RE: F1 2013: Will you be watching?

[MGJohn]

Toaster said:

Peacockantony said:

Err. It is correct. You do not have to pay anything to be able to receive it, ie no subscription.
A TV Licence does not change this as it is required anyway, regardless of whether you watch sub-free or pay TV.

The subscription pays the licence and also content such as F1 for the BBC.

If the BBC is transmitting F1 they pay Bernie et al for the right to do so, this comes out of a subscription which is called a TV Licence that the journalist is incorrectly calling free to air and is clearly not correct........therefore its not free, don't pay the TV licence you can not watch 'free to air' or any other program on a device that has a television receiver. you pay you can receive......its not free!

So some folks who do not have a TV for some reason but do have a radio, do not pay a TV licence. They can listen to the BBC live "Free to Air" commentaries on their radio receivers. I know two folks who do not have a TV in the house for valid reasons to them. I have a TV for a different valid reason ... to me.

[coppice]

As I said earlier it speaks volumes that there seems to be more debate about - yawn- TV packages than about racing. How many couch potatoes actually get out and watch any motor sport live I wonder?

[corozin]

coppice said:

Don't get over excited as they won'tbe anything like the bonkers 80s turbos; thay are all V6 single turbo and they will develop about, let me see,500bhp les than a qualifying spec 80s turbo.

So they'll have about 1,000bhp will they? Cool!

I watched Nelson Piquet qualify his Brabham at Silverstone the year that Keke Rosberg did his 161mph lap there. A couple of months later an article in Autosport revealed that the BMW engine Piquet used at Silverstone had dyno'd at 1,480bhp...

[coppice]

Guess one needs to pick the year of the 80s more carefully! I think the new V6s will have aboput 750bhp.

[Toaster]

MGJohn said:

So some folks who do not have a TV for some reason but do have a radio, do not pay a TV licence. They can listen to the BBC live "Free to Air" commentaries on their radio receivers. I know two folks who do not have a TV in the house for valid reasons to them. I have a TV for a different valid reason ... to me.

OK So for those who do not have a TV licence the radio is paid for by those that do, it is not free...and clearly gone are the days when you needed a Radio licence. Listening to the radio may be free if you do not have a TV Licence however you are contributing to the payment of listening to F1 on the radio via your TV licence.

I am sure your generosity to those folk who do not have a TV licence is welcomed by them.

So the break down of costs from the BBC is:

TV £7.96 per month per household

Radio £2.11 per month per household.

Online £0.66 per month per household.

Other costs £1.40 per month per household

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whow...

Therefore its not free to air ! No such thing people need wages to put shopping in their baskets and kit needs paying for its not free.............

Anyone else like to argue this is free ?

[Wh00sher]

Toaster said:

Anyone else like to argue this is free ?

Does it really matter ?

[Toaster]

Wh00sher said:

Does it really matter ?

No it doesn't

Although its free to argue but not watch/listen to F1 ;-)

Edited by Toaster on Saturday 23 March 11:49

[Wh00sher]

Toaster said:

No it doesn't

Although its free to argue but not watch/listen to F1 ;-)

[Peacockantony]

stephen300o said:

Certainly won't be watching on the BBC, I don't want to fund their peodofile ring..

So you'll just fund the hacking ring and whatever other crimes that Murdoch's companies commit then.
Both the ones that they have been caught doing, the ones that were not known about and the ones still being committed.

And this is from a Sky customer.

Oh and it is Paedophile and it was Savile himself that was the dirty git, they were his actions, he chose to do it, the BBC did not make him do it.

Sorry but it really gets on my nerves when people try and divert the blame from the person that chose to do something when they deserve all the stick they get for it.

[Peacockantony]

Toaster said:

OK So for those who do not have a TV licence the radio is paid for by those that do, it is not free...and clearly gone are the days when you needed a Radio licence. Listening to the radio may be free if you do not have a TV Licence however you are contributing to the payment of listening to F1 on the radio via your TV licence.

I am sure your generosity to those folk who do not have a TV licence is welcomed by them.

So the break down of costs from the BBC is:

TV £7.96 per month per household

Radio £2.11 per month per household.

Online £0.66 per month per household.

Other costs £1.40 per month per household

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whow...

Therefore its not free to air ! No such thing people need wages to put shopping in their baskets and kit needs paying for its not free.............

Anyone else like to argue this is free ?

It is free-to-air as you do not have to pay anything to be able to receive these services, ie pay a subscription.
That is the definition of 'free-to-air'.

[AdeV]

Peacockantony said:

It is free-to-air as you do not have to pay anything to be able to receive these services, ie pay a subscription.
That is the definition of 'free-to-air'.

You have to pay a TV licence to receive live TV services. It's exactly like a subscription. There is NO SUCH THING as free-to-air in the UK.

[thunderbelmont]

Following the farce that was on this morning, I might watch the British GP, I might not.

F1 to me is dead.

[Cobnapint]

thunderbelmont said:

Following the farce that was on this morning, I might watch the British GP, I might not.

F1 to me is dead.

Agreed, normal service has resumed at the Farce-1 circus - another reason not to watch.

If people involved in other sports like horse racing, cricket, football or snooker had been found to be artificially altering the outcome of a race or match then there would be suspensions, disciplinary actions and court cases flying about left, right and centre. But for some reason it's perfectly acceptable in F1.

Never mind the 'team' bks, F1 should be about man-and-machine versus man-and-machine - but it clearly isn't.

Just how furious would you be (and how much of a case in court would you have) against the Red Bull team principle if you'd had a wedge on Vettel to win, and he had stayed behind Webber as instructed.

It's a disgrace, fake, and makes me wonder just what supposed Farce-1 fans actually see in the sport. Something needs to be done before the sports credibility is gone altogether.

[stephen300o]

Peacockantony said:

stephen300o said:

Certainly won't be watching on the BBC, I don't want to fund their peodofile ring..

So you'll just fund the hacking ring and whatever other crimes that Murdoch's companies commit then.
Both the ones that they have been caught doing, the ones that were not known about and the ones still being committed.

And this is from a Sky customer.

Oh and it is Paedophile and it was Savile himself that was the dirty git, they were his actions, he chose to do it, the BBC did not make him do it.

Sorry but it really gets on my nerves when people try and divert the blame from the person that chose to do something when they deserve all the stick they get for it.

Both ridiculous. One intentionally.

[Gary C]

I enjoyed watching the race today, on sky.

I find the convenience of the series link means I don't miss races these days, and when I flicked to BBC you really notice the improved clarity of hd.

I like brundle and the package sky have put together. I tend to watch a bit of practice when I get time plus qual and the race. Don't bother with the first 90 minutes, but the race coverage is free of advert breaks.

If you can afford it, it's fine. Is it value for money? That's a personal choice.

[mollytherocker]

thunderbelmont said:

Following the farce that was on this morning, I might watch the British GP, I might not.

F1 to me is dead.

Which bit was the farce you refer to and how does this differ from any period since the inception of motor racing?

[coppice]

Seemed like a more than usually entertaining race to me;I have watched GPs since late 60s and some ..err..robust.. driving like we saw at Sepang is not exactly unknown . Why don't people understand that the sport always had elements of pantomime ? Mark, he's behind you....

[IainT]

Cobnapint said:

Never mind the 'team' bks, F1 should be about man-and-machine versus man-and-machine - but it clearly isn't.

I can almost feel the excitement as we introduce 10-minute pit stops... Bloody teams, it's not like they actually add anything to the spectacle.

[AlexKing]

AdeV said:

AlexKing said:

I do want to see them. I don't want to pay

Do you get similarly angry when visiting the zoo, or cinemas?

Watching F1 for nowt* is not a right, it's a privilege we in the UK have been lucky to have enjoyed for many many years, although ITV's crass decision to interrupt the race with adverts took the gloss off it.

I kind of miss watching F1, but since binning the telly tax means no more live TV, I'm willing to lump it. Other than the delightfully leather-clad Suzy Perry, I don't think I'm missing that much really.



"*" Yeah, TV licence, I get it.

I should have said that I don't want to pay SKY, for the reasons previously outlined. Apologies for the threat of violence earlier as well, I just get miffed when people assume base motivations about unwillingness to pay. I'm financially secure and have no problem spending money on things I want to but, where there is an alternative that feels more ethical to me, I'll take it and not expect to be accused of being a tightwad by a keyboard jockey. The anger isn't about paying money per se, it's the profiteering by a morally questionable organisation.

[Gary C]

AlexKing said:

IThe anger isn't about paying money per se, it's the profiteering by a morally questionable organisation.

Ahh, you must mean the BBC.