Formula 1 will NO LONGER be televised in the United States.

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I know a lot of people talk about subscriptions but for those of us who still have cable ,subscriptions aren't what it is. It's the cable package, sometimes you do need an add on but certainly not for all sports.

For us, without having the CC cover the cost of Apple TV (which the offer isn't active yet but will be in a few days) it would have meant we'd be spending more just to watch F1 stuff when right now many of these channels mentioned we already have. For example with ESPN it's in our cable package and recording stuff (and watching live when it's at a good time of day) is how we primarily watch F1 stuff. A switch to streaming (whether it was Netflix or Apple TV) would and will drastically change that.

There is still quite a decent amount of people in the U.S. with cable FWIW.

 

[kdonnel]

There is still quite a decent amount of people in the U.S. with cable FWIW.

The percentage of homes with traditional Cable TV is in a STEEP decline.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The percentage of homes with traditional Cable TV is in a STEEP decline.

View attachment 1017789

Yes, I'm aware, and I don't believe any person would actually need to quote me on that for goodness sake.

The point remains that everyone keeps talking about needing subscriptions but that is not the case for every person. I don't need a subscription to TNT or TBS or ESPN. The cable package that I have includes those already. And right now if you didn't have cable the ESPN+ app is far subpar as it doesn't include everything that is on the ESPN channel.

So keeping it in perspective the OP's rants about cable/broadcast whatever everyone wants to make on semantics aren't entirely unfounded complaints, do I agree with their perspective 100% no but as it stands without Apple TV being included soon on our CC we would have to spend more money to watch what we watch now for F1 with our existing cable package.

Steep decline over the years or not (which really come on did someone really feel the need to try and make that point) not everyone is in the same situation as each other here.

 

[kdonnel]

Yes, I'm aware, and I don't believe any person would actually need to quote me on that for goodness sake.

The point remains that everyone keeps talking about needing subscriptions but that is not the case for every person. I don't need a subscription to TNT or TBS or ESPN. The cable package that I have includes those already. And right now if you didn't have cable the ESPN+ app is far subpar as it doesn't include everything that is on the ESPN channel.

So keeping it in perspective the OP's rants about cable/broadcast whatever everyone wants to make on semantics aren't entirely unfounded complaints, do I agree with their perspective 100% no but as it stands without Apple TV being included soon on our CC we would have to spend more money to watch what we watch now for F1 with our existing cable package.

Steep decline over the years or not (which really come on did someone really feel the need to try and make that point) not everyone is in the same situation as each other here.

It's is just semantics.

What you pay to your cable tv provider monthly is a subscription by another name, for a bundled service that includes TNT, TBS, and ESPN.

Not unlike a Disney+, Hulu, ESPN bundle subscription.

Short of using an antenna for OTA, everyone is paying a "subscription". So unless you can watch F1 using an OTA antenna, there is no difference between it being on F1 TV, ESPN, AppleTV, Paramount+, or any other service that requires payment.

 

[lanejudy]

The point remains that everyone keeps talking about needing subscriptions but that is not the case for every person. I don't need a subscription to TNT or TBS or ESPN. The cable package that I have includes those already.

Your cable package is equivalent to a subscription in this discussion. "Basic cable" doesn't come with all those channels. It may be the most common package, but it's still paying extra for those channels.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It's is just semantics.

What you pay to your cable tv provider monthly is a subscription by another name, for a bundled service that includes TNT, TBS, and ESPN.

Not unlike a Disney+, Hulu, ESPN bundle subscription.

Short of using an antenna for OTA, everyone is paying a "subscription". So unless you can watch F1 using an OTA antenna, there is no difference between it being on F1 TV, ESPN, AppleTV, Paramount+, or any other service that requires payment.

Your cable package is equivalent to a subscription in this discussion. "Basic cable" doesn't come with all those channels. It may be the most common package, but it's still paying extra for those channels.

It is very different to say someone has to pay an ADDED fee just to watch a particular sport because what they have doesn't get it unless you pay extra for it which is what posters talked about piece meal needing TBS, TNT, etc. That would be the case for me if I wanted the full NBA package even with my cable package because I only have one included NBA channel.

It is an issue with semantics because you CAN need a subscription for X even with a cable package, like the aforementioned NBA Package. That is a specific add on that even the most top tier with U-Verse won't get you those channels. When a poster mentioned a Sports Package that is a subscription based situation. Actual cable package is not quite the same there in this context of talking about add-on services just to watch an particular sport.

I was not debating paying for a cable package vs paying for a streaming service y'all. What I was specifically and only talking about was paying more for what I get now which would happen even if NBC got it presuming they placed it not on their cable channels but on Peacock which we don't have that streaming service.

Someone mentioned TBS in order to watch MLB but that channel is included in 6 out of the 7 U-Verse available packages. EPSN is the same it's on 6 out of the 7 U-Verse packages available. So lanejudy you're correct that the most basic package doesn't include those but it doesn't take much at all to get it, at least with U-Verse.

I understand both of you are trying to say you pay for it one way or another but that's thinking about it from a streaming perspective as streaming started as a way for people to piece together just what they wanted to watch instead of paying for things they don't watch. Nowadays, predictably, streaming is out of control and you're paying for so many services just to get what you would get on a cable package. Someone saying "well so what a move to Apple TV you still have to pay for X to get Y sport" that isn't the case for me because it's all wrapped up in 550 channels (for my package at least) and a move off of that means I now have to pay even more than before to watch something that was already included in a monthly fee and without an add on to get only that channel so I could watch that particular sport (like the full NBA sports package would be outside of the one channel we have included).

The most similar thing, outside of what I mentioned with the NBA Sports Package, would be a tv show specifically only aired on a providers streaming service and not aired on their cable channel. That, a popular thing to do right now, would mean a person has to incur additional costs just to watch a particular show when their existing cost already includes other shows on that channel. A recent, but failed example, is Law and Order: Organized Crime which aired in the spring on Peacock but is now airing on cable tv. A more successful example is Seal Team which aired on CBS before moving to their streaming service. Those are both situations where someone used to have something included in what they already paid but then would incur an additional charge to watch that with a move occurring.

 

[lanejudy]

What I was specifically and only talking about was paying more for what I get now

But your answers are specific to the cable packages available in your area and what you already get. You don't know what's available for others vs what channels they already have. Most sports viewing now requires some degree of paid service, whether that is streaming, cable, satellite , etc.; one may already have the correct "tier" or package that includes the sport/channel of interest or it may need to be upgraded/purchased separately. This past winter I had to upgrade my cable package to get a regional sports channel even though for years that channel had previously been available on a lower tier.

 

[kdonnel]

Nowadays, predictably, streaming is out of control and you're paying for so many services just to get what you would get on a cable package.

If you are paying for a bunch of streaming, you are not playing the game right!

I get Paramount+ from WalMart+ which I get free from a credit card.

I get Netflix and AppleTV free from my cell phone provider.

I get Peacock covered by a monthly credit card credit.

I get a portion of YouTubeTV paid by the rest of the monthly credit card credit.

In the end I am still paying WAY less monthly in streaming than I was paying DirecTV.


Phase 1 was offering streaming subscriptions at a loss to gain subscribers.
Phase 2 was to raise prices and see how many remain.
Phase 3 was consolidation and bundling.
Phase 4 is combining the service with an unrelated service, a different bundling.
Phase 5 I imagine will be to raise prices and see how many remain.

 

[John VN]

Do you remember when CART "Championship Auto Racing Team" racing was all the rage and it used to appear every Sunday on ABC but then when CART got sold they moved the races to Spike TV and then quit showing them all together because NBC was supposed to get the rights to CART racing and Formula 1 racing. I think for Formula 1 fans having the races moved to Apple TV is a wrong move because I cannot figure out how Apple TV is successful and I think Formula 1 races should moved to Paramount+ rather than Apple. Because Paramount+ is big on sports and racing would've been a perfect addition to them

r.e. bold -- Remember when F1 sounded really cool

 

[rigs32]

Where I live, in the suburbs of a small city, broadcast TV doesn't work even with an antenna. The only TV I can get to work is in the garage and, even then, only 1 channel works reliable and 2 more are hit or miss.

 

[sam_gordon]

Where I live, in the suburbs of a small city, broadcast TV doesn't work even with an antenna. The only TV I can get to work is in the garage and, even then, only 1 channel works reliable and 2 more are hit or miss.

Where is your antenna? How far away are the broadcast towers? The quality/type and the location of the antenna make a HUGE impact on reception.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

omg tell me you don't watch F1 without telling me you don't watch F1

Ever watched Monaco? The only excitement is the required pit stop or the occasional crash. Ever watched Singapore? Hungaroring (Permanent circuit but very difficult to pass.) Mercedes lead driver George Russel said that F1 has become a race to the first corner after the U.S. grand prix. He argues further that the outcome of modern F1 races is largely determined by qualifying and the initial start with little meaningful racing occurring afterward. Russell argues that factors like the lack of significant tire degradation, and the importance of track position and clean air have made the first corner the decisive moment in many races. And even you, when describing the "excitement" of the sprint race this past weekend were talking about the crash.

Let's face the facts. If the flying Dutchman wasn't the best driver in history, this season would be a bore. Nobody else could get that Red Bull Tractor he's driving to do anything. The constructor's title was already decided before this weekend. And the Driver's title is likely to go to one of them despite Max's heroics of late making it somewhat interesting. But he still has an uphill climb.

Look at all the "mini" sports networks... ACC, SEC, B1G, to say nothing of the networks that carry many baseball games. Games that used to be on linear TV (actual affiliates instead of carried by a network) now require subscriptions.

Those networks are broadcasting games the big networks wouldn't be broadcasting anyway. You're not getting the Michigan/Ohio St. football game on Big10 Network. You're getting Northwestern vs Minnesota type games the networks wouldn't broadcast nationally. You're not getting Alabama/Georgia on SEC network. You're getting Kentucky Mississippi St. type games the networks wouldn't either. I think the racing equivalent would be something like Formula 3.

I believe so, yes.

Most of the NCAA tournament is on "pay" channels, with only one set of games on CBS for each time slot. The rest are TNT, TBS and, I believe, TrueTV.

Yes but it's not like CBS broadcast all those games. CBS is running the exact same number of Round of 64, 32, 16, and 8 games it always has. The pay channels added to your choices in that regard. They didn't take them away.

 

[hardcorestitch]

Where I live, in the suburbs of a small city, broadcast TV doesn't work even with an antenna. The only TV I can get to work is in the garage and, even then, only 1 channel works reliable and 2 more are hit or miss.

Let me guess… just PBS?

 

[soccerdad72]

Yes but it's not like CBS broadcast all those games. CBS is running the exact same number of Round of 64, 32, 16, and 8 games it always has. The pay channels added to your choices in that regard. They didn't take them away.

I think the exception is the semi finals, which as Sam said, have been on TBS in the recent past (or TNT, I get them mixed up).

 

[Nayan]

Where I live, in the suburbs of a small city, broadcast TV doesn't work even with an antenna. The only TV I can get to work is in the garage and, even then, only 1 channel works reliable and 2 more are hit or miss.

I miss the analog days. I would stay up late (1-5 am) and play in the Troposphere, picking up channels as far away as Maine from Florida. Tampa channels used to come in crystal clear here on the East Coast and that's how we got our Creature-Feature and Westerns fix on Saturdays. When they switched everything over to digital all that went away and now even if I adjust my antenna slightly I lose a lot of my channels. If you don't have direct LOS and/or have obstacles in the way then trying to pick up things OTA can be a huge hassle nowadays.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I think the exception is the semi finals, which as Sam said, have been on TBS in the recent past (or TNT, I get them mixed up).

Yes but just because one was taken away doesn't mean they all should be. And if I have to get this service for that, the other service for the other thing, and still another, and it ends up being more than my cable bill used to be, how then is that an improvement?

 

[soccerdad72]

Yes but just because one was taken away doesn't mean they all should be. And if I have to get this service for that, the other service for the other thing, and still another, and it ends up being more than my cable bill used to be, how then is that an improvement?

I wasn't arguing one way or the other. Sam asked a question and I answered him.

 

[sam_gordon]

Those networks are broadcasting games the big networks wouldn't be broadcasting anyway. You're not getting the Michigan/Ohio St. football game on Big10 Network. You're getting Northwestern vs Minnesota type games the networks wouldn't broadcast nationally. You're not getting Alabama/Georgia on SEC network. You're getting Kentucky Mississippi St. type games the networks wouldn't either. I think the racing equivalent would be something like Formula 3.

Yes, you can see more games than you had a chance to before. But before the SEC Network, there was the "UK Television Network". UK Basketball and football games were broadcast on local affiliates. People could watch those games for free. I assume there were similar situations for other big name schools. Now they can't. That's my point.

Yes but just because one was taken away doesn't mean they all should be. And if I have to get this service for that, the other service for the other thing, and still another, and it ends up being more than my cable bill used to be, how then is that an improvement?

And no one is advocating that games should be "taken away", and no one is saying it's an improvement. It's just a fact of life, and has been for about the last decade. Entities OTHER than main networks are carrying games. If you want to watch those games/events, you need to pay for them.

Now, one benefit of paying for a subscription is you have access to sports and events that you didn't before. If you just want free OTA TV, you have a limited number of sporting events. Add a package to get you ESPN and you probably get multiple ESPN channels, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, USA Network (do they still do sports?), etc. Add a streamer and you get even more.

Sure it would be great if every sporting event everywhere could be shown OTA, but it's not practical or financially beneficial to the OTA broadcasters.

 

[soccerdad72]

Add a package to get you ESPN and you probably get multiple ESPN channels, CBS Sports, TNT, TBS, USA Network (do they still do sports?), etc. Add a streamer and you get even more.

USA is part of NBC / Peacock, so they occasionally get some sports, like golf. They're part of the Olympic broadcasting as well.

 

[sam_gordon]

USA is part of NBC / Peacock, so they occasionally get some sports, like golf. They're part of the Olympic broadcasting as well.

I remembered they did Olympic coverage, couldn't remember if they picked up sports during non-Olympics