Will FOX or SPEED show the race live?

which one will show the race live in the US?
I can't find any station showing the race live...cable or satelite...
anyone know something ?..please?

 

Fox is delaying the broadcast until 10 am, I'm in the mountain time zone.

 

appreciate the tip....why in the world they do that??????????????????

 

I am not sure if this is correct ...but channel 512 on Xfinity..is saying it will show the race live at 7 am Central time...it is channel 512 here in Houston...FOXDE....will keep my fingers crossed...thanks.

 

So they can implement and many commercials as possible

VIA HTC SUPERSONIC CM7.2

 

any link as to a website broadcasting race live?

 

http://www.vipbox.tv/sports/formula-1.html

 

I dislike ( to put it mildly ) the delayed, edited and dumbed-down coverage we get when the races are shown on FOX. However, I look at it this way. It wasn't so long ago when we didn't see the races at all, and would just get highlights from Jim McKay on ABC's Wide World Of Sports. CBC used to give us a bit more coverage when Villeneuve was racing, but other than that, we used to catch up in the papers the next day, or even the next week. No internet back then, you know.

I see FOX Corp. trying to build an audience in the US by airing a few races on their local broadcast channels, along with the accompanying remedial explanations of what is going on. Building an audience in the US means more advertising revenue for them, which means they can afford to hold on to the US rights and still turn a profit. After all, our friend Bernie isn't going to give it to them for free , now is he?

So yes, the SPEED broadcasts leave a little bit to be desired, and are head and shoulders above the FOX broadcasts, but both are a step above what we used to have, and are hopefully ensuring that at least some sort of broadcast will continue.

Having said all that, Mr. Murdoch, please give us the additional option to receive all of the race coverage live. The existing cable customers you are trying to woo can still watch the existing coverage, but some of us ( me ) would be willing to pay extra to get the the weekend live.

 

For some reason the Fox coverage went from HD to regular picture.

Wondering why.

Postrace on Speed was HD.

 

Because airing it live would deprive the local affiliates the infomercial income.

 

I agree with everything you said, but did you see the opening of the race on FOX with the cartoon superheroes?

Did a 5th grader put that together?

 

So I had speedtv on in the background (which I normally do) while having a BBQ with a bunch of racing buddies. Had the conti series on and we were horrified to see speed roll right into the post game coverage!!!! No more speed tv for me on race days!

 

How ridiculous is that??

 

I know, ppl were sayin wtf are you doing, but by the time I could get to the remote and change the channel they were already showing the podium. Arghhh...

 

One of the most well presented & thought out posts I've seen here in a while! Thanks. Raises some very interesting points;

- "Anything is better than nothing!" - Even if it is delayed & edited.
- "No internet back then!" - Very, very true and goes to the heart of the problem many sports (etc) now have - The "national" licensing model is now broken IMHO - I'm pretty sure Sky is paying Bernie more than Fox for the rights to it in their locales. OTOH, we know Fox (et al) pay a *lot* more than whoever for NFL rights in Europe! (Does anyone even broadcast NFL games in Europe? ) Soccer is the inverse of course - I'd bet ESPN here in the States didn't pay anything close to the Euro guys for the UEFA cup or the Champions league for example.

As a "serious" fan, be it of F1, the NFL, soccer or whatever, we can now get our fixes via the 'net - It may need a few $ and some fancy footwork, but we're no longer limited to what the "local" broadcasters want to give us.

How do;

- The traditional "national" broadcasters make money from their license? If they can't, they probably won't up the ante when their deal is up for renewal - I can foresee Fox choosing not to renew if the pygmy asks for too many $.

- The "dedicated" (willing to pay extra) fans get the superior coverage that's now available "legally"? Doesn't (shouldn't) matter where I am geographically, I'm willing to pay for F1. Right now, in the USA, I get Speed as part of a "sports package" most of which I could live without for example. [We'll leave aside the Brits who believe it should all be free! ]

Tata Communications are (something like) "the worldwide internet partner of the Pygmy". Everything - from the timing & race control data thru multiple camera access is available via the 'net - If they choose to make it so.

There's a model somewhere where everyone can be happy; The "casual" fan who wants it "for free" thru the hard core guys who will pay a premium. Trouble is, no one's figured how to do it as yet.........

Cheers,
Ian

 

and the person/s that do figure it out, will be very, very wealthy. The lil use car salesman from London I am sure is on it. We will all be paying to watch soon, just like they did with the I-phone App. Free for a watered down portion up until this year, now you pay $ to play.

 

I'm trying to work on it!

+1

However, he himself has said he doesn't understand how to do it - He built the empire on national licensing. He wanted to try pay per view (for HD) way ahead of anyone else, and nobody was willing to pay.

And I have no problem with that - I'm willing to pay a few cents per session for the same screen that they're looking at on the pit wall. Conversely, I understand that many aren't.

Maybe we should pay "per camera"? The basic feed is "free" (depending on the market?) but additional stuff comes at a price? OK. But again, how is that going to be controlled?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Changes in the TV package are coming. It's the biggest area for income growth and that may be important to the IPO marketing.
Fox may be trying to grow the American market in anticipation of the time when they'll be selling F1 to us.

 

I'm pretty sure there's at least one or two TV contracts up for renewal every season. The high profile one recently of course being BBC -> Sky. I don't know, but suspect more and more markets in Europe particularly will be moving to "pay" TV when up for renewal. So, yes, there may be room for the pygmy to squeeze a little more out yet. OTOH;

No doubt TV revenue (the single largest source of income as we know) continues to grow. But, how much headroom is left? I make no claims to know, but in these "dodgy" times national carriers at least are having a hard time justifying the expense.

Here's my real point though - The geographic licensing model is now broken. Personally, I'd have no problem paying for a "premium" service (I already am to a degree in order to get the Sky feed). Shouldn't matter where I am - That's what I want.

Then there's the (very handy and much appreciated round here) "pirate" feeds many use. So far, they've been pretty reliable but if they get onto the radar they will go away without notice. OK, they'll probably pop up somewhere else but the cat & mouse game will get serious, and I know I wouldn't want to fight the pygmy......

I'm shall we say, "pushing the envelope". Strictly speaking, *nobody* outside the UK should be getting the Sky feed. But, as I said, the model is broken; As far as Sky know, I really am in the UK and short of blocking the ip addresses of the UK servers there's not a lot they can do. [This is also very difficult to do - Ask the Chinese and others who try and censor stuff. The VPN guys simply move to different addresses and the game continues.]

Technically, it's a very solvable issue - A legitimate subscriber is issued a security certificate as part of their plan. When access is requested the cert is checked and a session key generated to encrypt the traffic. Done job. Part of the agreement would allow the cert to be revoked if you were found to be re-broadcasting for example - No more Vipbox....... [For the geeks, I know I've simplified a little, but the principle is valid ]

Now, the questions become; Who's gonna pay, how many and how much? I suspect not enough to come close to the TV contract values! I've said before, maybe a few S/W houses could license the entire feed (cameras, data, radio's, the lot) and develop an application that folk will pay for - He who does the best job gets the business. But how much can they pay? Base the fee on the # of subscribers they drum up? Still gonna be a piss in the ocean compared to what Sky paid I bet.

Anyone got any other ideas?........

Cheers,
Ian

 

Interesting times are coming.
And you know what they say about interesting times.

 

+1

Somewhat still on topic; I noticed the DVR had picked up the Fox / Speed re-broadcast. Was bored so decided to watch that version. Apart from a big "oh dear" it also reminded me that Varsha & co are in a studio somewhere commenting live on the exact same pictures we're looking at. They've got the same timing app and no more than that.

Conversely, Sky have 3 guys in the press box, two more for studio analysis and yet a couple more wandering up & down the pitlane. Speed has good ol' Will in the press box.

No wonder their coverage is head & shoulders above what Speed can manage! Speed then went to Elkhart Lake for a Grand Am race and they had a couple of pitlane reporters - They weren't very good IMO, but the coverage was pretty well done. Until Speed put more feet on the ground they're gonna struggle IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

While I prefer Will B to their previous on site guy (who shall go nameless) its no substitute for being there both during the race and between sessions to pick up scuttlebutt.