Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(17-12-2009 04:11 )DanVox Wrote:  Curiously Ofcom don't just say it has to be encrypted, they say "Premium subscription channel or pay per view/night", so they have created a rule saying strong material has to be paid for, not just encrypted.

So If that part is true, then what's to stop a babe channel going pay-per-view to cover itself legally, but only charging 5p per night to watch. There no law to say they can't do that and still keep there customers and show stronger material.

It would need to be 5p a year as a subscription, with a written code that they couldn't increase the price in line with inflation, etc, why, because we all know what greedy fuck's they already are, give them in inch and they would take a mile. example £2.00 per text, £4.00 to send in a picture of yourself. £1.50 per min to call, the first 2 mins are taken up listening to their shite, then you get lobbed into a queue, then if your lucky enough, you get to speak to the girl of your choice. before running out of credit. Then you get the look of disgust on the girls face, because you hung up on her.

(17-12-2009 06:18 )aceman65 Wrote:  

(17-12-2009 04:11 )DanVox Wrote:  Curiously Ofcom don't just say it has to be encrypted, they say "Premium subscription channel or pay per view/night", so they have created a rule saying strong material has to be paid for, not just encrypted.

So If that part is true, then what's to stop a babe channel going pay-per-view to cover itself legally, but only charging 5p per night to watch. There no law to say they can't do that and still keep there customers and show stronger material.

In order to pay, you must be identifiable and presumably then your age can be checked.
That would seem to be the main reason, not the amount of money involved.

(17-12-2009 06:18 )aceman65 Wrote:  So If that part is true, then what's to stop a babe channel going pay-per-view to cover itself legally, but only charging 5p per night to watch. There no law to say they can't do that and still keep there customers and show stronger material.

Independent monthly subscription channels in the Adult section of the Sky EPG have to pay BSkyB £1.55 (+VAT) per month, per subscriber. (Which is around 6p per night)

However I recall that the contribution to Sky is quite a bit higher than 6p per night for "Pay Per Night" viewing, you also have to take into account the cost of credit/debit card handling, administrative fees etc which would push the cost quite a bit higher.

So this theory would not be viable unless you had a high number of subscribers who actually called in as well, or you charged a higher subscription price for the majority of people who just watch.
Since Live XXX and the encrypted version of TVX Call Girls no longer operate, then I would assume that this business model doesn't make money.

(18-12-2009 01:55 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Since Live XXX and the encrypted version of TVX Call Girls no longer operate, then I would assume that this business model doesn't make money.

OFCOM's rules on content doesn't exactly help matters... I think most customers expect far more from pay-per-view/subscription channels, and when stronger material is readily available elsewhere they aren't gonna keep paying for substandard content.

(18-12-2009 10:34 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  

(18-12-2009 01:55 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Since Live XXX and the encrypted version of TVX Call Girls no longer operate, then I would assume that this business model doesn't make money.

OFCOM's rules on content doesn't exactly help matters... I think most customers expect far more from pay-per-view/subscription channels, and when stronger material is readily available elsewhere they aren't gonna keep paying for substandard content.

Dead right the model doesn't pay. Anymore. Ofcom warned the shows off "hardcore" content. After that they didn't dare actually show dildo or finger penetration or oral. And who's going to pay for softcore ?

Don't believe me ? If you subscribe to Playboy or TVX check out repeats of Nightcalls, SVX:Live or the Lolly live shows. See anything as strong as the live shows from just a few years ago ? Course not, the explicit bits have been edited out because Ofcom have clamped down.

Danvox, that's the real issue. Ofcom don't allow "R18-type" material to be broadcast "at any time". So, despite paying your "premium subscription" (£5 per night, £10-£15/month or £120-£180 a year) to an 'adult' service provider, you still only get SOFTCORE SHITE - BECAUSE of OFCOM's fucking precious Code!!!

I'm sure we can all basically agree that FTA channels should perhaps not show the strongest sexual content where minors (under 16) might be able to view it without ma and pa knowing.

But there can be NO ARGUMENT that adults who pay EXTRA for specialist sex channels should not get what they bloody well pay to see.

This is EXACTLY what 75% of the public AGREE should be the state of play (source: The Public's View, 1996-2002). The public believe adult channel subscribers SHOULD be able to get "particularly sexually explicit material" on TV. And just to clarify, "particularly sexually explicit" cannot mean "inexplicit softcore" can it? No! It means R18-type particularly sexually explicit sex works!

This 'decision' by Ofcom to ban R18-type material is totally arbitrary and totalitarian (its fascist!). There is NO health, moral or legal reason for Ofcom's unnecessary interference with the tranmission of perfectly legal R18 material. And let me point out (again) that the High Court allowed hardcore at R18 BECAUSE there was NO EVIDENCE it COULD cause harm to minors that MIGHT see it (i.e. there's not only no reason to ban R18, there's no real reason to demand encryption of ANY sexual material either).

The viewing public DO NOT support Ofcom's ban and, as WE the people PAY for Ofcom, then Ofcom had better start doing what WE the people want... And I'm sorry folks but when a regulator starts DICTATING what can or can't be shown on TV (in direct violation of a High Court ruling I might add), you can rest assured that you don't live in a democracy. In fact, we currently live in an authoritarian presbyterian religious dictatorship - and the PROOF of that is that we can't see real porn on TV (indeed, Jack Straw did his utmost to get R18 banned as soon as the courts decided it should contain hardcore sex).

(19-12-2009 18:23 )IanG Wrote:  I'm sure we can all basically agree that FTA channels should perhaps not show the strongest sexual content where minors (under 16) might be able to view it without ma and pa knowing.

No, I don't agree. Not for one second. Unrestricted access to HC porn (and worse) is but a mouse click away. When is some of the responsibilty for what these kids see going to be put on the parents? The 900s are in the adult section, and can be locked in one go.
I don't see why I - as an adult (in years, if not in brain) - should have to put up with Ofcom's ridiculous rules and regulations, just because some parents can't control their own children.

(19-12-2009 18:23 )IanG Wrote:  ...
This 'decision' by Ofcom to ban R18-type material is totally arbitrary and totalitarian (its fascist!)

Ofcom themselves say that the updated Broadcasting Code is more or less what they originally proposed, little more than clarification of rules that weren't clear. Despite a 3 month consultation period and another 3 months to digest the results, the final result is 99% what Ofcom said it was going to do. The few differences seem to be a few very clear cases where the big broadcasters said Ofcom's wording would not work.

There are several cases where large broadcasters made good points and Ofcom ignored them. These were not major controversial areas where it would have hurt to take account of the points.

So what was the point of the "Consultation" ?
Quite clearly Ofcom had made up it's mind beforehand.

Paragraph 2.16: The BBC pointed out that Ofcom define a competition as ... a competition. This is legal grabage and a lawyer would have a field day. This regulates every single phone in competition and entire quiz channels - it's a crap definition in an area worth £millions.

Channel 4 pointed out that there is no definition of "images and/or language of a strong sexual nature" and felt that educational shows like The Sex Education Show and KNTV:Sex might break the rules. (Rules 1.19 and 2.3)

Channel 4 also felt that Rule 1.20 “Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed … Any discussion on, or portrayal of, sexual behaviour must be editorially justified if included before the watershed" was trouble.

What is a "representation"?
A boat gently rocking ?
A couple under a blanket ?
A caravan rocking with "Oo oo oo" noises ?

As Channel 4 pointed out "storylines in Hollyoaks, Eastenders and Coronation Street often involve strong sexual themes.”

These weren't broadcasters trying to be difficult, or porn channels trying to completely change the rules, these were responsible broadcasters warning Ofcom that the draft rules didn't mean what they thought they did, and trouble could follow.

Ofcom ignored most of their suggestions.

If Ofcom clamp down and really piss people off they only have themselves to blame if there are a flood of valid complaints about farm animals shagging on Countryfile (representations of intercourse), Ian Beal in Jenine Butcher's bed on Eastenders (sexual behaviour) and Teletubbies holding hands (that's sexual behaviour, surely).

Channel 4 are showing Cecil B deMille's Ten Commandments Monday lunnchtime. It has an orgy scene. Before the watershed. Either that's against the rules because it is before the watershed, or sex is allowed before the watershed in films.

But I'm still half hoping that secretly Ofcom will loosen up a bit, and the "nothing's changing, honest guv" press release is just to get the Daily Mail off their back.

To be honest, any scene featuring Ian Beal or Jenine Butcher having sex ought to be banned. I'm broadminded but ...