F1 owners say UK paywall TV deal they have inherited is detr
Discussion
.Adam. said:
The problem with Now TV, is as far as I can tell, you have to watch the race live. I will quite often record a race to watch later in the afternoon, as I'm sure quite a few people would do. This makes paying for a day/weekend pass a bit pointless for a lot of people, as they still wouldn't be able to watch the race when it suited them, which is the way TV is going. It would make more sense if it had an on demand service as well as only being able to watch live.
This exactly how I watch it. I rarely get to sit down on a Sunday afternoon. Too busy with my son's racing most of the time. Usually it's Sunday or Monday evening. I've been quite happy with the C4 highlights because it takes less time to watch so I know I can get through it with my son on a school night. I'd happily pay a couple of quid for that but it would have to be on demand. I can't justify a Sky subscription because I just don't have time to watch that much telly.Plus it's yet another subscription and another device, which is undesirable.
Die hard fans will not be fussed, but there are plenty like me who would like to watch but will only do so if it's made easy, convenient and good value, otherwise I'll go find another motorsport that does those things.
Die hard fans will not be fussed, but there are plenty like me who would like to watch but will only do so if it's made easy, convenient and good value, otherwise I'll go find another motorsport that does those things.
.Adam. said:
The problem with Now TV, is as far as I can tell, you have to watch the race live. I will quite often record a race to watch later in the afternoon, as I'm sure quite a few people would do. This makes paying for a day/weekend pass a bit pointless for a lot of people, as they still wouldn't be able to watch the race when it suited them, which is the way TV is going. It would make more sense if it had an on demand service as well as only being able to watch live.
You can run NowTV through a box that records if it you really want to.Thanks to C70R for taking the time to respond to my last post. I apologise if in any way you found my reference to the timing of your prior posts impolite - but you don't seem to have a location filled in on your personal info. I do take notice of when people post, as it seems things can change round here when the pubs chuck out!
If you are overseas in a different time zone, I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am in my warped world.
Now I know that many PH threads turn into a merry-go-round of repeated arguments, so I will try to make this my last visit to this one, for everybody's sake! But I really have to comment on some of the things you said.
You say that Eric says F1 is becoming less interesting, but there is evidence to prove it is not. What is this evidence? I don't follow this, as what is or not "interesting" is a subjective matter, evidence is objective. Are you referring to surveys that I am not aware of?
I've done a bit of Googling round this morning, and it is not hard to find plenty of articles about the decline of Premiere League and Champions League soccer viewing figures, so I'll agree with your second point. The reasons given, however, mention changes in viewing patterns and styles as being significant. Not so many people want to arrive in front of the living room box at a set time any more, and prefer to keep up with stuff while out and about, or delay watching. I said as much myself in my previous post about how I watch F1 on TV, and so have others on this thread.
I would agree with Eric that the internet is making people's interests narrow and defined, rather than the other way round. The advertising industry, with the connivance of providers of internet services are falling over backwards trying to target their advertising at people on the basis of their past browsing history. (I am presently wondering when and where I could have inadvertently clicked on an ad for cigars, as my mail box is awash with spam from an American cigar firm!)
I have to say I know nothing about how Facebook, Twitter or Reddit work, as I have never used them. PH is the nearest I get to 'social media'.
When I mentioned the BBC I was not referring to the news services, but iPlayer. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.
If you are, indeed, not in the UK you might not be aware of the controversy the BBC has unleashed over the recent changes to iPlayer. The BBC currently lists the ways in which the new service is better in their promotion of it, including having programmes 'specially recommended' for me, results from 'my favourite' sports, recommendations for music 'tailored' to me, and notifications on the 'things that matter to me'. YouTube and Spotify similarly want to steer me down the path of similarity, instead of letting me explore the unknown.
With traditional sports disappearing from the BBC, they have filled the gap with stuff like women's soccer or disabled athletics, and very popular they have proved. I would guess that most people would never have watched these before. Apparently kids don't even talk about cricket at school any more. How has taking it behind a pay wall helped that game face the future? (And please don't mention that abomination T20 ... )
And unless I am being particularly dense here, I still can't see how the TV Licence fee is a token payment, subsidising the sale of programme material abroad. Three quarters of the BBC's budget is from the licence fee, the sale of programmes makes up the difference. How is this a tiny payment in the context of what we get - it's most of it.
As for the 'subscribing' business, well, perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. By 'subscribing' I have been meaning paying for content, or PPV. I can see that subscription might be construed as an annual/monthly arrangement, so if I have confused you, sorry. NowTV would not suit me, as I very often don't watch F1 live, as I and others have said above.
I'm grateful for the nice picture of the Williams from 27 years ago. My F1 interest goes back twice 27 years, and I can actually remember when cars didn't have sponsorship at all. Yes, I really am that old. But 27 years ago I was watching cars like this being screened on a free to air TV service, and Williams being a non-manufacturer team, two of the stack of four objections I made don't apply. I didn't then, and wouldn't now have a problem with just two.
And just by way of a final proof that I don't object to all advertising in motorsport, here's a nice picture to sign off with.
If you are overseas in a different time zone, I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am in my warped world.
Now I know that many PH threads turn into a merry-go-round of repeated arguments, so I will try to make this my last visit to this one, for everybody's sake! But I really have to comment on some of the things you said.
You say that Eric says F1 is becoming less interesting, but there is evidence to prove it is not. What is this evidence? I don't follow this, as what is or not "interesting" is a subjective matter, evidence is objective. Are you referring to surveys that I am not aware of?
I've done a bit of Googling round this morning, and it is not hard to find plenty of articles about the decline of Premiere League and Champions League soccer viewing figures, so I'll agree with your second point. The reasons given, however, mention changes in viewing patterns and styles as being significant. Not so many people want to arrive in front of the living room box at a set time any more, and prefer to keep up with stuff while out and about, or delay watching. I said as much myself in my previous post about how I watch F1 on TV, and so have others on this thread.
I would agree with Eric that the internet is making people's interests narrow and defined, rather than the other way round. The advertising industry, with the connivance of providers of internet services are falling over backwards trying to target their advertising at people on the basis of their past browsing history. (I am presently wondering when and where I could have inadvertently clicked on an ad for cigars, as my mail box is awash with spam from an American cigar firm!)
I have to say I know nothing about how Facebook, Twitter or Reddit work, as I have never used them. PH is the nearest I get to 'social media'.
When I mentioned the BBC I was not referring to the news services, but iPlayer. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.
If you are, indeed, not in the UK you might not be aware of the controversy the BBC has unleashed over the recent changes to iPlayer. The BBC currently lists the ways in which the new service is better in their promotion of it, including having programmes 'specially recommended' for me, results from 'my favourite' sports, recommendations for music 'tailored' to me, and notifications on the 'things that matter to me'. YouTube and Spotify similarly want to steer me down the path of similarity, instead of letting me explore the unknown.
With traditional sports disappearing from the BBC, they have filled the gap with stuff like women's soccer or disabled athletics, and very popular they have proved. I would guess that most people would never have watched these before. Apparently kids don't even talk about cricket at school any more. How has taking it behind a pay wall helped that game face the future? (And please don't mention that abomination T20 ... )
And unless I am being particularly dense here, I still can't see how the TV Licence fee is a token payment, subsidising the sale of programme material abroad. Three quarters of the BBC's budget is from the licence fee, the sale of programmes makes up the difference. How is this a tiny payment in the context of what we get - it's most of it.
As for the 'subscribing' business, well, perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. By 'subscribing' I have been meaning paying for content, or PPV. I can see that subscription might be construed as an annual/monthly arrangement, so if I have confused you, sorry. NowTV would not suit me, as I very often don't watch F1 live, as I and others have said above.
I'm grateful for the nice picture of the Williams from 27 years ago. My F1 interest goes back twice 27 years, and I can actually remember when cars didn't have sponsorship at all. Yes, I really am that old. But 27 years ago I was watching cars like this being screened on a free to air TV service, and Williams being a non-manufacturer team, two of the stack of four objections I made don't apply. I didn't then, and wouldn't now have a problem with just two.
And just by way of a final proof that I don't object to all advertising in motorsport, here's a nice picture to sign off with.
Nice post (and even nicer picture).
I've said all I have to say on this particular thread so I won't be making any more contributions here (thank goodness, I've no doubt, some will be saying).
In the meantime I'm enjoying the live streaming of the Goodwood Festival of Speed as background sound effects to my work. I'll be tuning in tomorrow and on and off over the weekend.
I've said all I have to say on this particular thread so I won't be making any more contributions here (thank goodness, I've no doubt, some will be saying).
In the meantime I'm enjoying the live streaming of the Goodwood Festival of Speed as background sound effects to my work. I'll be tuning in tomorrow and on and off over the weekend.
I don't know how this works in other countries globally, but I assume that there is quite a bit of free to air available. Certainly the exposure of advertisers using f1 drivers in their own land is high when watching tv abroad. This may correlate with FTA.
Certainly in the BBC FTA days here we had a number on commercial tv too - including Shunt for Texaco with Morcambe and Wise, Murray and Damon for pizza etc. Now we have DC in a fake beard doing j turns in a taxi...
Certainly in the BBC FTA days here we had a number on commercial tv too - including Shunt for Texaco with Morcambe and Wise, Murray and Damon for pizza etc. Now we have DC in a fake beard doing j turns in a taxi...
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but SKY are supposed to be doing away with the Sports 1-4 or whatever it is now and having dedicated channels like SKY F1.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
Roofless Toothless said:
Many words, things and stuff!
Question; 27 years ago, was the F1 stuff not shown on a program often long after the race had actually run? Although it would have been on free to air of course.Not criticising just sure I remember watching an interview with Murray Walker about it.
.Adam. said:
The problem with Now TV, is as far as I can tell, you have to watch the race live.
I don't see this as a problem. I use Now TV for the races I can't bear to miss live - the ones on the interesting "old-school" circuits. For the boring Tilke-designed, overly wide circuits with massive run off areas and, as a consequence, no sensation of speed, the highlights are perfectly adequate. I certainly wouldn't pay to watch races on these tracks just to get it live and I wouldn't be bothered about watching a replay of the whole race as I'd probably be comatose by half way through.Lifelong Motorsport fan (and compete in saloon cars), I have been reading about and watching F1 since I was a kid, I wont be paying any money to Sky to watch F1 when it goes behind the paywall.
How many paying Sky F1 customers are there in the Uk?
Less than 200,000?
If I was a sponsor I would immediately stop wasting money on F1 as very soon no one will see it, and there is very little press coverage, sponsor' dollars are moving away.
How many paying Sky F1 customers are there in the Uk?
Less than 200,000?
If I was a sponsor I would immediately stop wasting money on F1 as very soon no one will see it, and there is very little press coverage, sponsor' dollars are moving away.
Roofless Toothless said:
Thanks to C70R for taking the time to respond to my last post. I apologise if in any way you found my reference to the timing of your prior posts impolite - but you don't seem to have a location filled in on your personal info. I do take notice of when people post, as it seems things can change round here when the pubs chuck out!
If you are overseas in a different time zone, I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am in my warped world.
Now I know that many PH threads turn into a merry-go-round of repeated arguments, so I will try to make this my last visit to this one, for everybody's sake! But I really have to comment on some of the things you said.
You say that Eric says F1 is becoming less interesting, but there is evidence to prove it is not. What is this evidence? I don't follow this, as what is or not "interesting" is a subjective matter, evidence is objective. Are you referring to surveys that I am not aware of?
I've done a bit of Googling round this morning, and it is not hard to find plenty of articles about the decline of Premiere League and Champions League soccer viewing figures, so I'll agree with your second point. The reasons given, however, mention changes in viewing patterns and styles as being significant. Not so many people want to arrive in front of the living room box at a set time any more, and prefer to keep up with stuff while out and about, or delay watching. I said as much myself in my previous post about how I watch F1 on TV, and so have others on this thread.
I would agree with Eric that the internet is making people's interests narrow and defined, rather than the other way round. The advertising industry, with the connivance of providers of internet services are falling over backwards trying to target their advertising at people on the basis of their past browsing history. (I am presently wondering when and where I could have inadvertently clicked on an ad for cigars, as my mail box is awash with spam from an American cigar firm!)
I have to say I know nothing about how Facebook, Twitter or Reddit work, as I have never used them. PH is the nearest I get to 'social media'.
When I mentioned the BBC I was not referring to the news services, but iPlayer. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.
If you are, indeed, not in the UK you might not be aware of the controversy the BBC has unleashed over the recent changes to iPlayer. The BBC currently lists the ways in which the new service is better in their promotion of it, including having programmes 'specially recommended' for me, results from 'my favourite' sports, recommendations for music 'tailored' to me, and notifications on the 'things that matter to me'. YouTube and Spotify similarly want to steer me down the path of similarity, instead of letting me explore the unknown.
With traditional sports disappearing from the BBC, they have filled the gap with stuff like women's soccer or disabled athletics, and very popular they have proved. I would guess that most people would never have watched these before. Apparently kids don't even talk about cricket at school any more. How has taking it behind a pay wall helped that game face the future? (And please don't mention that abomination T20 ... )
And unless I am being particularly dense here, I still can't see how the TV Licence fee is a token payment, subsidising the sale of programme material abroad. Three quarters of the BBC's budget is from the licence fee, the sale of programmes makes up the difference. How is this a tiny payment in the context of what we get - it's most of it.
As for the 'subscribing' business, well, perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. By 'subscribing' I have been meaning paying for content, or PPV. I can see that subscription might be construed as an annual/monthly arrangement, so if I have confused you, sorry. NowTV would not suit me, as I very often don't watch F1 live, as I and others have said above.
I'm grateful for the nice picture of the Williams from 27 years ago. My F1 interest goes back twice 27 years, and I can actually remember when cars didn't have sponsorship at all. Yes, I really am that old. But 27 years ago I was watching cars like this being screened on a free to air TV service, and Williams being a non-manufacturer team, two of the stack of four objections I made don't apply. I didn't then, and wouldn't now have a problem with just two.
And just by way of a final proof that I don't object to all advertising in motorsport, here's a nice picture to sign off with.
Appreciate the reply, and the tone. Your approach to this conversation is a breath of fresh air after Eric's repetitive stance. If you are overseas in a different time zone, I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am in my warped world.
Now I know that many PH threads turn into a merry-go-round of repeated arguments, so I will try to make this my last visit to this one, for everybody's sake! But I really have to comment on some of the things you said.
You say that Eric says F1 is becoming less interesting, but there is evidence to prove it is not. What is this evidence? I don't follow this, as what is or not "interesting" is a subjective matter, evidence is objective. Are you referring to surveys that I am not aware of?
I've done a bit of Googling round this morning, and it is not hard to find plenty of articles about the decline of Premiere League and Champions League soccer viewing figures, so I'll agree with your second point. The reasons given, however, mention changes in viewing patterns and styles as being significant. Not so many people want to arrive in front of the living room box at a set time any more, and prefer to keep up with stuff while out and about, or delay watching. I said as much myself in my previous post about how I watch F1 on TV, and so have others on this thread.
I would agree with Eric that the internet is making people's interests narrow and defined, rather than the other way round. The advertising industry, with the connivance of providers of internet services are falling over backwards trying to target their advertising at people on the basis of their past browsing history. (I am presently wondering when and where I could have inadvertently clicked on an ad for cigars, as my mail box is awash with spam from an American cigar firm!)
I have to say I know nothing about how Facebook, Twitter or Reddit work, as I have never used them. PH is the nearest I get to 'social media'.
When I mentioned the BBC I was not referring to the news services, but iPlayer. Perhaps I could have made that clearer.
If you are, indeed, not in the UK you might not be aware of the controversy the BBC has unleashed over the recent changes to iPlayer. The BBC currently lists the ways in which the new service is better in their promotion of it, including having programmes 'specially recommended' for me, results from 'my favourite' sports, recommendations for music 'tailored' to me, and notifications on the 'things that matter to me'. YouTube and Spotify similarly want to steer me down the path of similarity, instead of letting me explore the unknown.
With traditional sports disappearing from the BBC, they have filled the gap with stuff like women's soccer or disabled athletics, and very popular they have proved. I would guess that most people would never have watched these before. Apparently kids don't even talk about cricket at school any more. How has taking it behind a pay wall helped that game face the future? (And please don't mention that abomination T20 ... )
And unless I am being particularly dense here, I still can't see how the TV Licence fee is a token payment, subsidising the sale of programme material abroad. Three quarters of the BBC's budget is from the licence fee, the sale of programmes makes up the difference. How is this a tiny payment in the context of what we get - it's most of it.
As for the 'subscribing' business, well, perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. By 'subscribing' I have been meaning paying for content, or PPV. I can see that subscription might be construed as an annual/monthly arrangement, so if I have confused you, sorry. NowTV would not suit me, as I very often don't watch F1 live, as I and others have said above.
I'm grateful for the nice picture of the Williams from 27 years ago. My F1 interest goes back twice 27 years, and I can actually remember when cars didn't have sponsorship at all. Yes, I really am that old. But 27 years ago I was watching cars like this being screened on a free to air TV service, and Williams being a non-manufacturer team, two of the stack of four objections I made don't apply. I didn't then, and wouldn't now have a problem with just two.
And just by way of a final proof that I don't object to all advertising in motorsport, here's a nice picture to sign off with.
I'm currently travelling around NZ with the Lions rugby, so this reply will be short. A couple of points:
- Go back and read the article I posted about sorry TV viewing trends.
- If you've no experience of any form of true social media (aka the vast body of content on the internet), it might not be wise to comment on his the way that people (particularly the young) are using the internet to discover new interests/topics. News and media owner websites are miniscule by comparison.
- If you didn't plan to watch the races live, I'm confused by how you'd benefit from free-to-air broadcasting.
- On the "less interesting", someone on a previous page (misschief?) highlighted how the 80s and 90s hardly brought us vintage competition and excitement, and how today's racing is arguably more competitive.
- I'm impressed that you've been a fan of F1 for so long (around twice my tenure), but surely nobody can expect sport to stand still for half a century. I can't think of any major sport that hasn't suffered at the hand of necessary commercialisation. I don't think that F1 has necessarily fared worse than others, but I appreciate that there are commercial elements which could have been done better.
- As for the licence fee, £100/yr is a token payment for commercial free TV (and all the other amazing services). I don't see how that small amount should guarantee premium sport free-to-air. As such, I'm happy to pay the £60/mth to talktalk that gets me internet and sky sports. In my eyes, that's a small contribution to make to support my sport(s) of choice.
Apologies if I sound confrontational, but the "it was better in my day" schtick that gets bandied about is repetitive and unproductive.
MitchT said:
I don't see this as a problem. I use Now TV for the races I can't bear to miss live - the ones on the interesting "old-school" circuits. For the boring Tilke-designed, overly wide circuits with massive run off areas and, as a consequence, no sensation of speed, the highlights are perfectly adequate. I certainly wouldn't pay to watch races on these tracks just to get it live and I wouldn't be bothered about watching a replay of the whole race as I'd probably be comatose by half way through.
I was thinking more of 2019, when there won't be any F1 on terrestrial tv, so no highlights on C4, and no on demand service if you want to catch up later on in the day, unless you have Sky.Edited by .Adam. on Friday 30th June 11:34
For those that are interested in how the "broadcasting" landscape is changing here are a couple of links you might like to read. Some of it is a bit dense so you may get bored before the end but there is a section in the longer article that discusses sports coverage:
A short piece on the C4 operation (page 14):
https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/tvbe_may_2017
A longer piece from the Digital Television Groups latest summit (page 40):
https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/tvbe_june_2017
Some acronyms you may need to know:
Linear TV: Old school scheduled channels such as BBC1/ITV/Sky
FTA: Free to Air
PPV: Pay Per View (a one-off event eg the Joshua boxing match)
SVoD: Subscription Video on Demand eg Netflix (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29272/subscription-video-on-demand-svod)
OTT: Over The Top eg services such as Netflix/Amazon/Youtube delivered directly to consumers (http://mashable.com/2014/10/15/why-is-hbo-going-ott-and-what-does-it-mean/)
PSB: Public Service Broadcaster eg the BBC
There's a lot of change coming & Liberty Media know they have to position F1 with regard to these changes.
A short piece on the C4 operation (page 14):
https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/tvbe_may_2017
A longer piece from the Digital Television Groups latest summit (page 40):
https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/tvbe_june_2017
Some acronyms you may need to know:
Linear TV: Old school scheduled channels such as BBC1/ITV/Sky
FTA: Free to Air
PPV: Pay Per View (a one-off event eg the Joshua boxing match)
SVoD: Subscription Video on Demand eg Netflix (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29272/subscription-video-on-demand-svod)
OTT: Over The Top eg services such as Netflix/Amazon/Youtube delivered directly to consumers (http://mashable.com/2014/10/15/why-is-hbo-going-ott-and-what-does-it-mean/)
PSB: Public Service Broadcaster eg the BBC
There's a lot of change coming & Liberty Media know they have to position F1 with regard to these changes.
rallycross said:
Lifelong Motorsport fan (and compete in saloon cars), I have been reading about and watching F1 since I was a kid, I wont be paying any money to Sky to watch F1 when it goes behind the paywall.
How many paying Sky F1 customers are there in the Uk?
Less than 200,000?
If I was a sponsor I would immediately stop wasting money on F1 as very soon no one will see it, and there is very little press coverage, sponsor' dollars are moving away.
If you're talking about Sky Sports subscribers then I believe the figure is around 5 million of Sky's 11.5 Million subscriber base. The most popular Sky Football matches get about 2.25 Million viewers. The Football underpins a lot of what Sky do, hence the outrageous bids to keep it. Well, most of it.How many paying Sky F1 customers are there in the Uk?
Less than 200,000?
If I was a sponsor I would immediately stop wasting money on F1 as very soon no one will see it, and there is very little press coverage, sponsor' dollars are moving away.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but SKY are supposed to be doing away with the Sports 1-4 or whatever it is now and having dedicated channels like SKY F1.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
That sounds posative, personly i'd happly pay £20 a month to just have skyF1, at the moment i find the 1 day pass too short (ideally should be all 3 days) and the weekly pass a waist of 4 days and 5 other channels, i know being in a minoraty i get the short end of the stick but i can hope https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
S0 What said:
That sounds posative, personly i'd happly pay £20 a month to just have skyF1, at the moment i find the 1 day pass too short (ideally should be all 3 days) and the weekly pass a waist of 4 days and 5 other channels, i know being in a minoraty i get the short end of the stick but i can hope
The channels being split up into categories doesn't neccessarily mean you'll be able to buy them individually.Sky Sports F1 is already a separate channel, and you can't buy that individually.
Vaud said:
... and 15 seconds on Google will still find you a free watchable stream in 2019 
Will it? I tried it for the motoGP in protest when the motoGP.com let me down and i wont use BT crooks on principle and found it to be a minefield - kodi extensions largely unreliable and browser based streams all wanted to install malware.F1 really needs to get a grip on the 21st centuary though - I'm paying sky for F1 yet I'll be abroad for a couple of races and all you get is obstacles trying to prevent you watching due to outdated broadcasting rights ideas.
Don't think the paywall will do them any good. Perhaps simplistic, but IMO F1 needs to be on FTA TV + easily streamable to keep its reach. So many other ways to spend time and money on nowadays... I don't think the product is attractive enough for younger viewers to be jumping through hoops for access.
Personally, I've been watching since the 80es, but I would not buy a Sky type subscription. I'm not interested in the rest of the offering and I don't want yet another device in the living room. I might consider paying for a streaming service if there is quality production, no ads and viewable world-wide (without having to faff around with VPNs).
In the meantime, looks like it is RTL for me after C4 is out. Not sure how long I can take that though. It's unbearable if you understand German. So I hope & pray Liberty get some streaming service lined up...
Personally, I've been watching since the 80es, but I would not buy a Sky type subscription. I'm not interested in the rest of the offering and I don't want yet another device in the living room. I might consider paying for a streaming service if there is quality production, no ads and viewable world-wide (without having to faff around with VPNs).
In the meantime, looks like it is RTL for me after C4 is out. Not sure how long I can take that though
. It's unbearable if you understand German. So I hope & pray Liberty get some streaming service lined up...CraigyMc said:
S0 What said:
That sounds posative, personly i'd happly pay £20 a month to just have skyF1, at the moment i find the 1 day pass too short (ideally should be all 3 days) and the weekly pass a waist of 4 days and 5 other channels, i know being in a minoraty i get the short end of the stick but i can hope
The channels being split up into categories doesn't neccessarily mean you'll be able to buy them individually.Sky Sports F1 is already a separate channel, and you can't buy that individually.
You wil be able to buy the F1 channel individually from 18th July, but it will cost £18.
The pricing of Sky Sports will be £18 for one channel, £22 for two, £26 for three or all nine of them for £27.50, with the price frozen for 12 months (ominous).
Press Release
FAQ
The FAQ's seem to imply that there will be no change for those on the Legacy HD pack, who currently get F1 included for 'free', but it remains to be seen.
The channel number will also change for F1 from 18th July, from 408 to 406.
These changes will also apply to Virgin Media customers.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff