Storm Attacked By Ofcom

On the license costings point.

I am sure I read somewhere this week that a license from OFCOM costs £2000 a year. I'm guessing a foreign license would be in the same ballpark. All that's needed is to register a company in that country and apply.

In Europe that's easy for UK firms.

Shylok

Well if that is the case Shylok then the channels could easily make £2000 in one night. Something however tells me that it is a bit more complicated than that, such as the channels have to be based overseas in order to obtain an overseas licence. Cellcast is based in the Neitherlands for example.

Perhaps but what does based actually mean? A postal address? an office? a studio??? BS studio are still in the UK aren't they (up-linked from the UK too I think).

I wonder...

Shylok

(12-09-2012 18:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Well if that is the case Shylok then the channels could make easily make £2000 in one night. Something however tells me that it is a bit more complicated than that, such as the channels have to be based overseas in order to obtain an overseas licence. Cellcast is based in the Neitherlands for example.

Here we go see - Section 3.5

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/files/2012/03/Ta...012-13.pdf

£2000/year plus a £2500 application fee...

Shylok

(12-09-2012 17:22 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 16:48 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 15:43 )continental19 Wrote:  In my opinion there are a couple of alternatives the Adult channels can go, either they register there company in holland i.e babestation, and let's face it ofcom can't really touch them to a degree because of there Dutch license!!

Continental, we seem to get on and agree on most things, but I'm not with you regarding this Dutch license theory. It makes little or no difference, as we can clearly see by the crap Babestation spew out.

The theory is that Ofcom can't touch BS because of their Dutch licence, so why aren't we getting full on gash every night??

We are getting full on gash every night on BS Xtreme , why should Cellcast give the viewers something for free when they can charge the viewers a fiver a night for showing full on gash on Xtreme ?

You have a point, mr mystery, but only to a certain degree. What your explanation fails to explain is why (if Babestation are free from Ofcom's wrath because of their Dutch license) the cameramen are just as twitchy as all the rest when it comes to accidental flashes? Not wanting to out-do their own PPV channel is one thing, but the only explanation for the way they panic whenever there's a threat of gash is a simple one; Ofcom.

(12-09-2012 20:08 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 17:22 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 16:48 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 15:43 )continental19 Wrote:  In my opinion there are a couple of alternatives the Adult channels can go, either they register there company in holland i.e babestation, and let's face it ofcom can't really touch them to a degree because of there Dutch license!!

Continental, we seem to get on and agree on most things, but I'm not with you regarding this Dutch license theory. It makes little or no difference, as we can clearly see by the crap Babestation spew out.

The theory is that Ofcom can't touch BS because of their Dutch licence, so why aren't we getting full on gash every night??

We are getting full on gash every night on BS Xtreme , why should Cellcast give the viewers something for free when they can charge the viewers a fiver a night for showing full on gash on Xtreme ?

You have a point, mr mystery, but only to a certain degree. What your explanation fails to explain is why (if Babestation are free from Ofcom's wrath because of their Dutch license) the cameramen are just as twitchy as all the rest when it comes to accidental flashes? Not wanting to out-do their own PPV channel is one thing, but the only explanation for the way they panic whenever there's a threat of gash is a simple one; Ofcom.

Just remember that BS/Cellcast have only got one Sky channel that is Dutch regulated , the others are Ofcom licensed , BS 1 Sky channel 906 is the Dutch regulated channel, BS1 on freeview Ch 93 shows the same feed as Sky Ch 906 and is Ofcom licensed , if a girl flashed on the Sky Dutch regulated channel she would also be flashing on the equivalent freeview channel that uses a Ofcom licence .
BS/Cellcast on freeview have got two Dutch regulated channels , one is Ch 95 that broadcasts their Xtreme encrypted show and the other is BS Xtra Ch 94, the equivalent channel on Sky that shows the same feed as the freeview channel is Sky Ch 909 and has a Ofcom licence , so once again if a girl flashed on the Dutch regulated freeview channel she would also be shown flashing on the Sky Ofcom regulated channel , hence why they panic .

Yes, we do get full-on gash on BSX but Ofcon ensures that there is no full-on penetration so a Dutch licence makes no difference. The channel is less explicit than the Playboy group.

(12-09-2012 20:35 )mr mystery Wrote:  Just remember that BS/Cellcast have only got one Sky channel that is Dutch regulated , the others are Ofcom licensed , BS 1 Sky channel 906 is the Dutch regulated channel, BS1 on freeview Ch 93 shows the same feed as Sky Ch 906 and is Ofcom licensed , if a girl flashed on the Sky Dutch regulated channel she would also be flashing on the equivalent freeview channel that uses a Ofcom licence .
BS/Cellcast on freeview have got two Dutch regulated channels , one is Ch 95 that broadcasts their Xtreme encrypted show and the other is BS Xtra Ch 94, the equivalent channel on Sky that shows the same feed as the freeview channel is Sky Ch 909 and has a Ofcom licence , so once again if a girl flashed on the Dutch regulated freeview channel she would also be shown flashing on the Sky Ofcom regulated channel , hence why they panic .

I wonder why they don't simulcast the Dutch Sky channel and the Dutch Freeview channel? It makes no sense to mirror each Dutch channel with an Ofcom channel as they're instantly hobbling themselves.

They could simulcast the 'Dutch' channel on Sky (906) with Freeview channel 94 and make it just that bit naughtier and not have to panic about slips.

(12-09-2012 20:54 )blackjaques Wrote:  Yes, we do get full-on gash on BSX but Ofcon ensures that there is no full-on penetration so a Dutch licence makes no difference. The channel is less explicit than the Playboy group.

It makes a difference to the licence holder if they have a Dutch licence , like i said in a previous post this thread would not even exist if Storm were not Ofcom regulated . Channels such as Bangbabes, Live 960 and Babeworld would not have had their licences revoked if they had got a Dutch licence and could possibly still be transmitting today .

(12-09-2012 21:03 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I wonder why they don't simulcast the Dutch Sky channel and the Dutch Freeview channel? It makes no sense to mirror each Dutch channel with an Ofcom channel as they're instantly hobbling themselves.

They could simulcast the 'Dutch' channel on Sky (906) with Freeview channel 94 and make it just that bit naughtier and not have to panic about slips.

Either that, or it's because the Dutch license makes very little difference to what they're allowed to broadcast.

Look at it this way, if a fta babechannel on Sky, working under a Dutch license, was allowed to broadcast material to the same strength as BSX, then why hasn't some opportunist come along with a Dutch license, set up a fta channel on Sky, and given us what we really want? Do you think any of the other channels, including BSX, would get a look in if we had one channel offering semi-hardcore material for gratis? They could monopolise the whole genre, and it's naive to think that no one would have done it by now if it was as simple as the license they operated under.