Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(02-12-2009 04:52 )fatsoburger999 Wrote:  I'm all for harder content, but where are the questions on that link dude?

This is the problem with it. Whilst it's quite important to respond to it to make sure they aren't able to sneak in a toning down due to responses demanding that, the whole consultation doesn't seem to be addressing the content of the programmes. To me, that is every bit as, if not more, important than deciding whether the channels will be classed as teleshopping or editorial.

This would seem to be the first part of the battle in that Ofcom are recognising there is a demand for these channels and are actively putting together, and seemingly supporting, guidelines for them to continue.

The next part surely has to be what is permitted. Having trawled through the consultation, I note that it appears that the channels would be regulated under the Advertising Code as regards sexual content, nudity and inappropriate language. That would seem to imply pretty much an "as you were" for the continuation of them.

Having seen the amount of research the consultation has done into the various levels of call volumes at different times of the day, I'm now wondering even more if the sudden pushing the boundaries from certain channels has been done to put forward a case that call volumes increase when things get a bit raunchier.

The other worry is the fact that older viewers seem to be the main opponents of these channels. Does this mean that at some future point in my life, I'll go from thinking "oh my god, this is hot" to "oh my god, how the hell is this filth allowed on tv?" Will there be any warning signs that this will be about to happen as this is now causing me some concern

Mabe it's just me, but this seems a little confussing to me. From what I can gather, Ofcom are wanting to change the advertising rules to allow PRS on the babe channels, but only if there restricted to the Adult section of the EPG and therefore able to be pin protcted.

Where's the problem with this, as most if not all the babe channels are already in the adult section of the EPG.

Yes I can see the problem with freeview, but to be frank, if freeview had had any sense they should have incorporated channel catagories into the software which would have allowed them to restrict viewing of certain catagories.

But if the increased security of pin protection stops the ususspecting channel browser from being offended by not being able to see the content by accident, then a relaxing of the rules regarding content would seem appropriate given the extra protection.

Mabe Iv'e got this all wrong, Like I said Confussing!!!

(02-12-2009 17:58 )aceman65 Wrote:  Mabe it's just me, but this seems a little confussing to me. From what I can gather, Ofcom are wanting to change the advertising rules to allow PRS on the babe channels, but only if there restricted to the Adult section of the EPG and therefore able to be pin protcted.

Where's the problem with this, as most if not all the babe channels are already in the adult section of the EPG.

Yes I can see the problem with freeview, but to be frank, if freeview had had any sense they should have incorporated channel catagories into the software which would have allowed them to restrict viewing of certain catagories.

But if the increased security of pin protection stops the ususspecting channel browser from being offended by not being able to see the content by accident, then a relaxing of the rules regarding content would seem appropriate given the extra protection.

Mabe Iv'e got this all wrong, Like I said Confussing!!!

But the ability to pin protect these channels has been there all along and they all currently operate under the adult EPG on the Sky network. This whole consultation seems to centre around whether these channels can be classed as editorial or not. Ofcom have now decided that because they are constantly advertising a service, they can't be viewed as such.

If the channels aren't classed as editorial they can't currently exist as they are now. What Ofcom are now proposing is that they will be classed as teleshopping but will amend the rules which currently don't permit sexual content to be advertised under that banner to allow the channels to operate under that.

That doesn't suggest any relaxing as regards content though.

Can I just speak about PIN protection for a moment? I don't know if this is an option Ofcom themselves are serioulsy considering, but a lot of people here have put it forward as a simple soloution. However, despite me asking the same question a number of times everytime it crops up, no one has been able to explain to me how they think it would work. Unless there is the ability to incorporate all of the Babeshows under one PIN, I cannot see this being a viable option. I mean, how many people here fancy inputting their PIN 20+ times, every time they want to flick through the 900s?

(02-12-2009 21:23 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Can I just speak about PIN protection for a moment? I don't know if this is an option Ofcom themselves are serioulsy considering, but a lot of people here have put it forward as a simple soloution. However, despite me asking the same question a number of times everytime it crops up, no one has been able to explain to me how they think it would work. Unless there is the ability to incorporate all of the Babeshows under one PIN, I cannot see this being a viable option. I mean, how many people here fancy inputting their PIN 20+ times, every time they want to flick through the 900s?

From what I understand, they could put a forced pin protection on these channels which would mean having to put your pin in every time you changed channel.

The alternative as it stands now is if you want to pin protect certain channels yourself to stop your kids viewing them, you can through the parental controls and pick which channels you want to add to the list.

At least that the way I think it works!!!

(02-12-2009 22:00 )aceman65 Wrote:  From what I understand, they could put a forced pin protection on these channels which would mean having to put your pin in every time you changed channel.

I don't think you've quite understood what I'm asking, aceman. I know the above is do-able, but it couldn't possibly work. No one on this earth is going to be willing to enter their PIN every single time they switch channels.

What I'm trying to establish is this: if enforced PIN protection is the future for the babeshows, then I prey to God there's an alternative to having to enter it each time - otherwise these channels will be deader than flares!

Yes, there is an alternative to entering a PIN each time you change channel.

Ofcom want sexual content treated as a special category, so it makes sense to create a special rating, "18S" for 18 strength sexual content. It is already possible to lock-out or unlock all "18" material in one go, but of course that includes Steven Segal movies as well as Amanda from BangBabes. Having a separate "18S" category for the sexy stuff would allow families to let the boys see 18 films like Scarecrow or Half-Past Dead without knowing Dad's PIN but locking the sexual content, and allowing Dad to unlock all the sexual content in one go after they've gone to bed. What's to stop the kids seeing sexual content the next day, now it's been unlocked ? Simples. The box automatically resets the lock every day.

One PIN once a day.

All it takes is a Sky firmware upgrade.

(02-12-2009 20:03 )MARCCE Wrote:  This whole consultation seems to centre around whether these channels can be classed as editorial or not. Ofcom have now decided that because they are constantly advertising a service, they can't be viewed as such.

If the channels aren't classed as editorial they can't currently exist as they are now. What Ofcom are now proposing is that they will be classed as teleshopping but will amend the rules which currently don't permit sexual content to be advertised under that banner to allow the channels to operate under that.

That doesn't suggest any relaxing as regards content though.

This has been on the cards for a while... OFCOM suspect these channels are "at it" and are just trying to make life difficult for them. The current premium rate free-to-air shows are basically flawed in that the girls onscreen are essentially "attractive bait". That style of show is always gonna encourage more heat from the regulators/authorities.

There are far better ways to run things that would eliminate this problem and probably make more money in the long run...

(02-12-2009 14:52 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(02-12-2009 04:52 )fatsoburger999 Wrote:  I'm all for harder content, but where are the questions on that link dude?

This is the problem with it. Whilst it's quite important to respond to it to make sure they aren't able to sneak in a toning down due to responses demanding that, the whole consultation doesn't seem to be addressing the content of the programmes. To me, that is every bit as, if not more, important than deciding whether the channels will be classed as teleshopping or editorial.

This would seem to be the first part of the battle in that Ofcom are recognising there is a demand for these channels and are actively putting together, and seemingly supporting, guidelines for them to continue.

The next part surely has to be what is permitted. Having trawled through the consultation, I note that it appears that the channels would be regulated under the Advertising Code as regards sexual content, nudity and inappropriate language. That would seem to imply pretty much an "as you were" for the continuation of them.

There are 2 separate consultations, one looking at content, the other how channels are paid for.

The Broadcasting Code Review looked at how rude channels can be, and some tidying up of unclear wording. That review closed on 4 September and Ofcom are due to publish the results "in December". The 4th would make it a round 3 months, but perhaps that would be too obvious. The results will be wrapped in clear-as-mud Ofcom speak, but will decide whether knicker rubbing, flashes and fingering are allowed at all, and if special restrictions are needed.

Participation TV 3 is separate and still open. That consultation closes on 15 Jan. Ofcom have been saying for the past 2 years that Babe channels are really one long advert. Sex isn't allowed in adverts, so Ofcom say they should all have closed 2 years ago. But Ofcom are prepared to look at alternatives, like keeping the content but changing advertising rules and saying they are teleshopping.

Don't be in any doubt, if the consultation goes the wrong way, Babe channels will be allowed to carry on, but not to earn any money, and that will kill them stone dead. This is the 3rd consulation on the same thing - there won't be another delay.

I think it's higly unlikely the channels will be axed due to the fact the huge tax revenue it earns for the government. I saw a documentary on porn in america and uk, and the billions of tax it generates. A new porn movie is produced every hour. Even pension funds are invested in porn companies.
The fact of the matter is if it's making big dough it's not gonna go.