EuroBabes - Chat & Discussion

(16-02-2015 00:31 )Markus76 Wrote:  

(16-02-2015 00:03 )DB83 Wrote:  And, although I may be wrong with this, Germany has a law that outlaws such receivers and cards.

No, we germans are allowed to buy a Receiver and Smartcards. We have Sky Germany and they even run a pornchannel.

So, it would be fine, if they do this, but who would buy a receiver a smartcard and wanny pay extra for calls and Exklusive Shows?

Markus. Methinks you misunderstood me. I know about Sky Germany. I was thinking about the other methods of encryption that exist over satellite. But like I said, I may be wrong about this but it goes back many years when I had interest in satellite encryption and the methods of defeating it.

I understand you, i have had Sexview and other channels in the past, and i bought the Smartcards from German Reseller....

Ah the golden era of the smartcards - SKY UK used to have it too when it used to be called SKY Astra - I missed that era but before the 1998 digital satellite breakaway where we used to also be able to pick up numerous soft and hard porno channels from Germany - The ITC (Ofcom's predecessors) knew about it but happily turned a blind eye to it as SKY was a whole new concept and besides most people just had the basic 4 channels in the analogue days so they were of the opinion that if you subscribed to SKY then there was no way of controlling what was receivable. Besides back then they were unable to regulate anything over than channels that were UK based.

With regards to SKY Germany, you'll find that they have more or less the same type of receiver that we have here in the UK. You will have a SKY viewing card which you will use to add any subscriptions onto so the idea of ETV going encrypted would infact work. Ofcom also would not be able to force them into the same set of rules that the FTA channels have to abide by hence the reason Playboy and TVX can show full on pussy.

As for the IPTV route, it's just not feasible. A couple of months ago I walked into my local Satellite/Cable TV store and none of the guys even had a clue about how you'd set this equipment up. They have heard of it but that's about it. It lacks any kind of commercial backing and it will slowly fade away as it's just not a popular route anybody wants to undertake.

Even if you take SKY UK out of the equation with regards to ETV it's just not able to show what it once used to in it's heyday. Encryption may be it's only route to survive with or without the inclusion of SKY UK. As it stands they are only allowed a mere 5 hours per night for adult broadcasting, that's even less than the 7 hours our channels are given.

Maybe BSX on freeview is a encrypted channel that it would be possible for ETV to broadcast on for a few hours on certain nights when BS don't broadcast their own live shows ?.
Cellcast seem to struggle half the time trying to find something to put on BSX, ETV would be able to put out their full strength shows and promote their websites etc .

(15-02-2015 22:44 )DB83 Wrote:  It just beats me why they even tried in the first place.

Because Cellcast needed something to fill Sky channel 945 and with the UK being a big market ETV probably felt they had a potential gain with this proposed venture and not much to lose.

Contrary to what 301 and winsaw have posted in this thread previously ETV would not been paying anything to broadcast on Sky. It was a Cellcast show with a Cellcast name and Cellcast graphics.

The only issue for ETV would have been changing their usual output to comply with Ofcom rules, which they were originally willing to do, even though they soon backtracked on that decision.

Given that they were originally OK with the idea of taming their output to fit in with UK requirements, and didn't see that as a problem, what did they have to lose by taking part in this venture?

I really do not see how you can say that ETV would not be paying anything to broadcast on SKY.

True that Cellcast rent the transponder and provide the graphics and even the telephone numbers but they are no charity. Could they, Cellcast, reasonably expect call volume itself to cover that AND give ETV a cut for providing the moving pictures.

Of course, no one know the exact financial arrangements but my own take on it would be that ETV were contracted to atleast cover the rental cost during the hours they broadcast and, in return, a % of the call income.

If you know differently, or wish to explain your own logic, then BMG

As to what they, ETV, had to lose, there is no point in repeating what has already been said.

Like the UK, there will be tons of Germans who do not subscribe to SKY so use FTA sat boxes which can pick up basic German analogue channels as well as ETV.

The old type Sky boxes could be tuned in to other channels. I know the Italians used to do that but they also complained when there was a transponder change on Hotbird and for some time could no longer get the channel.

Not sure if the digital boxes can be tuned in to analogue services not on the EPG so that could be an issue if they wanted to encrypt the service for Germany.

(16-02-2015 11:24 )DB83 Wrote:  my own take on it would be that ETV were contracted to atleast cover the rental cost during the hours they broadcast and, in return, a % of the call income.

As a business proposition that wouldn't make any sense.

You're saying that ETV provided the show AND covered the costs of the channel.... and all Cellcast did is put the graphics on? And as a reward for doing nothing except putting the graphics on Cellcast got a cut of the call revenue? It seems rather unlikely.

Lets not forget that there is another company involved in Sky channel 945 (Babes From TV) and that is the most important one, the provider of the broadcasting service "Square world Communications Limited" http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/radiolice...fromtv.htm
This is the company that was granted and paid for the Ofcom Sky licence, according to Ofcom rules a broadcasting licence cannot be sub let .
Square World communications LTD being the licence holder and provider of the broadcasting service must be under Ofcom rules the company in general control of what is broadcast on Sky 945, this is the company that Ofcom would find in breach if any rules were broken .
This company must be deriving money from somewhere, and is ultimately the company that determines and controls what is broadcast on 945 .

Babe channels in the past have lost their licence because Ofcom thought the licencee wasn't the company in general control of what was broadcast on the channel it was the licence holder of

If anyones interested here is Ofcom's guidelines for the sub letting of capacity and who are the ones they regard as being the broadcast service provider (in this case it will be Square World Comunications Limited, not Cellcast or ETV) http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/t...ovider.pdf

(16-02-2015 12:58 )Will Drifter Wrote:  

(16-02-2015 11:24 )DB83 Wrote:  my own take on it would be that ETV were contracted to atleast cover the rental cost during the hours they broadcast and, in return, a % of the call income.

As a business proposition that wouldn't make any sense.

You're saying that ETV provided the show AND covered the costs of the channel.... and all Cellcast did is put the graphics on? And as a reward for doing nothing except putting the graphics on Cellcast got a cut of the call revenue? It seems rather unlikely.

Well give me your business proposition.

But I guess you do not know how franchises work. Not that I am saying that this arrangement is a franchise but that is how they work.