In that you were bombarded with adverts and treated like an inept 5 year old every 3 minutes by Blunders? In that you couldn't get access to multiple videos, live practice sessions on TV and dedicated post race analysis? In that you couldn't rewatch an entire session for a week afterwards (30 days if you d/l it)? In that you couldn't get dedicated testing reports and live testing comments?

Yeah, I suppose, if you didn't want any of those things, ITV were great.



No, you couldn't.

Also : They're out to get you. Wooooo!

With the BBC's huge monopoly in the market place it's no wonder the ITV has to take such drastic action to survive. Just look at how hard it is for Silverstone to survive in a market place full of state-funded projects (Abu Dhabi, Beijing etc...) ITV finds found itself in a similar position! ITV did provide Friday practise! It pioneered live online broadcasting! You all cry fowl about Bernie and government funded tracks... yet ignore the effect the state-funded BBC has on everyone else!

What I do see with the BBC is a mammoth corporation making it very difficult for other broadcasters to survive and destroying competition. It is not the place for state-funded broadcasters.

I never really liked the ITV coverage if I am being honest but it's understandable considering it doesn't get free money. but it did push F1 broadcasting forward compared to what the BBC used to do.

Just look at Eurosport and MotoGP. Far better coverage than the BBC and it's appallingly bad commentary, but's it's business has been taken away by a state-funded broadcaster. It's simply out of order.

The way we consume sport is evolving and it won't be long before it's broadcast online like you can with MotoGP. The sooner we say goodbye to the BBC the better

Once you're in the menu option its all blue button from there.

I'm not entirely sure an agenda against the licence fee has much to do with the BBC's F1 coverage....and I for one want to watch a race on a niced big plasma in my lounge - not on a pc screen subject to the vagaries of an internet stream.

You're right of course, though not until it was too late. And while ITV did improve the standards over the years it had the sport, over and above the BBC coverage, that's mainly because it was required to and also because it could. Nevertheless last years coverage showed how far ITV had let themselves stangnate. They were simply not providing good coverage aimed towards fans of the sport.

The rest of your post is really just an off-topic rant better suited to a media business website.

The licence fee allows the BBC to migrate into sectors destroying private enterprise like sport broadcasting.

Also, we are pretty close to internet and TV integration. PS3, XBOX,Wii already have some options. HD Streaming is very very close and it won't be long before traditional TV consumption is changed. The licence fee will be a redundant restrictive old-relic.

Look how quick the internet has evolved.

It's very hard to provide enough investment to maintain quality if your competing against a state-funded broadcaster. ITV would be able to re-invest profits, even maybe reducing advertising, if it wasn't competing against the BBC. ITV couldn't help but stagnate as they weren't getting free ride.

And while the BBC coverage is generally good, it isn't mind blowing, and I don't think it's right for a state-funded broadcaster to take business away from people like ITV or Sky or whoever.

How would you lot feel if the BBC did a BBC F1 Racing Magazine in print! Overnight Autosport would be redundant! It's no different in broadcasting!

lolnah. Pioneered? Don't make me laugh.

By "provide" what you actually mean is "provide at a minimal level with no proper setup, commentary or organisation in any way that benefits the viewership of Formula 1".

Sure, if you like your F1 coverage despairingly mediocre, full of pot-holes and sub standard journalism, then by all means, your free market thinking truly is the way forward.

Look, if you want competition in your sports coverage - and on the whole I would agree with you that competition is healthy if done correctly - then move to the States or some other equally TV-capitalist nation, you can take your pick from whichever broadcaster of whichever sport takes your fancy. Unfortunately for you, the only way you can get F1 on TV (in the UK, and legally) right now is on the BBC. They provide an excellent - yes, excellent - service, and a lot of British F1 fans are pretty happy for some of their license fees to go to supporting what is probably the best F1 coverage we've ever seen.



Not on Freeview it ain't.



I'd agree, watching on the internet still feels subpar and slightly alien to me. But these things are improving rapidly and it won't be long before we see the internet integrated in various outlets. It is the way forward.

As Sky proves every single night of the week.

Is that you Rupert?!

The BBC's coverage is reasonable, but there are millions of people who don't like seeing a licence fee at all. Why should these people subsidise YOUR entertainment?

Sub-standard journalism...? I see nothing but sub-standard journalism at the BBC. In regards to F1 it provides very little, and I mean very little insight into the world of motorsport. At least ITV in 1996 and 1997 invested in broadcasting the McLaren Mercedes Champions of the Future series. Real grassroots motorsport coverage. They allocated prime time TV coverage to young motor racers. Also look at the fantastic BTCC coverage included several other formulae. ALL day coverage in some examples as well. All for absolutely no cost! The BBC in comparison provides and a truly terrible service!

The ITV do and have done FAR more for British motorsport than the BBC has done with it's millions of investment, yet they are denied the diamond in their crown because some cronies at the BBC think F1 coverage is a public service... it simply isn't and should not be! An argument could be made for things likle Radio 4 and BBC Parliament... and some other bits and bobs... but F1? No, no way!

Is that you Mr Murdoch?

ITV's coverage only ended because they threw it away in favour of football. At the end of the day the public still pay for ITV through the advertised products we purchase. Just because you don't write out a cheque for £142.50, it doesn't mean it's free.

ITV did increase the volume of pre and post race coverage a bit (and quickly dropped some of that), and new technology intervened to give an extra degree of coverage, but again in 2009 the BBC took everything ITV had half-arsedly brought in and did it all properly.

Given the breadth of services the BBC has to provide, including things that commercial channels continually shy away from, it's good value for money to this consumer. The quality of their output is incredible, given the amount of money they seem to piss away too!

Tsk, I was well and truly beaten to that one.

Hold on. Read the title of the thread.

'The BBC F1 Coverage Thread'.

While I agree with you that the BTCC coverage is decent - it's not great, but at least it's televised - this thread isn't about how the BBC is, or has, missed an opportunity to look further at other British motorsports. The BBC have no obligation to broadcast - and therefore fund - lower formulae just because it broadcasts the FIA's premier formula.

The BBC's obligation? The BBC shouldn't exist in the first place! Certainly not in it's current form!

Don't forget the way the BBC behaves is in direct competition to companies like Autosport who host this forum. The thread certainly needs balance! I am sure if the BBC started a new motorsport magazine you lot would son realise the frightening damage the BBC inflicts!

Denied it or spared it? It was a constant irritation to the ITV schedules and they were not interested in making a fight for it. If ITV wishes to continue supporting other motorsport categories they can surely do so. They don't need F1 in order to support other series.

The F1 coverage on BBC is vastly superior to what we got with ITV, even though that was an upgrade from the (sometimes shakey) coverage we got with BBC the first time around. That's progress. F1 without adverts is a wonderful thing to have and we are the envy of many other countries because of it - check some of the other coverage threads here if you're not sure.

I refuse to bite this line any more.

I don't watch Strictly or Casualty or any number of other very popular shows on the BBC. I have never listened to Radio 3, I don't care one jot about the campaigns the BBC runs to help kids through their GCSEs, I rarely want to watch local news. I subsidise the cost of those services for people that value those things, they subsidise the stuff I enjoy. Welcome to society.

Can you not understand it's BECAUSE OF the BBC the ITV couldn't invest the neccesary funds to support F1?

Can you not udeerstand it's BECAUSE OF state subsidised projects that privately owned tracks like Silverstone struggle to survive?

That's not society! Society is helping a wounded friend. Society is donating to charity! Society is not sending round the lads to force old-ladies to pay up the licence fee or else!

The BBC helps kids through the GCSE's? Err... the internet provides them with a far more in-depth service for... free!

Welcome to the future!

Presumably you haven't ever had to live in the USA or anywhere else where the free market is let out of its cage. Fox News anyone?

Just out of interest, do you spend much time of the BBC's 'have your say' forums at all?

I've got to say that, as a foreigner (with extensive access to the BBC channels), British people who complain about the BBC really don't appreciate what they've got. You have the best television in the world and you don't realise it.

We also have the best race teams and drivers in the world which is entirely privately funded. We happen to be good at it , like TV. I am convinced even if the BBC was privately funded it would offer superb content still... because we are just GOOD at TV.

Overall the BBC coverage is brilliant.

I wonder if ITV would have listened and replaced Legard, though?

Couldn't agree more.

I find myself using the BBC website daily, listening to BBC radio or podcasts, daily - and watching their programming - you've guessed it, daily.

It's a fantastic service. Undoubtedly certain aspects could be improved but really, the BBC stands head and shoulders above any other broadcaster in terms of quality output.

Thinking back to all the abuse Allen used to get, I think we can hazard a guess.

There is nothing of the ITV coverage I would bring back. Even the mid-race comfort trips.

We also stand head and shoulders above the world in motorsport. Like motorsport, we the the British, just happen to be very good at making TV. We don't need to burden everyone to pay for it.

Most foreigners also have the luxury of only receiving the BEST of the BBC! Living in the UK you get to witness such horrors seen on BBCThree. If the BBC provides such great stuff it can stand on it's own two feet like everyone else!

I'd happily PAY for some of the BBC's output if it was subscription based... what I do not like is the bullying tactics it uses to gain it's funding

I 100% agree. The BBC provides exceptional value for money coming up with man, many excellent programmes, some of which interest me and others of which interest others. But we'll all feel the pain if it was taken away. I think their coverage of F1 is streets ahead of ITV. Is it perfect? Of course not... but it is pretty damn good!

That's scaremongering! Many industries thrive in the UK without the help of state funding... motorsport being a shining example

The BBC would be fine subscription based! We just get pumped this bbc propaganda that if it wasn't paid by force it'll lose it's quality... it simply wouldn't!

It doesn't matter how hard you shout, I don't agree with your point of view. It's not that I don't understand it.

ITV prioritised just as the BBC prioritises, just based on differing criteria. The BBC doesn't have to chase advertising so it can afford to do what's right for the target audience, not what's right to get dollars in. Hence the red button forum, a waste of airtime as far as ITV or the grasping Murdoch channels are concerned, but fantastic as far as the F1 fan is concerned.

If by quality, you mean the most profitable programming then you are correct. If you mean anything else by quality, you are flat out wrong.

You failed to respond to my previous question. There are plenty of places in the world that dont have a large state broadcaster. Perhaps you would like to suggest one to use as model for us?

Exactly. It's a public service, and that's what it should be about.

I'd prefer it if the example was for F1 coverage otherwise it's going to drag us off topic.

The Uk produces some of the best drivers, race teams and engineers in the world (much at the annoyance of the Italians I must say). That's what I mean by quality.

I'd like to see us have no state-intervention in broadcasting. Of course people will then say - but abroad TV is rubbish! But so are a lot of things... like music! No one suggests we should have a state-funded record company in the UK to ensure quality!

We in the UK happen to be good at a few things

1. motorsport
2. music
3. TV

We are good at TV. We don't need to have 150 robbed of us to ensure 'quality'. The quality is there already! The market exists for quality TV. Why then should we allow one company to have limitless funds travelling into areas is shouldn't be... like sport broadcasting.

I think we need an off topic BBC appreciation thread. I'd like to engage with rhukkas on the topic as I disagree with him, but I'll stay on topic in here and say that I am delighted I no longer need a post-ad-break replay showing me the key overtaking manouvers I missed while they tried to sell me watered down tasteless American beer

Where can I get this free internet from?

Again, not the place for it but I would pay double the license fee to keep adverts off BBC. Sky is mostly sh!t and massively overpriced. That single forced ad break on ITV that ruined Imola (05/06) when the two best drivers in the world at the time (MS + FA) were jousting for a win was big enough reason to get F1 off ad-supported TV for me. Thats how much I hate forced advert viewing and product placement. And the internet is never free unless you steal your computer, phone line, ISP. Hardly any content is free either. When was the last time you downloaded or viewed something without being shown an advert or worse made to watch or listen to one before accessing the content. Outside the excellent BBC site their isnt much. Free internet my arse! We can see you are a hardline free marketer but why cant you just accept the majority support public funded broadcasting?

Well if you don't like the BBC, go and watch Ant and Dec TV (ITV) or Channel 5, with programmes like 'The Man with a tree for a head'

I love the BBC and its programmes, they are the best by far, no advert breaks and they produce some gripping dramas. I prefer football on the BBC as well, but this is about F1 and the BBC have taken coverage to another level. Podcasts, website reviews, Murray's bit, blogs, insights, practices on tv, quali and race online. I mean, ITV only had FP1 and 2 online in 2008 and even then the quality was crap. Whilst ITV did a very good job on the whole (I think they did a brilliant thing by hiring Brundle and Allen, whilst sometimes annoying did calm down in later years, even with Hamilton) but the BBC are very good.

Jenson Button supports F1 on BBC http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1268154954499RA71

I think it's great that you have an opinion.

*1: Really? No state intervention at all? I think broadcasting, as with any other sector, benefits from minimal state intervention, but there's a big difference between that and no intervention. Who would prevent the rise of monopolistic or oligopolistic broadcasters?

*2: State-funded music

*3: The BBC was the first British broadcaster, so they could claim the quality exists because of, rather than despite, their existence.

*4: Who has limitless funds? Who allows only one company into these areas? Who decided the one company in question shouldn't be there?

Before I forget! Anyone up for some 'Legard Bingo' this weekend?

Choose your card wisely: http://www.violetmount.com/leg.png

I'll go for the green card.

It was between pink and blue.

I'll go blue, but frankly, I'd rather have them all.

Besides I'll be listening to Crofty + Whoever they've got to replace Ant for the 1st race.

Please lets draw a line under the licence-fee discussion here. Any further off topic will be deleted.

I'll state once more that I think the BBC's F1 broadcasts are very good. I think they are doing an excellent job. That doesn't mean there is nothing to improve, though.

I used to watch Eurosport F1 broadcasts in the 90's. The Finnish broadcasts were amateurish in comparison. Back then Eurosport had English commentators also for our country. Nowadays they have ruined the channel by using sub-standard Finnish commentators. I just briefly watched some WWF show and the guys commentating on it were horrible... not that I would watch the WWF any ways... but Eurosport, do yourself a favour and kick those guys out - you should know who they are. If that's the quality then you better just let the original English come through and not replace it with such crap just for the sake of having the native language of the country being used.

Oh yeah this was about the BBC. Sorry. But my point is I think the BBC and Eurosport (with the English narrators/commentators) have done a better job with F1 than the Finnish broadcasters have done. And I don't mean that the modern Finnish F1 broadcasts suck, they don't, but they are in my opinion clearly not at the same level with the BBC F1 broadcasts. Perhaps it is a question of money as this small nation of ours only has so many people paying for it and it is simple economics they cannot have the same amount of money available to them as the BBC can have.

I've watched BBC F1 and I think it is clearly better than what we get here (perhaps with the exclusion of Eddie Jordan, but I guess they need someone people can dislike, too, to provoke feelings of both love and hate). So I don't really get what some of you people are complaining about. I rate the BBC as the #1 in other areas of making television shows, too, it's not just the F1 broadcasts they do a great job with.

Oh, and I watched Michael Palin visit the 14th Dalai Lama in Tibet and he too obviously thought the BBC is great!

I'd love to see the support races for F1, even if it was a quick round up of the action on the BBC red button show afterwards. From experience at Silverstone, the support race action is jsut as good as F1 if not sometimes better. I thoroughlly enjoyed the GP2, FBMW and Porsche Supercup races, all very close, all very exciting. I have no interest to pay a considerable fee of money to see some shoddy, half-done production covering these excellent race series when BBC could do it in a quick highlights round up like the MotoGP red button show does for the 125 and 250s.

GP2 gets an airing... on free terrestial channel IIRC.

Nope. Used to be on ITV4.

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the loss of GP2 from terrestrial television, but I'm not sure it was in the BBC's hands.



What about GP3 this year? The BBC won't have it, but will any (free or otherwise) be airing it?

BBC coverage last year was good - we got to hear from more drivers and more race team members (engineers etc) than I can ever remember. No adverts helps of course, but its also about the team - Jake picked up enthusiasm for the sport really quickly and that came through in the broadcasts - compare this to Steve Ryder who can only present if he (obviously) reads off an autocue whilst sat in some room tucked away somewhere - whereas the BBC crew are in the pitlane or paddock.

The forum after show piece also works well, again compare this to Blundell and Jardine who always looked uncomfortable and didn't have much insight to share.

EJ is just forthright, if he's got something to say he says it. I don't have a problem with him, you can't blame the guy for having an opinion. He does add a polarising view at times that helps the discussions. He also has that knack of grabbing any poor unsuspecting "name" he can and dragging them in - no one else would be able to do it!

Legard I'm still not comfortable with. I don't think he has much interest in the sport and I think it shows quite badly at times. Last year his lack of knowledge was quite obvious, its almost as if he needed to ask someone what was going on, so he could do his job effectively. I think he could use Brundle more for the in depth stuff, when some technical knowledge is needed he could ask Brundle the question, this would let Brundle use his knowledge more, as it is he spends too much time covering the basics that Legard missed, this is what I think people mean when they say Legard drags Brundle down ??
Lets see after a few races this year, maybe he's been doing some homework and will of improved.