Ofcom - Current Investigations

A little more on the fees that Ofcom charges.

Fees for 2010-2011 are based on a broadcaster's earnings in 2008. This only makes sense if the market as a whole is static and each broadcaster keeps the same market share. It is well known that ITV's advertising revenues have dropped heavily, and a reasonable person might assume other broadcasters have had similar changes.

Fees are expressed in bands. Ofcom describes these as "cumulative" but the table shown is not cumulative in the accepted sense of the word - if it was each band would start from £0. Ofcom itself acknowleges this by calling the fees "progressive" elsewhere. This muddled, downright wrong and self-contradictory use of English is far from unique in Ofcom documents.

Rates for Public Service Broadcasting (ITV1, C4, Five and PSB Simulcasts on other channels) start at 0.19% and rise to 0.67% at £300 Million revenue. There is no additional fee for anything over that, so ITV1, C4 and Five probably all pay the same top whack.

Rates for non-PSB TV Licencable content (from Sky1, Fiver and E4 to BangBabes) pay a lower fee from 0.06% increasing to 0.44% at £300 Million revenue.

BBC1 and 2 seem to be exempt. It is not obvious what rate BBC3 and BBC4 attract, but perhaps they are regarded as "non-PSB TV Licencable content" and pay the lower rate.

So if ITV broadcasts Morse on Channel 3 it pays one licencing rate, presumbably because it gets a cosy protected Must-Carry channel that the entire UK can receive, but if it broadcasts exactly the same show on ITV2 it pays a lower rate - even if it gets the same advertising revenue. And that is despite having the additional costs of News, Education, Drama etc.

To illustrate the problems this causes, presumably ITV need an internal accounting system, so that ITV2 can pay ITV1 for "selling" them an episode of Morse. On second thoughts I might be seeing too much complexity, but they certainly have to keep advertising money in different accounts - even if they sell a multi-channel bundle.

Teleshopping channels are charged a flat-rate £2,000 a year. A non-PSB TVLC would need turnover of £3.6M on one channel to pay the same fee. So when BangBabes becomes 7 official shopping channels in October their new style fee will be £14,000, probably an increase from now.

Applications cost £2,500 and variations cost £1,000 a pop, so each time Desmond changes a channel name it might cost him. (Not clear if name changes count). Certainly if a Sky or Freeview slot is sold from one broadcaster to another the fee would be payable, so Sky will be paying Ofcom to take over Virgin channels.

Finally, the rate fees are charged at depends on the licencee's annual turnover - not the channels. Having multiple channels means paying a higher rate across the board, a point probably not lost on Viacom with many Scandinavian channels.

Why on earth do Public Service Broadcasters pay higher fees on the same turnover than competitive businesses (Bravo, Living, etc), when the PSBs attract fewer complaints per £ of turnover (or per viewer if you prefer) and have the additional overhead of PSB content? It's the wrong way round.

It couldn't last. Three weeks without a complaint against a babe channel and then

Up to 18 June 2010

Bang Babes Tease Me Friday, Broadcast 07 May 2010 Complaint made 12 May 2010

Someones come back from their holiday.

From looking through the Ofcom archives there are no recorded complaints against the Babestation channels. Now i know that they are registered outside the UK and it has been said that they do not fall under the juristiction of Ofcom so what do Ofcom do with the complaints. There must be some as Babestation generally push the fully naked shows and there are numerous slips.
So do Ofcom just forward the complaints with a advisory letter to Babestation or totally ignore them stating no juristiction powers to the complainant.
Whilst i appreciate it would go down like a lead balloon but has anyone tested the theory.
Bluebird have yet to reveal their hand and have not purchased or transferred any licenses from Ofcom, so are they going down the Cellcast route and operate outside of Ofcom's rule.

I haven't seen any complaints against them either, and if they truly are registered in Holland, than why no full frontal nudity??? Obviously they would have been fined MANY times by now, if Ofcom had any power over them, so why are they censoring things?

A few of the women can show glimpses of their nether regions, yet some women aren't allowed to show anything. What gives?

I think the reason we haven't seen complaints is because NOBODY is complaining!!!!! Only rival companies. Not that complaints should matter anyway.

roxy from the boudoir told me they get fined for oops n whatever but i just think its because the government have found a way to tax our fun aswel as all our money

(29-06-2010 23:36 )pewack1976 Wrote:  roxy from the boudoir told me they get fined for oops n whatever but i just think its because the government have found a way to tax our fun aswel as all our money

I've heard of models being fined before, £000s for whatever the channel was. Thought the Victorians made it illegal for someone to give an employer a full shift of work, then get docked a day's pay for one mistake. And what responsibility does the cameraman and producer have? Employ a model, tell her to push it as far as she can, and let it be known that she won't get repeat bookings unless she turns up the heat to generate high call volumes, then claim it's all her fault?

Next, barmaid fined for selling beer. Lorry driver fined for driving long distances.

Looking for the reason why Cellcast had to take BSd daytime of from its 5:30-6 slot cherri said its because one of the girls transgressed the rules has anyone seen it and know who it was

ive just been reading a little bit about what ofcom have been doing as regards to these shows,on a website i just come across and some fines are pretty severe,i can understand to a certain degree that you need to keep an eye on certain things but i think if you relaxed the restrictions people would now what to expext and then make theyre own minds up if they want to watch or not ? then when its the norm seeing topless ladies during the day no one will be offended,not even topless,just a few slips here and there`s only for a bit of fun !!!
but i feel whoever watches these channels are watching them for the same reason we all are,if your up in the 900`s during the day its to see some boobs and a pretty girl have fun
its all about fun and the restictions are slowly taking that away from us now too ?
and i think at the night time they should be able to not just get naked but let us actually see some fun with like toys and let the girls play around its totally crazy how strict this has become

At 9pm on channel 4 tonight there is a documentary about sex education.
It says the lesson tonight is about female anatomy with the use of nude models.
Don't suppose Ofcom will be investigating that, even if it shows a lot more than the babeshows.

(06-07-2010 09:35 )TheWatcher Wrote:  At 9pm on channel 4 tonight there is a documentary about sex education.
It says the lesson tonight is about female anatomy with the use of nude models.

Lucky bastards! We used to get a big text book with pencil drawings of beared men humping women.

(06-07-2010 07:08 )pewack1976 Wrote:  ive just been reading a little bit about what ofcom have been doing as regards to these shows,on a website i just come across and some fines are pretty severe,i can understand to a certain degree that you need to keep an eye on certain things but i think if you relaxed the restrictions people would now what to expext and then make theyre own minds up if they want to watch or not ? then when its the norm seeing topless ladies during the day no one will be offended,not even topless,just a few slips here and there`s only for a bit of fun !!!
but i feel whoever watches these channels are watching them for the same reason we all are,if your up in the 900`s during the day its to see some boobs and a pretty girl have fun
its all about fun and the restictions are slowly taking that away from us now too ?
and i think at the night time they should be able to not just get naked but let us actually see some fun with like toys and let the girls play around its totally crazy how strict this has become

Well that's easily done isn't it? If every freeview slot started with "Warning: do not subscribe to this channel if you are unable to stop your children accessing it and if you feel they may be harmed or that you may be offended by explicit R18-strength consensual adult sexual activity including fellatio, cunnilingus, penetration, mastrubation and ejaculation".

I feel I KNOW HOW to warn and protect people from that which they feel may harm or offend. Ofcom clearly don't even though its their fucking job - hence their growing log of fortnightly Bullshittings.

Ofcom are specifically tasked to PREVENT harm and offence NOT fine channels after the fact because Ofcom are too fucking stupid, evil and miserable to let people know EXACTLY what's going to be on screen.

In most EU countries (the one's that care about such piffle) they place age ratings and/or content symbols on-screen so you know what's what as you flick through the channels.

How can any tosser claim to be offended by a babe channel when there's a clear red '18' rating staring them in the face? How could you be in any doubt what's on a subscription adult channel with the warning above (and they'd repeat the warning when you applied to access the channel)? I had to sign a disclaimer the first time I subscribed to one of the so-called adult channels back in the old ITC days - pity it didn't deliver what I expected...but that's another story...