Back To The Golden Age (If Only)

(22-10-2011 22:05 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I wonder if secretely Ofcom are just jealous because it's only babe channels on the 900+ platform, maybe just to even the score they should have a bloke channel for the gays and women which obviously this is what the Ofcom panel are made up of , just a thought, I obviously wouldn't be watching it, I only like women

Lol I'm strictly a ladies man, however with ofcom allowing all the cocks and balls flying around, and they seem completely ok with seeing men nude, you can't help but think there might be some closet gays on the panel

Hey Stan sorry for the rant towards you earlier in the day. let me just say that I'm sorry that I failed to make you understand what my original post meant. No hard feelings. (No hard feelings bad choice of words for this sort of forum)

(22-10-2011 11:21 )skateguy Wrote:  

(22-10-2011 05:49 )rockey Wrote:  if ofcom disappeared tomorrow the channels would stay exactley the same......

Not a chance. The channels would compete for viewers, or more importantly callers. The easiest way they'd be able to do this would be being more explicit than their competitors. Anyone who didn't reveal more would lose out to those that were. It would change the face of the free to air/view channels completely. While the channels might prefer to get a fiver from viewers in return for more revealing/explicit shows, with no restrictions they'd be forced to compete on their free channels - it'd only take one channel (for example a new channel which would need to make its mark maybe) to show more skin in order for the others to follow suit. Those with more than one channel might be able to offer different types of services on different channels to appear to different markets - nude models on one and lingerie clad glamour models on another - although I'm not convinced the latter would work if there were no restrictions whatsoever.

your an optimist pal i will give you that...... first they have a monopoly.....meaning they dont have any competition.....and just as well because they would not survive starting from there camera work to there producers to there models to there sets everything is below par maybe you like the orange plastic starting to melt look but i guarantee your in the minority maybe not on this forum but in this country......second the same companies who produce pay per view produce this dross.....why would they slit the throat of there real profits......the senario you talk about existed 3 years ago on the hotbird satelite up to 80 channels with a range of beautiful women of all ages colours and styles doing shows..... now today the ppv crowd bought them all up and replaced them with qvc.......how could they charge however much if its free?

(22-10-2011 17:50 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(22-10-2011 16:51 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  For fucks sake Stan I've not asked any fucking questions What the fuck are you smoking.

Maybe you should have rephrased your OP then.

(20-10-2011 23:34 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  And who would be the first channel to get back into the old routine?

And then I went on to answer. Like many others Stan you write in forum cliches and if it's in anyway original you find it hard to understand.

(22-10-2011 23:07 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  Like many others Stan you write in forum cliches and if it's in anyway original you find it hard to understand.

What?

(22-10-2011 22:51 )rockey Wrote:  your an optimist pal i will give you that...... first they have a monopoly.....meaning they dont have any competition.....and just as well because they would not survive starting from there camera work to there producers to there models to there sets everything is below par maybe you like the orange plastic starting to melt look but i guarantee your in the minority maybe not on this forum but in this country......second the same companies who produce pay per view produce this dross.....why would they slit the throat of there real profits......

If I may be so bold, rockey, that's complete nonsense. Even if the existing channels didn't want to risk out-doing their PPV channels with harder fta shows, that wouldn't stop some opportunist with no connections in the PPV sector coming along and offering a fta show that offers content just as strong as the pay channels. Let's imagine you run a fta show and a PPV one - sure, you're going to keep your good stuff for the PPV, but what happens if I come along, with no shows at all and set up a fta show that's just as explicit as your existing PPV one?

Anyway, hypotheticals don't warrant this depth of discussion.

(23-10-2011 02:14 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(22-10-2011 22:51 )rockey Wrote:  your an optimist pal i will give you that...... first they have a monopoly.....meaning they dont have any competition.....and just as well because they would not survive starting from there camera work to there producers to there models to there sets everything is below par maybe you like the orange plastic starting to melt look but i guarantee your in the minority maybe not on this forum but in this country......second the same companies who produce pay per view produce this dross.....why would they slit the throat of there real profits......

If I may be so bold, rockey, that's complete nonsense. Even if the existing channels didn't want to risk out-doing their PPV channels with harder fta shows, that wouldn't stop some opportunist with no connections in the PPV sector coming along and offering a fta show that offers content just as strong as the pay channels. Let's imagine you run a fta show and a PPV one - sure, you're going to keep your good stuff for the PPV, but what happens if I come along, with no shows at all and set up a fta show that's just as explicit as your existing PPV one?

Anyway, hypotheticals don't warrant this depth of discussion.

be as bold as you like my friend thats what a monopoly means no outsiders allowed.....look lets get away from the babe channels a minute lets try sport if i wanted to show big fights or premiership football free you think sky is going to let me even if as a broadcaster i bankrolled it.....look at how they went after the arabic channels that landlord used she won her case but i guarentee they will find a way to block them you watch.......

(22-10-2011 22:51 )rockey Wrote:  first they have a monopoly.....meaning they dont have any competition.....

(23-10-2011 03:05 )rockey Wrote:  be as bold as you like my friend thats what a monopoly means no outsiders allowed.....

There is no monopoly of the FTA/FTV babe channel market. If there was only one organisation providing the shows that run on the FTV/FTA babe channels there would be no competition and that company would monoploise the market. This isn't the case. Several companies, with no connection between them, produce these shows. There is no monopoly. There is competition.

there is no monopoly damn?..........ok does that mean they aint all broadcasting from the same building ?......legally they may have the ts crossed and i,s dotted but if anybody believes there is real competition really does not understand how business works or maybe they do and they dont want to rock the boat?

Okay, rockey, we give up. Please explain how you know so much more than everyone else on this subject. You're an expert, obviously, so share your knowledge with us.