+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 18-05-2013 22:54
(18-05-2013 22:37 )mr mystery Wrote: I don't think Ofcom have backed off at all or are likely to in the near future, in fact i can feel it in my water that something is a foot, RLC have not very recently gone tamer than normal without reason, STD 66 has tame nights as well, xxXPanded is tame all the time so you can't tell with them, Storm is the same, i haven't seen it mentioned by Ofcom that they are launching any new investigations into the babe channels and i haven't seen it mentioned by Ofcom that any complaints have been made to Ofcom about the babe shows recently either, but something doesn't feel right to me, there's just to many extra nervous camera guys knocking round most of the channel in my view that could indicate they know something is a foot.
Also just remember the cap posted by SB of girls kissing was a cap from a European owned and licensed channel regulated by Nicam not Ofcom .
Thats a fair point mr mystery, yes channel 906 is regulated by Nicam but the other 2 Babestation channels are not. I admire you for being wary, however RLC and Studio66 both have a history of going tame for some unknown reason, I'm hoping it's got more to do with over cautious producers and nothing more sinister.
Every night I have a bad feeling that all the channels are going to be reigned in. I've had this gut feeling for the past few years now, ever since the days when Babestar TV had their licence revoked so swiftly at the start of 2007.
Because I'm an optimist I try not to think of the very worst scenaria. When I see a good show I just hope that maybe just ofcom have finally backed off but also at the back of my mind I also aknowledge that's it probably too good to be true
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 18-05-2013 23:12
Look let's face it none of us no what's going on behind the scenes at Ofcom, however like SB, I'm more of an optimist than a pessimist, and I'm hoping that maybe something is happening behind closed doors at Ofcom which might be going in our favour. At this moment in time it's been a long while since Ofcom have been wielding there sword to the babeshows, and there must be a reason why they haven't clamped down even further already! I agree with SB that some shows can be extremely tame, then the next minute there pushing the limits? The reasons for that is anyone's guess?
I have a question, can someone please tell me why it seems so hard for the other channels to get a foreign license like babestation? Now I don't no the logistics of this, but surely if it was easy to do, then the majority of the other channels would have followed Babestations path by now?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 19-05-2013 01:59
I think the only reason that Ofcom are being quiet is that the channels have never been tamer, therefore Ofcom have won (for the moment). Also, based on the lack of recent complaints the channels have also stopped grassing each other up, which helps.
However, if one of the operators decided to up the ante I'm sure the proprietor of S66 would be biking DVD recordings of the transgression to Ofcom the following morning, just like he did before.
Regarding getting a foreign licence, this is a huge hassle with probably no commercial benefit. Cellcast use theirs to a limited extent so that they don't jeopardise revenue from their so-called 'harder' pay channels. It was also easy for them to get one as they're a pan-European operation anyway.
A channel with no harder pay TV option could possibly use a foreign licence to broadcast harder free to air content, but would it be worth it financially?
To get a foreign licence you have to demonstrate that your company is based abroad, that the operations are managed from abroad and that the signal is uplinked from abroad.
I watched the progress of a religious channel in the last few years to see how easy it was to get a foreign licence. Revelation TV (a small UK operator) got lots of hassle from Ofcom because their fund raising efforts fell foul of Ofcom's rules. Therefore the company decided to go for a Spanish licence.
It turned out to be a massive upheaval and only now, after about four years of problems, has the company got some sort of stability, but they're still utterly skint so I'd say it was a pointless exercise!
Essentially the company directors had to relocate to Spain, run the company from there, build a studio there and uplink to the satellite from there. They also have to run a studio in London because most of their contributors are based there. Either that or pay to fly them out to Spain ever week. Crazy.
The same would be true of a UK babe station. It just wouldn't be worth it. Playboy could possibly do it but as they have harder pay TV channels they've obviously decided that it's pointless.
As viewers we'd love some harder free to air content but if the only way to get it is by operators using foreign licences it won't happen because it doesn't work from a business point of view.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 19-05-2013 12:40
(19-05-2013 01:59 )Digital Dave Wrote: Regarding getting a foreign licence, this is a huge hassle with probably no commercial benefit. Cellcast use theirs to a limited extent so that they don't jeopardise revenue from their so-called 'harder' pay channels. It was also easy for them to get one as they're a pan-European operation anyway.
A channel with no harder pay TV option could possibly use a foreign licence to broadcast harder free to air content, but would it be worth it financially?
To get a foreign licence you have to demonstrate that your company is based abroad, that the operations are managed from abroad and that the signal is uplinked from abroad.
I watched the progress of a religious channel in the last few years to see how easy it was to get a foreign licence. Revelation TV (a small UK operator) got lots of hassle from Ofcom because their fund raising efforts fell foul of Ofcom's rules. Therefore the company decided to go for a Spanish licence.
It turned out to be a massive upheaval and only now, after about four years of problems, has the company got some sort of stability, but they're still utterly skint so I'd say it was a pointless exercise!
Essentially the company directors had to relocate to Spain, run the company from there, build a studio there and uplink to the satellite from there. They also have to run a studio in London because most of their contributors are based there. Either that or pay to fly them out to Spain ever week. Crazy.
The same would be true of a UK babe station. It just wouldn't be worth it. Playboy could possibly do it but as they have harder pay TV channels they've obviously decided that it's pointless.
As viewers we'd love some harder free to air content but if the only way to get it is by operators using foreign licences it won't happen because it doesn't work from a business point of view.
I don't think it's quite as complicated as that to broadcast a babe channel using a Dutch or other European licence on UK TV as you do not need to be the licence holder to do so, BS/Cellcast UK do not qualify for a Dutch licence of their own, BS do not have any TV licences either Dutch or UK, what they do is broadcast babe shows on channels and licences belonging to other company's that are either based in the UK or the Netherlands, Game Networks BV a Dutch company based in Amsterdam are the owners and licence holders of the BS channels with a Dutch licence, obviously they are a Dutch company based in Holland and presumably pay tax to the Dutch so can easily get a Dutch licence, BS is just a program shown on a channel owned by this Dutch company with a Dutch licence, So i should think that any Babe channel could just do what BS/Cellcast have done and find a Dutch company or another company from a different country willing to purchase a Sky or freeview slot and broadcast babe channel programs using their non Ofcom licence on UK TV .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 19-05-2013 13:41
(19-05-2013 12:40 )mr mystery Wrote: ...
BS do not have any TV licences either Dutch or UK, what they do is broadcast babe shows on channels and licences belonging to other company's that are either based in the UK or the Netherlands, Game Networks BV a Dutch company based in Amsterdam are the owners and licence holders of the BS channels with a Dutch licence
...
It's not quite as simple as that.
As I understand it, Game Network was originally a separate company mainly focused on broadcasting video games across europe, but they were brought by Cellcast around 2005.
So BS is actually broadcasting on licenses owned by another company that is owned by the same company that owns BS, all in the same family
Seems a pretty tall order expecting independent third party companies to get overseas licenses and obtain UK airtime just to rent to the likes of babe channels, and looking at BS, it doesn't seem to make much difference in terms of content anyhow, so why would the channels bother, they seem more content with pursuing other revenue streams instead these days, using their websites and cam shows to offer harder content rather than the babeshows themselves.
EDIT : As an aside but kind of related, here's a link to a document where Ofcom basically admit that they had discusssions with their dutch counterparts regarding the Game Network channels (specifically mentioning Babestation), and the conclusion was that they are outside their jurisdiction :
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/freedom-of-information/foi-responses/2013/February2013/1-226261739/
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 19-05-2013 14:59
(19-05-2013 13:41 )munch1917 Wrote: EDIT : As an aside but kind of related, here's a link to a document where Ofcom basically admit that they had discusssions with their dutch counterparts regarding the Game Network channels (specifically mentioning Babestation), and the conclusion was that they are outside their jurisdiction :
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/freedom-of-information/foi-responses/2013/February2013/1-226261739/
That's a dam good find mate, i see this info was only released in January of this year when some one requested the info. Yes it states that Game Networks BV own the Sky and freeview channels and provide the services for Babestation, i didn't realize that Cellcast had actually bought the Dutch company, they're a crafty bunch are Cellcast .
It say's the Dutch counterparts were satisfied that the BS/Game Network channels fall within their jurisdiction, i bet that pissed Ofcom off .
Talking about the benefits of a Dutch licence i still think there are some, for a start it's beneficial to be able to start before 12am on freeview, this has to be a advantage, a channel rep on here more or less admitted this to me via pm that Babestations Dutch licence and start time is a advantage . Then there is the fines, RLC/Playboy have had to pay large fines, SEL have had to pay large fines, Bang Babes had to pay large fines and later had their licence revoked, Would these channels have had to pay these fines if they had a Dutch licence ? , would Bang still be broadcasting ?,.
Also the Dutch regulated BS channel do show slightly harder content as well and could possibly show harder content if they wanted . The UK channel's at times are being spoiled by nervous producers and camera operators scared that some one will report any slight slip, so seem to play extra safe, with out the fear of Ofcom the shows could be better .
Another babe channel also has a Dutch licence not just BS, but as yet they have not used it .(probably waiting for Ofcom to revoke their present one, if you know who i mean)
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 19-05-2013 16:13
My timings may be off, but I suspect this information refers back to the time when Ofcom were supposedly asking the dutch authorities to rein BS in regarding their broadcast start time. It all ties in and kinda makes sense.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 19-05-2013 16:32
I know it's all old news with Ofcom v Nicam but it still brings a smile to my face when I read quotes such as this coming from our Dutch counterparts
“The permissive Dutch regulator, NICAM, allows porn on terrestrial TV saying it is not “seriously harmful” to children. NICAM says it “does not pass a judgement on the content, the good-bad taste and the decency of television programmes.”
Ouch that must have hurt you ofcom
"The Dutch legislator, hence also NICAM, are of the opinion that by that time children should be in bed and that adults should be able to decide what to watch and what not to watch. Indeed, NICAM does not participate in a discussion about morals or good taste when it comes to what adults can watch.”
Back of the net - Stick that one in your peace pipe and smoke it Ofcom
For a reminder again of the full story
Click Here to see
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/03/08/ofcom-complains-about-dutch-sex-channels/
RE: Ofcom Discussion - gtheboy - 19-05-2013 22:47
What was that I heard?
Give people a vote to stay in/opt out of the EU?
Perhaps the rules only relate to the price of food/Fuel
or maybe just maybe,freedom of expression
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 20-05-2013 12:33
Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out today, Issue number 230 and dated 20/05/13 .
Iv'e just been having a quick look through it, no babe channels are mentioned as being found "in breach", but Ofcom state in this latest bulletin that they have started new investigations into Studio 66, Ofcom have launched investigations into something broadcast by Studio 66 on the 04/04/13 on Studio 66 TV 1, Ofcom have also started new investigations into somethin broadcast on Studio 66 TV 2 on the 17/04/13 and also something broadcast on Studio 66 TV 3 on the same date , Ofcom do not say what they are investigating .
If i'm not mistaken Ofcom after finding Studio 66 in breach not long ago put them on notice that any further breaches of the rules could result in statutory sanctions .
{edit} Just noticed in this latest bulletin that Storm Nights got a complaint made against them for something broadcast on 27/03/13, Ofcom assessed it and decided not to investigate the complaint further .