Practically Classics Forum

More crap from the beeb - only wanting to show half of next years race schedule - if only I could pay half of my licence fee in protest

An alternative point of view:

Far from not wanting to show the races, the BBC would love to show all the races, but can't afford to do so, as the beloved proprietor of SKY has pushed the price up so far they don't have the money. If we all paid more for our licences, then they could afford it.

Like you I'm well fed up with it though - it'll be a cold day in hell before I get SKY, I'm afraid I'm one statistic that just won't get to watch the races.

Lux - Fair point - although I think the licence fee is over priced as it is - in effect our money is paying for one broadcaster only - I think it is more about the BBC being cost effective and providing value for money to us the licence payer - they have made some cuts and changes but still have an awful long way to go - and I bet that they don't show half of the men's 100 metres when it comes to the Olympics next year - or the last 250 metres of next years boat race - in order to save money.

Has for the sky thing - they were quoting £600 in subscription fees - I don't know about everybody else but I would rather put that amount of money into the cars or something for the workshop.

Trouble is we've been spoiled in recent years, back in the seventies, early eighties all we ever got was a thirty minute highlight show on the beeb. It's only become a huge global TV sport since Bernie Ecclestone took it on and made it that way.

Hopefully they'll still at least do a match of the day type highlights show, but I haven't seen anything about that.

for me f1 is just soooooooo dull, im quite glad.. maybe they could put some rallying on the tv instead..

I don't even have a TV licence. When TV went digital, I sent back my licence, as TV has become such crap. Granted I can watch F1 at my parents' house, if I wish but they don't have Sky and have no intention of getting it. F1 isn't sufficiently entertaining to justify it. I'd rather get a few more DVDs of classic and Vintage events

Oddly enough, I obtained a DVD camera, that I can fit to the inside of the car windscreen. I finally got around to trying it out last weekend and have produced a DVD on the PC. I'd rather make a few of those to watch in the dark depths of Winter.

Grumpy Northener wrote:Lux - Fair point - although I think the licence fee is over priced as it is - in effect our money is paying for one broadcaster only - I think it is more about the BBC being cost effective and providing value for money to us the licence payer - they have made some cuts and changes but still have an awful long way to go - and I bet that they don't show half of the men's 100 metres when it comes to the Olympics next year - or the last 250 metres of next years boat race - in order to save money.

Has for the sky thing - they were quoting £600 in subscription fees - I don't know about everybody else but I would rather put that amount of money into the cars or something for the workshop.

You're paying 40p a day for the BBC's TV & radio output. Sky's basic package is £19.50/month, so call it 66p/day, and the markup on the products you buy that pay for advertising on ITV (which I never watch) is far more than that. I know which one I get the most value from!

With regards to the F1 half-the-races thing, they wanted to get out of the contract entirely but the cancellation fees would have meant they'd save nothing in doing so; they've chosen the best value-for-money route, it's only a shame that they couldn't meet Bernie's greed & keep the contract.

Yes, it'll save the Beeb some dosh. The downside is that I will now miss half my afternoon naps - I sit down with the intention of watching and wake during the boring interviews at the endspect the TV will go - but I've heard that there is talk of internet users being made to pay the licence because they can download TV if they want to!

Tractorman, I don't want to upset you regarding paying a licence fee but there is a warning on the front page of the BBC player to that effect.
I only found out when I down loaded an update for the package.
So it looks like the situation is "we know what you are up to, so behave or else we'll make it happen".

They have already gone down this route if you only want to view tapes played on a VCR (and I asume DVD's played back via a tv set). Be interesting to see how they could enforce the rule and collect the cash.
A few more not so civil servants?

Thanks Scimagain!

I've just checked the TV licence site (and iPlayer site) and, as far as I can see, so long as you don't watch stuff that's on air at the time - or record things that are on air at the time, you shouldn't need a license. So I can legally watch last week's Corrie ~(if I wanted to) without a license, but not whatever is on air at the moment. Similarly, I could watch a tape of "Dad's Army" but not record the one that will be showing in a few minutes.

I must admit, that suits me!! However, I suspect someone will plug the "loophole" before I get the chance to try it. Hopefully, that will be a few years, but Ma will be 90 in six or eight weeks!

As it is, I don't think I could wait for a programme to download - the broadband is very tempramental in our area and, on a good day, 1.7Mb/s is available. If it rains, it's 400 - 500Kb/s!

Back to the thread - it's interesting that Ferrari have been doing better since they changed the rules about exhausts. Conspiracy theories rule!