The real reason you will not get full BBC F1 next year!

[_dobbo_]

Use Psychology said:

Sky is not good value for money compared to the BBC, it is as simple as that. You pay more for a lower quality product. (I appreciate this is because people are forced to pay for the BBC).

I absolutely don't agree with this. The only thing I watch on BBC is the F1, so I'm not really getting good value am I?

For my Sky yearly cost I get an extremely capable two channel hard disk recorder, (A comparable humax unit is £279), and I get lots and lots of TV content that I'm interested in.

I also get free broadband and free calls.

So which is better value for money?

[Halb]

Use Psychology said:

Sky is not good value for money compared to the BBC, it is as simple as that. You pay more for a lower quality product. (I appreciate this is because people are forced to pay for the BBC).

The end of the sentence, does that means you think if the licence fee went then sky tariffs would drop, or to put it another way, the current tariff rates are at the level they are because we pay a licence fee?

[Smiler.]

Teppic said:

I think you'll find THIS it why you are not getting full F1 on the BBC next year.

(Apologies for the Wail link)

8 million fking quid for a camp scouse get?

Where's the fking refund button?

[durbster]

_dobbo_ said:

I absolutely don't agree with this. The only thing I watch on BBC is the F1, so I'm not really getting good value am I?

For my Sky yearly cost I get an extremely capable two channel hard disk recorder, (A comparable humax unit is £279), and I get lots and lots of TV content that I'm interested in.

I also get free broadband and free calls.

So which is better value for money?

Well it's not Sky I'm afraid.

First of all, you pay a subscription therefore your broadband and calls obviously aren't free at all. I don't know how anyone can argue that Sky is better value when you look at the maths.

I bought a Humax PVR - which is a significantly better machine than the Sky+ box - for £300 two years ago, so it has effectively cost me £150 a year so far. My broadband costs me about £250 a year, and my landline phone calls are almost nothing, certainly less than £10.

This means that my setup costs me £400 per year and will reduce as long as I keep the PVR. I also own rather than rent all my equipment, I have a better PVR and possibly a better broadband connection and - with the TV at least - I'm not tied into a contract.

The cheapest Sky package that can receive the F1 is £480 per year plus setup fees.

Therefore, in terms of value it comes down to how much you consider the extra TV channels on Sky to be worth. To me, they are absolutely not worth that extra £100 a year extra.

[IainT]

durbster said:

Well it's not Sky I'm afraid.

There are a number of very very good reasons for a Sky sub.

Eurosport channels
Motors TV

Giving: GP3, GP2, Porsche Supercup, MotoGP with decent commentary, WSB, BSB, British club level racing, the new FIA Endurance GT series. British GTs. LMS and ALMS.

That's just the motorsports we also get some excellent series on One/Atlantic/Living/SciFy.

The only TV I actually watch on BBC is F1 and Top Gear. Not great VFM.

I'm gutted about the loss of F1 on the BBC but it doesn't blinker me about the quality of some Sky-based output.

[durbster]

IainT said:

There are a number of very very good reasons for a Sky sub.

Eurosport channels
Motors TV

Giving: GP3, GP2, Porsche Supercup, MotoGP with decent commentary, WSB, BSB, British club level racing, the new FIA Endurance GT series. British GTs. LMS and ALMS.

That's just the motorsports we also get some excellent series on One/Atlantic/Living/SciFy.

The only TV I actually watch on BBC is F1 and Top Gear. Not great VFM.

I'm gutted about the loss of F1 on the BBC but it doesn't blinker me about the quality of some Sky-based output.

That was exactly my final point; if you think those channels are worth that £100 a year then for you it represents value. My experience of Sky, however, consists of 15 minutes going through the guide looking for something to watch, then giving up and doing something else instead. I have no interest in American drama and although I would watch the motorsport, I can't justify the cost for that alone.

[mrmr96]

durbster said:

That was exactly my final point; if you think those channels are worth that £100 a year then for you it represents value. My experience of Sky, however, consists of 15 minutes going through the guide looking for something to watch, then giving up and doing something else instead. I have no interest in American drama and although I would watch the motorsport, I can't justify the cost for that alone.

Three Channels, mostly dedicated to cars. (This excludes the advertising channel Renault TV)
- Motors TV
- Discovery Turbo
- Discovery Shed
In addition you've got motor racing on Eurosport, Sky Sports, ESPN etc

Other channels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_S...

[_dobbo_]

To address some of your points, for the sake of balance

durbster said:

First of all, you pay a subscription therefore your broadband and calls obviously aren't free at all. I don't know how anyone can argue that Sky is better value when you look at the maths.

They are free. I pay nothing for broadband. I pay nothing for calls. I pay the exact same monthly fee whether I have broadband or calls or not. This is free no? Or do you have some other definition of free rather than something that costs nothing extra?

durbster said:

I bought a Humax PVR - which is a significantly better machine than the Sky+ box - for £300 two years ago, so it has effectively cost me £150 a year so far. My broadband costs me about £250 a year, and my landline phone calls are almost nothing, certainly less than £10.

I've used many Humax PVRs over many versions and none of them come even close to the ease of use and simplicity of Sky+ - I guess we'll have to agree to differ there.

durbster said:

This means that my setup costs me £400 per year and will reduce as long as I keep the PVR. I also own rather than rent all my equipment, I have a better PVR and possibly a better broadband connection and - with the TV at least - I'm not tied into a contract.

My setup costs less than £400 a year. As for ownership of a router and sky box? I could not give a poo about this. I've got four or five old sky+ boxes that I apparently own since I haven't had to give them back.

Better broadband? Define better, I'm quite happy with my free one thanks, especially against paying £250 a year!

durbster said:

The cheapest Sky package that can receive the F1 is £480 per year plus setup fees.

Therefore, in terms of value it comes down to how much you consider the extra TV channels on Sky to be worth. To me, they are absolutely not worth that extra £100 a year extra.

We weren't talking about F1 though were we? We were talking about value of the BBC vs Sky. I personally derive massively more value just from the TV side from Sky before you throw in the free broadband and calls.

Finally - and significantly - you've failed to mention the countless channels I receive that you don't. You also haven't mentioned the massive amounts of on demand streamed content I can legally access that you can't.

These may have zero value to you which is fair enough but from what I can determine:

1.) I have a cheaper solution.
2.) I get massively more content than you.
3.) I have a superior PVR for my tastes(subjective I admit)

If this means paying Murdoch? I don't care.

[Mr Happy]

The blonde racing driver type is tasty though... Get her promoted to TG!

After watching bits of it, get both of the girls on TG - they'd outshine half of the audience totty!!!

Edited by Mr Happy on Monday 1st August 18:15

[mrmr96]

Mr Happy said:

The blonde racing driver type is tasty though... Get her promoted to TG!

After watching bits of it, get both of the girls on TG - they'd outshine half of the audience totty!!!

Edited by Mr Happy on Monday 1st August 18:15

Who are you talking about?

[durbster]

_dobbo_ said:

...I pay nothing for broadband. I pay nothing for calls. I pay the exact same monthly fee whether I have broadband or calls or not. This is free no? Or do you have some other definition of free rather than something that costs nothing extra?

My definition of free is not paying anything to receive it.

Put it this way, if you stopped paying your subscription, you wouldn't have broadband therefore you have to pay them to receive the service, and if you have to pay them it is not free.

It's a clever trick of advertising that makes you think you're getting value when in fact the cost is simply covered by your subscription. Unless you're suggesting their profits are calculated on the basis of the TV subscription alone, you are paying for your broadband. It's the people who don't take the broadband offer up that are losing out.

It's exactly the same trick with mobile contracts claiming you get a free phone, and it's also the sort of thought-process that gets people into massive debt.

As for the rest; every time I visit somebody with Sky, I am quickly reminded why I don't have it. There is almost nothing on there for me and I don't think anybody would suggest the ovewhelming majority of content on Sky isn't drivel. It would simply take me longer to find out there's nothing on, and that's time I'd rather have doing other things

The licence fee is a given and Sky subscribers pay it too, so I can choose to pay nothing extra for it. The quality of the BBC keeps British TV among the world's best and I really can't see how you think that isn't good value compared to a subscription service.

To get back on topic, I love F1 and watch every session I can, but I'm not going to pay the best part of £500 a year for it (because I would get nothing else of value for my money). I'd be a lot happier spending the money on a trip to Singapore to watch it live, and now that I've thought of that, I might just do it

[Mr Happy]

mrmr96 said:

Mr Happy said:

The blonde racing driver type is tasty though... Get her promoted to TG!

After watching bits of it, get both of the girls on TG - they'd outshine half of the audience totty!!!

Edited by Mr Happy on Monday 1st August 18:15

Who are you talking about?

The two females on the BBC Alba show linked in the first post of this thread...

Fiona Mackenzie


and

Louise Maclean (sitting far right hand side)

[IainT]

durbster said:

I have no interest in American drama

OT question...

Why?

Because it's American?
Because it's no good?

Disliking drama because it's American is really rather odd, disliking it because you don;t like the accents is odd but fair enough. There is a huge amount of very high quality US drama ad comedy if you sift through the dross.

House
Game of Thrones
Entourage
Bones
Chicago Code (sadly cancelled, probably because it was excellent)
Lie to me (also cancelled for being too good)

When all the main series are in full folw we tend to have around 7 hours of TV a week on record plus motorsport and that's just the stuff that appeals to us (we're quite geeky and like our sci-fi and fantasy stuff). There are a lot of hig quality dramas not just on teh three main Sky channels.

The comedy channels almost always have something worth watching on them.

[durbster]

IainT said:

OT question...

Why?

Because it's American?
Because it's no good?

I don't watch much telly so I rarely watch British drama either, but the American stuff bugs me because it's often so detached from reality. It's too aspirational; everything is as we hope it is and not how it actually is, from the characters to the situations. I don't recall ever seeing a character in an America show that behaves like anyone I know.

I think British TV tends to be closer to truth. As an example, compare The West Wing to The Thick of It. They both portray Government but I think the BBC show is significantly closer to the truth (despite being a comedy).

Then there's the cop shows that obviously think their audience are utter idiots. Does anyone seriously watch scenes like this one or this one and take them seriously? Even a hint of research from the writers would be appreciated.

Also, if you want to watch an American series you're essentialy committing to over 20 hours of TV and I've simply got other things I'd rather do. I watched and enjoyed the first series of Lost, but it became too absurd and it looked like there would be no end, so I gave up. Then me and the wife dragged ourselves through FlashForward too but although the premise was excellent, they didn't know what to do with it and the characters were so hateful that I felt like I deserved an award for making it to the end.

I appreciate the popularity of the shows you've listed and I know some of it is probably well written and produced but it's just not for me.

Well, you did ask

[supertouring]

ArnageWRC said:

My Wife in the Attic

I think that idea may have some legs

[Halb]

IainT said:

Game of Thrones

One of the great things aboot GoT for me (apart from the top notch production values, acting and writing) is that even though it's an American show, American company, American money and written by an American, it is filled with mostly with English actors, and a large amount of them speaka da normal like, none of that Southron nonsense

[sleep envy]

Dubster - The Wire

[richtea78]

Theres a whole load of great American drama and the majority of it is available from Sky now.

Plus there is the motorsport which mostly is very good and has some obscure events as well. Motors TV had radio controlled car racing on it the the other day :O

I dont think Sky is bad value really but I thought the F1 coverage on th BBC was excellent, really top notch quality. If the F1 on Sky is done well I wont mind but if it has adverts all the time (which I fear it will) I will be dissapointed.

Still the Beeb has the best races for the next 5 years which is longer and better than had they tried to go for all of them and not done the deal with Sky at least.

[IainT]

durbster said:

I appreciate the popularity of the shows you've listed and I know some of it is probably well written and produced but it's just not for me.

Well, you did ask

Thanks for the reply - I agree that some stuff really seems to expect us to accept unrealistic behaviours in a 'realistic and gritty drama'...

I'd take you to task over West Wing - you may view it as absurd but, from all I've read about it including Washington pliticians, it's a very accurate reflection of US politics and Whitehouse life. Obviously any TV drama is going to be a distillation of events leaving it somewhat more potent than reality.

Then again a police show where the first five episodes involve some stop and search, parking tickets and doughnuts is likely to be pretty tedious!

[durbster]

IainT said:

Then again a police show where the first five episodes involve some stop and search, parking tickets and doughnuts is likely to be pretty tedious!

Fair point.