Incidentally, they have two theories for why I was having a problem. Either my security settings were too high or my typical IP address range (I have a floating IP, since fixed IPs are slightly more expensive with most ISPs) wasn’t in Brightcove’s database. Given that I didn’t need to change my security settings, I can only assume Brightcove updated its IP address list.

UPDATE: Brightcove have sent me some debugging software, which I’ve used. Now I just have to wait for a reply to see what the debugging software tells them. They take technical problems seriously. ITV hasn’t so much as acknowledged my original e-mail so far.

I can’t tell you how many times important stuff happens that we miss in the States because of the required commercial breaks.

We get that here in the UK as well. There have been a few shocking moments over the years when ITV cut to an advert break, only to return and be forced to show a replay of some amazing overtaking move for the lead of the race.

On a related note, I’m very envious of those who are looking forward to F1 returning to the BBC because there will be no commercials. I can’t tell you how many times important stuff happens that we miss in the States because of the required commercial breaks.

Free-to-view coverage will be necessary to go alongside the paid offering because most people cannot justify the price of a properly-done F1 broadcast. Ironically, Brightcove do supply a facility to add online video ads. My guess is that ad-free viewing is ITV’s ultimate supply point at this time, in order to gauge demand for the service (which appears to be pretty high). However, it does point to a possible route for a post-terrestrial TV financial model that would be easy for traditional thinkers such as Bernie to implement; free-with-ads-and-maybe-no-commentary for the majority and ad-free and well-commentated for those willing to pay.

Highlights clips would be freely available on YouTube and similar services as well as centrally at Formula1.com.

If Bernie can make more money by cutting out the middleman, he would do it the instant his mindset changed to allow him to do so. Until then, nothing will happen on the official internet front. It is definitely FOM that is requesting all post-1980 clips be removed from YouTube, though they go through a specialist intellectual property rights enforcement firm because the internet is so big.

The music industry has been clamping down on copying since cassettes began being swapped on a large scale in the early 1980s. Metallica became a big band by exploiting this illegal copying, which made it all the more ironic when they sided with the big music companies in the late 1990s when MP3 and the first wave of peer-to-peer servers hit the mainstream. It took until 2004 for a legal method of downloading music (iTunes) to be created. It is this corporate inertia that is still damaging their sales now (though that in part is due to inertia in the music they release and the marketing methods used as well as to distribution channels).

If, on the other hand, the music industry had seen what a brilliant business opportunity the peer-to-peer networks and MP3 represented at an early stage, they would have been at the stage they are now in about 2002, and by now could have made a fully-functioning business platform at least the equal of the traditional methods of making money (witness Amazon in relation to books and eBay in relation to auctions – even Google in relation to text information).

The thing is that F1 is still five years behind the music industry, having taken exactly the same path so far (in almost the same timeframe) to get to where it is now. This similarity of history is why I feel I can project a similarity of future if F1 continues on its present course.

I’m sure FOM could come up with some sort of DRM/ fee structure that would make it acceptable to the home broadcaster.

Take the premise that someone would rather watch F1 free than on their laptops (except, perhaps for hardcore fans who prefer more advanced features), only a small fraction of eyeballs will be diverted to the net (again one can price discriminate further by having different tiers of packages).

Also another mechanism to keep the TV companies happy is, say, to donate a percentage of the broadcast fee to the home TV company to ensure they aren’t out of pocket.

It can (and should) be done.

Around 6000 visitors came from Poland

Ah, the Kubica-effect. I wonder if the Poles have hyped their star as much as the British media have hyped Hamilton?

I feel bad that ITV is having to shoulder a global bandwidth load for these people (most/all of whom don’t pay a UK license fee).

Regarding the UK TV license, this only applies to the BBC and their services. ITV are a commercial network, thus they are funded through externally-sourced advertising. For 2008, the ITV F1 show is sponsored by Sony. The license and fee has nothing to do with ITV, but Sony’s funds do. Your point stands though, it’s all money at the end of the day.

What is really needed is a *global* streaming service

Yes, I agree. Although as mentioned, this would require a lot from the current broadcasting rights holders from each country, which I imagine will not be an easy thing to achieve now contracts are in place.

If that happens, ad revenue will go down, and the broadcasters won’t be able to pay him as much.

But couldn’t Bernie just organise these ads for himself? I’m not entirely certain how it all works, but if ad revenue for traditional broadcasters declines, then that is their problem. The clients could just pay Bernie directly for sponsorship. ‘Live Online Viewing from FOM and ING/Santander/whoever’…
…but we do still need the TV, at the moment at least anyway. You have a point Journeyer.

he’ll have to charge [...] which wouldn’t be too popular with any new viewers

True. I’m rabbiting on about willing to pay for everything because I think it’d worth it, but I guess the majority of fans wouldn’t be. There needs to be a happy medium somehow.

@everyone: Great comments so far guys and gals. Keep the ideas coming, we’ll sort out online F1 viewing eventually!

What is really needed is a *global* streaming service administrated by FOM (like live timing is). American sports leagues have been doing this for years–I assume that the barrier for F1 is that contracts with broadcasters need to be renegotiated (because broadcasters want exclusive rights for their geographic territory, and the ‘net would open that up). Also, Bernie has to decide how much to charge ;-0.

Or you could just offer your own thoughts on online viewing.

I feel another post coming on, but I’ll wait ’til Monday, just in case.

My main gripe with ITV is that it thinks Derbyshire is not in the UK, so I have to use [other] methods

Seriously? That is insane! Have you written to ITV to complain?

However, it looks doomed to repeat the mistakes of the music industry by spending more time enforcing the law than acting to make breaking the law unnecessary.

I think that is a little presumptuous, but I totally understand why you said it. The music industry are not the best example of this kind of thing, and to put it bluntly, they ballsed it up big time, almost beyond repair.

I say it is a little presumptuous though as no one has tried this in F1 yet. However, given FOM’s stance on online content (and I presume it is FOM requesting removal of videos from YouTube et al), they haven’t started out well. In my opinion, online viewing of races should have been around years ago. By now the service should incorporate all the things mentioned in the post and in the comments.

Alas, Bernie is getting a bit slow in his old age. That or he needs to recruit some better advisors. The technology has been around for a while, so there really is no excuse not to do what the fans want. As a few have said here and elsewhere, we’d even pay if it was top-notch.

The broadcasting rights should not be a problem. Whoever buys the rights for F1 for certain territory can buy just the quali and race or the whole package. If they do not buy the whole package, FOM may sell the rest to someone else or provide it for that territory on pay per view basis from F1.com site. This is being done by other sports, so it can be done … Just someone would have to want to do it …

Would certainly slow down their streaming even more!

Leaving the FIA/FOM to sort this all out may not be the best plan, as has been said before it all needs to be orchestrated and co-ordinated into a proper coherent package. Judging by the state of the F1 rulebook I’m not sure Max and Bernie are the men for the job!

F1 could manage this themselves and take the revenue directly without going through broadcasters.

Exactly, Nik. It would be a win/win situation for fans and Bernie, and as F1’s Live Timing is reasonably good, I feel they could run a system like you described fairly easily.

I was about to say, “if ITV can do it then so can FOM”, but I won’t because that would be foolish. But I’m certain they could do this and be successful with it.

Without a coherant online strategy, they risk losing their major revenue source as more viewers revert to pirated streams or downloads. Even though at the moment I download the races right after they have run (with the advantage of no ad breaks, being able to pause, rewind etc.), I would easily pay $10-20 per race to watch a multi-camera online stream with digital telemetry, different commentary streams etc.

A lot of the technology to allow viewers to pick any camera view (eg. any of the cars, follow a particular car etc.) is already in place, it just needs to be bought together in a good online package. Better yet, F1 could manage this themselves and take the revenue directly without going through broadcasters.