I end up being surprised when my kid can point out every fast food outlet imaginable because she's been watching Disney TV for the last six months.

I really really think you should get past the 'programme' as such, and really examine the content of those programmes, and then onto the employment practices of those programmes, the etitorial breif of those programmes, and then (and herein lies the rub) where the money comes from. Why do you get to see more Coka Cola bottles in Disney Shows. There is a very good reason. Quite frankly, and this might shoke you, I would be more than happy at this moment in time to just pay for the BBC and it's content. I don't subscribe to sky, I just have freeview and that really offers me all I need to bum out on the sofa on a saturday night.

I can tell by the way you talk and argue, that you are of a cetain age and a certain personality. I can't change that and I have no desire too. But lets revisit this debate in 20 years time and then we'll see what your attitudes are. And if you dare say they will be the same as they are now, I'll shall come around your house and Tut very very loudly.

Age has nothing to do with it. I was once a pro-BBC socialistic rage against the machine listening teenager. I would argue the exact same points you make. I do understand your viewpoint because I once held it.

However, I've witnessed several instances of clear political bias on the BBC, and that is unforgivable. Even if that bias agreed with my views or not was irrelevant.

The internet has opened up a world of content that makes the BBC look outdated, archaic, and pointless.

I think where many trip up in this argument is they make in an argument between Sky Vs BBC. I am not really a big Sky fan either. I must admit An Idiot Abroad was probably the best and most informative travel program I have ever watched and it was bloody funny too.

And then came a revelation - British TV isn't quite as good as I thought it was. A host of American dramas which make British drama look like a school play, and then American comedies which clearly wasn't the traditional crap that I was told America put out.

But what gets me is the instances where the BBC has threatened the less wealthy with jail if they did the terrible crime of owning a TV without a licence, and in some cases where a TV wasn't owned in the first place. This is not the behaviour of a corporation I could ever support.

Personal freedom should be more cherished than a few TV shows like 'Miranda' & 'My Penis and I' without adverts.

Something I had not realised before, the BBC will still be covering the other races with a highlights program.

So all is not lost.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Something I had not realised before, the BBC will still be covering the other races with a highlights program.

So all is not lost.

Just stream/torrent them off the interweb, that's what I plan to do. Hey, it's not moral or cool, but I'm beyond caring these days.

Sky Sports is just too expensive to justify subscribing for a single sport. I used to work for Sky and got Sky World for free, but even then I barely watched it. When I left the company and went back to Freeview I didn't miss it. My experience of working for Sky for several years is that it's extremely overpriced, has terrible customer service, and doesn't have many good TV shows, expect for some US imports that are frankly cheaper to buy on DVD. Some people love it however, like really obsessively love it, so I guess it's horses for courses!

To me it's nothing to do with the quality of the coverage, or the fact that the Murdoch owned papers are awful, racist, fascist bullshit, it's purely the fact that something I've always been able to watch for no extra cost is now prohibitively expensive. That sucks and makes me very depressed. Thank god for the dark corners of the interweb.