Babestation Xtreme - Chat & Discussion

In reply to hexit, nobody knows how much of a market there is for this kind of channel, so at the moment you should think of it as a trial only. If it isn't successful as you seem to think then it won't get beyond the trial stage.

In reply to whizzer, since as stated above the new channel is launching on a trial basis it doesn't need any freeview space. As it's a trial and nothing more it can be broadcast on one of the existing Babestation freeview slots.

(31-03-2010 12:46 )admin Wrote:  In reply to hexit, nobody knows how much of a market there is for this kind of channel, so at the moment you should think of it as a trial only. If it isn't successful as you seem to think then it won't get beyond the trial stage.

In reply to whizzer, since as stated above the new channel is launching on a trial basis it doesn't need any freeview space. As it's a trial and nothing more it can be broadcast on one of the existing Babestation freeview slots.

trial or not i honestly cant see it working for more than a couple of months. i would hope it could work but as i said im doubtful even when encrypted ofcom will bitch and moan then issue fines ... as for market at a guess im thinking 10 percent of the current freeviewers who watch the babeshows may sign up for the first month. and probably decrease rapidly over the next few months depending on the strength of the content. but if its no harder than whats on sky then they will have the same problem the adult channels have atm. ie not enough subscribers... i mean if you look at some of them there offering 12 channels for 1 pound thats 8 pence per channel and i doupt that they got a big increase in sales.

just for the record m8 i did sub to tvx about 3 years ago i got 2 nights and didnt bother after that. they promise the hardest content available on tv, and they delivered. they delivered cut down porn movies that consisted of bad acting and cut away sex, phil barry(? cathys hubby) shouting at some wannabe porn stud to get it up and fuck his wife? the reality of it was that the programs were barely stronger than there adverts and this put me off from buying it again.

@wizzer,. pretty much but the more analog they turn off the more room for digital there will be. supposedly there is enough room for around 900+ channels (tv radio and txt) 1s the analog signal is gone.

So Mr "ADMIN" it looks like your post 38 of this thread and dated 5/3/10 was misleading and incorrect ,as you stated that "there may be somthing extra before long and since it would be extra it wouldn't involve replacing or altering any existing channel" , so how can it be broadcast on a existing Babestation freeview slot without replacing or altering a existing channel ? . I would guess that the show it would replace would be Live99 , and that would be a shame as it is a good show .

its "admin" and i think he only knows what he has said, and that its fluid atm. so if things change he can hardly be held responsible. the guy is trying his best to keep us informed so cut him some slack.

(31-03-2010 14:30 )Hexit Wrote:  

(31-03-2010 12:46 )admin Wrote:  In reply to hexit, nobody knows how much of a market there is for this kind of channel, so at the moment you should think of it as a trial only. If it isn't successful as you seem to think then it won't get beyond the trial stage.

In reply to whizzer, since as stated above the new channel is launching on a trial basis it doesn't need any freeview space. As it's a trial and nothing more it can be broadcast on one of the existing Babestation freeview slots.

trial or not i honestly cant see it working for more than a couple of months. i would hope it could work but as i said im doubtful even when encrypted ofcom will bitch and moan then issue fines ... as for market at a guess im thinking 10 percent of the current freeviewers who watch the babeshows may sign up for the first month. and probably decrease rapidly over the next few months depending on the strength of the content. but if its no harder than whats on sky then they will have the same problem the adult channels have atm. ie not enough subscribers... i mean if you look at some of them there offering 12 channels for 1 pound thats 8 pence per channel and i doupt that they got a big increase in sales.

@wizzer,. pretty much but the more analog they turn off the more room for digital there will be. supposedly there is enough room for around 900+ channels (tv radio and txt) 1s the analog signal is gone.

I find myself in this unusual space of agreeing with Hexit after our last face off. For me the only way this could work is to have a slightly/allowable harder version than what we experience at the moment.If this is via pin then I actually think people would go for it if its priced properly. in any event most of the girls don't have a problem removing their knickers it just means we haven't got to worry about cushions and all that shit and they can say fuck without looking like a naughty school girl. So something in between The adult channel and what we have now people may tune in.

But in the absence of realistic launch material or something concrete this thread is becoming a bit like an election campaign!!!

Have they mentioned what it will cost to watch one of the shows on this channel?

(31-03-2010 14:53 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  For me the only way this could work is to have a slightly/allowable harder version than what we experience at the moment.If this is via pin then I actually think people would go for it if its priced properly.

That makes sense. But there could be a knock-on effect - if BS want to differentiate this channel from the other unencrypted BS freeview channels, but can only reach a certain level of explicitness, might that not entail 'taming' the current channels even further to establish the 'new' one as properly different, and 'harder'? (Temporarily, at least). As Freeview and Sky currently broadcast lots of the same channels, Sky's output may be affected too.

This encrypted channel will need to be sufficiently different to get people to pay for it, though. I guess the precise nature of what you get that is different or 'extra' over the other freeview channels will determine its success.

(31-03-2010 14:49 )Hexit Wrote:  its "admin" and i think he only knows what he has said, and that its fluid atm. so if things change he can hardly be held responsible. the guy is trying his best to keep us informed so cut him some slack.

I understand what you are saying Hexit , but i was annoyed when i read what Admin had posted as i keep a couple of friends informed about the babe shows who do not have Internet connection and only have freeview , they were worried that they would be loosing one of the babestation shows to a pay per view channel and i assured them that Admin had said that the existing shows would not be altered or replaced , so it now looks like i have got to give them the bad news because neither one is in the financial position to start paying for babe shows. I Also wonder what freeview people think about the possibility of loosing one of the Babestation shows as sky viewers will not be loosing one , another case of freeview discrimination by Cellcast ?. PS i am a sky viewer so it does not really bother me .

Apologies to mr mystery for the previous information not being entirely correct, but as hexit has correctly explained things in the planning stage are fluid and subject to change. But yes it is true that in order for freeview viewers to gain a channel they also have to lose one, unless and until more freeview space becomes available and is acquired for Babestataion channels. I would stress again though that the forthcoming channel is only a trial.

I wouldn't be too dissatisfied at losing channel 94 as I can never get singal on the bloody thing! I'm moving house next month, so here's to hoping I get a nice signal there : ).
I would be interested in paying for such a channel, like maybe £5 a month, but anymore and I think that is too much. I'm on a tight budget atm, plus if they do charge astronomical amounts, I doubt anyone will bother!