(07-02-2011 22:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: (25-01-2011 01:52 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: (20-01-2011 18:22 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Well my money is still on RLL with 5 complaints still to be investigated but expect those outcomes on Monday. With only 2.17% of the vote TVX now have 4 complaints to be investigated from December. What did i miss.
Up to 14 January 2011
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Wednesday, 08 December 2010 10 December 2010
Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 12 December 2010
Fone Girls Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 11 December 2010
Honey Days Dirty Talk Wednesday, 15 December 2010 15 December 2010
Well it would appear we all got it wrong. Ofcom are about to issue a financial sanction with possibly a 'Notice of Direction' to a channel operator not mentioned above.
The decisions on the 5 complaints against RLL have also been published and yes you've guessed it 'In Breach'. These broadcasts are shown on channels licensed to Playboy and Just4us who have previously been found in breach so therefore Ofcom are now stating
In light of the above and Ofcom‟s recent concerns with Just4Us and Playboy‟s compliance, Ofcom is now requiring the licensees to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance procedures. Ofcom also puts Just4Us and Playboy on notice that it must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure its channels comply with the BCAP Code in the future. Ofcom will not expect further breaches of this nature to occur again.
So whilst RLL have taken ex Bang talent on don't expect to see them pushing any limits. Whilst Playboy did relax it's stance with Bang (post revocation) following the meeting of all channel licensee's in early December they will not want to suffer the revocation of a licence, imposition of a Notice of Direction or financial penalty due to non compliance of a broadcaster. Expect to see them put RLL on a very tight leash with immediate effect.
Read all about it.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue174.pdf
Well the enforcement has begun. As predicted above a 'Notice of Direction' has been served on Hoppr Entertainment Ltd holder of broadcast licence TLCS 851 for channel Live 960.
The notice requires ownership information to be provided to Ofc@m in order to determine whether the de facto control of Hoppr Entertainment Limited complies with the media ownership rules as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
I believe this to be a bit of a smokescreen, Hoppr Entertainment Ltd are not exactly in the same league as Rupert Murdoch in relation to media ownership.
This notice is to get accurate ownership information prior to the revocation of the licence and/or a substantial financial penalty to ensure correct service of such legal documentation.
The clock is now counting down on this broadcaster.
Also in trouble again is Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited for breach of
Rule 1.17 “Material equivalent to the British board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time”.
allegedly shown during the freeview section of their encrypted service Climax 3-3 on the 1st July 2010.
Whilst Playboy owned up to the breach the following day to Ofcom they will still be put on notice that this present contravention of its licence is being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.
So having been called in last week for a final warning and with several investigations still outstanding expect this broadcaster, once the outcomes of those investigations are made public, to be hit with a substantial financial penalty far in excess of that received by Bang for both it's encrypted and FTV services.
The question is will they fight the penalty through the courts, accept it or just close the channels down/transfer the licenses.
Following the service of the Notice of Direction on Hoppr Entertainment Ltd a month ago Ofc@m have now followed this up with a Notice of Revocation due to the relevant ownership information not being provided.
I don't know how long channel 960 has been off air but generally they would have been given a period of time to provide the information in both the NoD and the NoR, generally a month in each case.
Revocation of the broadcasting licence is the ultimate sanction and it will be interesting to see if the ex licensee will appeal the decision or let it lie.
The appeal process is not a judicial review at the High Court but a Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT ) which was created by Section 12 and Schedule 2 to the Enterprise Act 2002 which came into force on 1 April 2003.
The current functions of the CAT with regard to Ofc@m are:
To hear appeals on the merits in respect of decisions made under the Competition Act 1998 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the regulators in the telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, railways and air traffic services sectors.
To hear actions for damages and other monetary claims under the Competition Act 1998.
To review decisions made by the Secretary of State, OFT and the Competition Commission in respect of merger and market references or possible references under the Enterprise Act 2002.
To hear appeals against certain decisions made by Ofcom and the Secretary of State relating to the exercise by Ofcom of its functions under Part 2 (networks, services and the radio spectrum) and sections 290 to 294 and Schedule 11 (networking arrangements for Channel 3) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).
How the appeals process works
A person aggrieved by any of the above decisions, can appeal on either or both of the following grounds:
That an error of fact has been made.
That an error of law has been made.
The Communications Act has provided new arrangements for appeals to heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT ).
These include:
Appeals decided by the CAT on the merits and by reference to the grounds of the appeal set out in the notice of appeal
The CAT must include in its decision, a decision as to what (if any) is the appropriate action for Ofcom (or other decision taker) to take in relation to the subject- matter of the decision under appeal
The CAT may then remit the decision under appeal to the decision maker with such directions (if any) as the CAT considers appropriate to effect its decision
A decision of the CAT may be appealed to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session (in Scotland ) on a point of law.
So Hoppr Entertainment Ltd have limited scope of appeal but if they feel that information previously provided to Ofc@m concerning ownership was sufficient to satisfy Ofc@m then they could argue that Ofc@m are seeking information beyond their remit. If the information is good enough for Companies House then it should be good enough for Ofc@m.
I believe Ofc@m are trying to establish the controlling relationship between Hoppr and the broadcaster (they who cannot be mentioned) who also operate on other channels licensed to Satellite Entertainment Limitedand whom Ofc@m are also pursuing.
Ofc@m are known to pursue licensee's who do not comply with their wishes and demands, and when setting financial penalties will use a series of multipliers to increase any penalty on licensee's who are willing to argue their case or challenge Ofc@m, sufficient enough to put a small broadcaster out of business eg Bang Babes.
Broadcast Bulletin
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue177.pdf
Competition Appeal Tribunal
http://www.catribunal.org.uk/