Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion

(18-07-2015 11:39 )mr mystery Wrote:  new company's that can't provide accounts will i assume need to assure Ofcom that they have finances required to be able to broadcast TV programs and hold a licence .

You have assumed wrong. I've just read the application form and accompanying notes and it's clear that there's no such requirement. Newly established companies are exempt from having to supply any financial details, other than details of their shareholders so that Ofcom can see who would own and control the license.

(18-07-2015 12:32 )DB83 Wrote:  If you call transmiting a continuous loop from an internet feed "Broadcasting"

What's an internet feed?

With all the intrigue that has been going on,Sin TV troubles could be a good TV series idea. Victoria in the Alexis role perhaps

(18-07-2015 12:05 )retah-rotaredom Wrote:  It was laughable to suggest they could be resurrected Lazarus-like for a second time!

Maybe. But no more laughable than you suggesting that it had been resurrected for a first time.

Well, many have put some great ideas/requests forward on this forum whilst they were active. Seems a shame it all fell on deaf ears.

After reading some of the rumoured financial horror stories on here, I doubt it would have made enough difference to keep them afloat anyway but who knows.

I would like to say I'll miss them, sadly I won't.

Still, it is a shame because they did show signs of great potential at the start.

(18-07-2015 12:40 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(18-07-2015 12:32 )DB83 Wrote:  If you call transmiting a continuous loop from an internet feed "Broadcasting"

What's an internet feed?

The simplest example I can give is how s66 ran the LA service and did the self-same thing with CaraB this week.

Ok. It is not a known fact and only an assumption. It should be a cheaper option than direct encoding to mpeg-2 - (the camera(s) were HD), transmit that by hi-speed cable to the uplink station for ultimate broadcast.

(18-07-2015 12:14 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(18-07-2015 11:39 )mr mystery Wrote:  So if the girls/staff not getting paid is due to the company behind Sin TV running out of money, then Ofcom has granted a licence to a company that after a very short time has no money left in the Kitty, so maybe that could be a concern for Ofcom ? .

No, absolutely not. Ofcom have never withdrawn a broadcasting license for those reasons. Insolvent companies have often been allowed to continue broadcasting.

The company behind Sin TV is not as yet a insolvent company, It's not a old company winding down, it's a new company with a new licence, iv'e never seen Ofcom grant a new licence to a insolvent company.
Ofcom may allow existing company's to carry on broadcasting for a determined time while winding down, until everything is sorted out, but they will need to inform Ofcom of their financial status i assume. ?

Also i didn't say in that post that Ofcom will withdraw their broadcasting licence, i just pointed out that a newly licensed channel that Ofcom has passed fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence may have run out of money, if this is the case, and i emphasise "if" then that may be a concern to Ofcom, .

What i'm trying to get at is, it may be a concern to Ofcom that they have granted a new licence to a new company that may have not been financially solid when the new licence was granted, so it could bring into question their own judgement when granting the new licence in the first place, this is the point i'm trying to make, Sin TV is a new company, not a old one gradually running down .
So did Ofcom do their job correctly when granting the new licence ?, if not then that would be a concern to Ofcom i assume ?

Ps, i'm actually asking questions, hence the ? marks in my posts .

(18-07-2015 12:52 )DB83 Wrote:  The simplest example I can give is how s66 ran the LA service

What's the LA service?

(18-07-2015 12:36 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(18-07-2015 11:39 )mr mystery Wrote:  new company's that can't provide accounts will i assume need to assure Ofcom that they have finances required to be able to broadcast TV programs and hold a licence .

You have assumed wrong. I've just read the application form and accompanying notes and it's clear that there's no such requirement. Newly established companies are exempt from having to supply any financial details, other than details of their shareholders so that Ofcom can see who would own and control the license.

You may have only just read the application form, iv' actually been reading various broadcasting application forms for some time.

I'm perfectly aware that new company's are exempt from providing comany accounts. as they are new and probably can't provide any in the first place lol, (but only new company's when they first apply for their licence), but in the ones iv'e seen it doesn't say new company's are exempt from providing Ofcom with details of how the applicant will finance it's channel .
From what i understand new company's must assure Ofcom finances are available to them when and if required to broadcast programs and all it entails. (or something like that)
There is actually a statement somewhere concerning the crack down on granting new licences to new broadcasters and their finances .

(18-07-2015 13:10 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(18-07-2015 12:52 )DB83 Wrote:  The simplest example I can give is how s66 ran the LA service

What's the LA service?

You really should look back in the s66 forum for the answer to that.

It really was not that long ago. And, yes, that was also transmitted on 942.