chat back as been closed down

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...2/summary/
New rules about premium rate services promoted in programmes
1.1 Ofcom is proposing new Broadcasting Code rules for programmes involving participation by viewers or listeners via premium rate services (‘PRS’). These rules (‘the proposed rules’) will make absolutely clear that such programmes must not in effect be vehicles for the promotion of PRS.

1.2 The proposed rules will help ensure three important objectives:

that audiences and consumers are adequately protected;
that advertising is kept separate from programme content (‘editorial’); and
that broadcasters do not circumvent advertising prohibitions by using programmes to promote services that cannot be advertised.
1.3 The proposed rules are set out in full in Section 4 of this consultation and summarised below:

Broadcasters may only charge viewers via PRS to take part in programmes (not by credit card, direct debit, cash etc).
Where a PRS is used in a programme for audience participation, it must not be given undue prominence within the programme.
The programme must consist primarily of content other than the promotion of the PRS.
The primary purpose of the programme must be editorial, and any commercial activity associated with the PRS (e.g. generation of call revenues) must be secondary to that purpose.
Ofcom’s 2007 Consultation on Participation TV
1.4 This consultation follows Ofcom’s consultation in July 2007 on Participation TV: protecting viewers and consumers, and keeping advertising separate from editorial (‘the 2007 Consultation’) and an important judgement by the European Court of Justice (‘the ECJ’) on 18 October 2007.

1.5 The 2007 Consultation set out proposals in respect of two separate but related issues:

PTV Part 1: Protecting viewers and consumers across all types of television content that encourages viewers to take part (‘Participation TV’ or ‘PTV’). This was of particular significance in view of the number of serious compliance and editorial failures in PTV (particularly regarding PRS voting and viewer competitions) that came to light in 2007, most notably in mainstream programming broadcast by the public service broadcasters. Ofcom published a final statement on PTV Part 1 on 19 February 2008 . The issues in respect of PTV Part 1 are therefore not discussed further in this current consultation.
PTV Part 2: Ensuring that advertising is kept separate from programme content (‘editorial’) in accordance with European broadcasting legislation and UK regulation. This is a particular issue in programmes, blocks of programmes and indeed entire channels that are predicated on the use of PRS (the key genres being dedicated quiz, psychic and adult chat TV services), rather than in mainstream programming.
1.6 The 2007 Consultation said that Ofcom’s preferred option for PTV Part 2 (subject to consultation responses and further consideration of all the relevant issues) was that new rules should be added to the Broadcasting Code to limit the extent to which PRS may be used in programmes. Suggested drafting was also provided. One of the other options was that all programmes predicated on the use of PRS should no longer be classified as editorial but as teleshopping (essentially, long-form advertising containing direct offers). Out of the possible options, stakeholders favoured Ofcom’s preferred option for stricter rules to be added to the Broadcasting Code.

Decision by the European Court of Justice
1.7 We made clear in the 2007 Consultation that a judgement was expected from the ECJ as to whether a quiz TV show (where viewers call a PRS line to take part) could be classified as teleshopping, and that the potential implications for UK broadcast licensees were extremely significant.

1.8 The ECJ published its judgement on 18 October 2007, just after the 2007 Consultation closed. It said that a quiz TV show could be classified as teleshopping (essentially, long-form advertising containing direct offers) if – taking into account certain factors – it included “a real offer of services”. Ofcom believes that the significance of the ECJ’s judgement extends beyond blocks of quiz TV to other genres of PTV displaying similar characteristics, for example adult chat TV and psychic TV.

Ofcom’s decision that new rules are required
1.9 Having carefully considered both the stakeholder responses to the 2007 Consultation and the ECJ judgement, Ofcom has concluded that new rules are required to ensure that programmes only use PRS where there is sufficient editorial justification and are therefore not simply vehicles for the promotion of what is essentially a commercial, revenue-generating service.

1.10 The proposed rules take into account the factors identified by the ECJ as relevant. They are therefore different to – and indeed stricter than – the draft rules proposed as Ofcom’s preferred option in the 2007 Consultation. Whilst we have concluded that new rules under the Broadcasting Code are indeed required regarding the use of PRS in PTV, in the interests of fairness, transparency and proportionality, we are now consulting on the wording of those rules.

Effect of the new rules
1.11 The advertising standards codes provide significant protection for consumers, especially over misleadingness and other direct consumer detriment. It is appropriate and proportionate that content that is in effect a vehicle for the promotion of PRS should be reclassified and regulated as advertising.

1.12 The proposed rules would apply to all programmes which feature PRS. Many mainstream programmes, such as game shows with a viewer competition element and reality shows, feature PRS in a secondary manner that is likely to comply with the new rules. Such programmes would therefore continue to be classified and regulated as editorial under Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.

1.13 Ofcom intends that, if programming does not comply with the proposed rules, then it must change significantly in order that it does comply and may continue to be broadcast as editorial.

1.14 If it does not change, then the broadcaster is only able to continue showing the content if it is possible to do so under the BCAP Advertising Standards Code for Television (“the BCAP Ad Code”). If it is a prohibited advertising category under the BCAP Ad Code, i.e. adult chat on unencrypted channels and psychic practices, it must be taken off air. In the case of adult chat, there is a further option of the channel becoming properly encrypted as the BCAP Ad Code does allow adult chat phone services to be advertised on encrypted adult entertainment channels. If the content is not a prohibited advertising category, e.g. blocks of quiz TV or non-adult chat TV, to remain on air it must be reclassified as teleshopping and comply with the BCAP Ad Code. It must also comply with advertising minutage limits. These limits have particular consequences for the commercial public service broadcasters, that is ITV, Channel 4 and Five.

1.15 The implications of the proposed rules are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this document. This consultation does not cover betting and gaming services, which Ofcom is considering separately .

Radio
1.16 Section 10 of the Broadcasting Code, which sets out rules to ensure that advertising and editorial content are kept separate, applies to radio and television equally.

1.17 This document focuses upon television because there are clear examples of television channels and programmes involving PRS that raise issues under the separation principle. However, there is some PRS-based quiz content on radio, and it is possible that similar concerns regarding the promotion of PRS in radio programming could arise in future. Also, Ofcom believes that, in addition to PRS, the proposed rules should apply to other telephony services based on similar revenue-sharing arrangements, e.g. 084 and 087 services. Radio phone-ins often involve such telephone services.

1.18 Ofcom therefore intends that the proposed rules should apply to radio as well as television. If radio content should use and promote PRS in a manner inconsistent with the proposed rules, then it may be considered to be advertising. It would then need to be clearly separated from programming and to comply with all the other requirements of the BCAP Radio Advertising Standards Code.

Responses to this Consultation
1.19 Stakeholders are invited to provide comments on the draft rules and on the specific questions set out in this consultation paper by 3 June 2008 (Consultation deadline extended from 22 May 2008). Details of how to respond are provided at Annex 1. We are allowing a consultation period of six weeks, as we have already held a ten week consultation on the question of how to regulate the promotion of PRS in programmes in order to ensure a proper degree of advertising separation. We also published a pre-consultation Issues Paper in December 2006, which identified the regulatory challenges posed by content predicated on the promotion of PRS and sought comments from stakeholders.


Ofcom’s consultation on Participation TV Part 2: keeping advertising separate from editorial closed on 3 July 2008. The consultation proposed amendments to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code to ensure that programmes based on audience participation are not effectively advertisements for premium rate services.

We were intending to publish a statement in summer 2008. However, we received over 50 responses from stakeholders representing a diverse range of views, which require further consideration. Ofcom anticipates making a more detailed announcement before the end of the year. As usual, should Ofcom decide to make any regulatory changes, licensees will be given reasonable notice before such changes are implemented.

my bad i thaught they had been taken to court, but i guess it was buried instead (read the last paragraph).

Hexit Wrote:my bad i thaught they had been taken to court, but i guess it was buried instead (read the last paragraph).

Thanks for that Hexit.

So, OFCOM has stalled in their quest to turn the 900's into Tellyshopping channels, as it would seem that the "Babe Channels" would turn the tide and fight OFCOM in court.

But can anyone give a clear answer to this question:

Does ChatBack currently have the correct licence to broadcast "adult chat"?

m8 i wouldnt read to much into it as babeworld had a teleshoping licence 2. i think they still do.

Thats interesting HEXIT , but why doesnt anyone do anything about all this.
Rules and regulations ,in my view, are meant to keep the people of this wet and dreary island of ours safe in all aspects of our daily lives.
In the day of MP expenses coming to light surely a way to save money would be to abolish ofcom.The only people they seem to fine is us as the licence payer/taxpayer and so must be, by definition, the only organisation in the world to be able to fine their boss.
Its about time,especially in this time of recession we start a petition on the goverments website to get rid of that useless regulator they call ofcom.

OfCom issued a "consultation" document last year expecting to shoo in a ban, only to have 50 responses most of which disagreed. They couldn't cope with just 50 responses !

Some took their proposal apart, and this is the bit they could not cope with, suggested a workable alternative.

OfCom are stuck. They aren't complying with the European Court ruling, but can't clamp down because they had to publish responses that undermine their position.

Here is just one viewpoint. Rules on teleshopping are supposed to prevent viewers being mislead. But babe channels are upfront about what they are selling. They exist to sell premium rate phone calls and nothing else. Like it or not, no-one is mislead. So OfCom needs to create a new category with it's own rules, instead of shoehorning BangBabes in with QVC.

Another proposal is to introduce a mandatory once-a-day PIN for babe channels. A free one. OfCom says kids need protecting from accidentally tuning in. And some adults are offended. So put a PIN number on that applies to all FTA adult channels. Enter it once an evening and it unlocks all the free channels, but gets reset the next day. Of course that totally undermines OfCom's argument that babe channels can't be explicit because they might offend people who tune in by mistake.

I've spoken with Ofcom regarding the Participation TV consultation last year and I'm told that there will be movement this year.

The delay has been caused by the ASA http://www.asa.org.uk launching consultations on the CAP & BCAP codes, the results of which could affect the future of participation TV.

I believe that Ofcom will consult again this summer with the revised codes in mind and the results of which could very much change the face of adult content. Notice of any policy changes would probably be given in the final quarter of 2009.

Thanks for reminding me, smme100. CAP and BCAP are industry representative bodies. Their codes have no legal status, but like most "voluntary" codes of practice, there is an understanding. Have a code that the public support, stick by it, and you won't be prosecuted. CAP *ALLOW* nudity in billboard ads. They *ALLOW* explicit sexual content in ads for sex products, like sex chat lines advertised in the back of porn mags. The suggestion - given to OfCom last April - was that the TV part of BCAP should have adult channel representation. OfCom have had over a year to start things rolling. Advertisers don't piss about.

Who owns the BCAP code ?
OfCom.
"Since 1 November 2004, the Code has been the responsibility of the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), under contract from the broadcasting and telecommunications regulator Ofcom." BCAP Foreword

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the babe shows disappeared once and for all. I wonder if the next conservative government will finally spell the end of these shows.

to be honest i think they are now just playing for time. they got laura on there tonight and the poor girl is having to tell callers she's not allowed to get em out. i doupt any of the callers have been understanding and have probably given her abuse. its disgusting the way they are leaving the girls out to dry like this. they should stop the nighttime shows till they can sort out exactly what they can and cant do.
the girls cant do there job, they cant earn there bonuses because they cant keep the callers on the line past," sorry i cant im not allowed"... again i say its fucking disgusting....