+- 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: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey (/showthread.php?tid=17241)
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - Cobblers - 14-02-2010 04:49
I expect when watching adult entertainment channels to see adult entertainment.
If that adult entertainment takes the form of sexual material, then I expect no restriction on the type of material depicted, providing it is legal and generally considered not harmful. This is the criteria the BBFC decided on after their major overhaul of the classification guidelines a few years ago, and I fail to see why it does not apply to television viewing. Anyone who finds an R18 DVD lying around can watch it by simply bunging it in a player. The BBFC have taken this into account, and concluded that the danger and potential harm posed by someone under the age of 18 doing this are not sufficiently proportionate to justify banning such material altogether.
With digital TV platforms, you can't just bung an adult channel on like you can an adult DVD or video. You need to know the PIN code, you need the adult section of the EPG to be visible through the digibox settings and, in the case of the subscription channels, you need access to a credit card or similar age verification payment system. Yet Ofcom consider that these obstacles are not sufficient to protect children, and that the harm posed to them by viewing such material DOES justify a complete ban. Why the discrepancy - does Ofcom know something about this that the BBFC don't? Why won't they reveal the criteria which they used to reach a different opinion than the BBFC?
Why do I frequently see in the Ofcom Bulletins that broadcasts on various channels which have attracted multiple complaints, sometimes in the hundreds, do not even warrant a written response before being noted as not upheld, yet upheld complaints about the adult channels often come about due to 1 or 2 complaints.
Exactly what benefit do broadcasters of the 900 channels receive from being in the adult section of the EPG? Ofcom frequently respond to complaints about them in the Bulletin by saying that being in the adult section of the EPG does not offer any concession on the guidelines by which channels not in the adult section abide by. So why bother with it at all?
And why should harder material be restricted to those who can afford it? If, as is frequently claimed, the use of credit cards is as much an age verification process as a payment method, then what's to stop a channel with PIN protection charging a token 10p a month to verify age, then broadcasting harder material for free supported by income from, say, a Babe style phone operation?
But yeah, basically - expectations? I expect as an adult to be allowed to watch whatever I want, within the confines of the law. I don't expect a self-appointed body to apply a far heavier set of restrictions than the law without some serious, academic research showing that such controls are both necessary and proportionate.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - BarrieBF - 14-02-2010 11:12
(14-02-2010 04:49 )Cobblers Wrote: Exactly what benefit do broadcasters of the 900 channels receive from being in the adult section of the EPG? Ofcom frequently respond to complaints about them in the Bulletin by saying that being in the adult section of the EPG does not offer any concession on the guidelines by which channels not in the adult section abide by. So why bother with it at all?
Sky bother with it so that those who don't want the adult channels can block them all in one go.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - Cobblers - 14-02-2010 13:25
Yes, but if Ofcom aren't prepared to recognise this ability to block them altogether by giving the channels a little more leeway in content over those not in the 900s, then what's the point?
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - orchid500 - 14-02-2010 17:22
(11-02-2010 21:01 )IanG Wrote: Stan, sorry, please vote (I need those % figures!!!) and then, if you like, tell us all EXACTLY what you EXPECT to see on the channels.
For instance: I EXPECT to see totally naked babes talking dirty, flashing gash and playing with themseleves all night long - as I used to see on Babestar. I EXPECT to see babes doing full stipsteases throughout the night - as I used to watch on Sexstation. I EXPECT to see full-on close-up Flash The Gash. I EXPECT to see XXX encrypted shows on PPV channels - as used to be on Live/Sport XXX. On non-babe channels (like TAC or TVX) I EXPECT to see uncensored R18 material (as TAC and PB tried for a few weeks circa 2004).
What I do NOT expect to see are topless glamour/porn models wearing two pair of granny pants talking about 'clocks' and 'punanis'. I do NOT expect to see pixilation of the genitals anywhere outside Japan. And I sure as fuck do NOT expect to sign up to a 12 month 'adult' channel subscription to watch material no more explicit than Confessions of a Window Cleaner.
Amen brother!
I was stupid enough to get Hustler last night and I think it got tamer as the night went on! It started with the birds getting it out and dancing around to - by the time I switched off - to doing the same sort of thing you can watch on some of the movie channels each night that are unencrypted for any one to watch.
At the end of the day everyone knows that an adult encrypted channel is going to show adult material, so why go to all the bother of registering, paying, turning it on - just to get offended and make a complaint about it?!?
Let them show the stuff we want them to show - R18 material with nowt taken out.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - seth - 14-02-2010 17:36
In regards to the the porn channels, just stop being a subscriber until they show what you expect a porn channel to show and that's hardcore porn.
There's tons of free porn all over the Internet so I don't know why anybody with Internet access bothers with those shitty channels in the first place.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - StanTheMan - 14-02-2010 21:04
(14-02-2010 17:36 )seth Wrote: There's tons of free porn all over the Internet so I don't know why anybody with Internet access bothers with those shitty channels in the first place.
I don't, but you're missing the point, seth. It's the principle. It's still a government telling us we don't know our own minds and that therefore they're not going to allow us to watch real adult material, in the early hours of the morning, on channels situated in their own 'adult section' which can be blocked from the system by anyone that doesn't like them or the idea of their children accessing them.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - BarrieBF - 14-02-2010 21:19
(14-02-2010 13:25 )Cobblers Wrote: Yes, but if Ofcom aren't prepared to recognise this ability to block them altogether by giving the channels a little more leeway in content over those not in the 900s, then what's the point?
The point is that it's a facility that Sky provide to their customers. Sky are not interested in what Ofcom think about it.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - seth - 14-02-2010 21:27
(14-02-2010 21:04 )StanTheMan Wrote:(14-02-2010 17:36 )seth Wrote: There's tons of free porn all over the Internet so I don't know why anybody with Internet access bothers with those shitty channels in the first place.
I don't, but you're missing the point, seth. It's the principle. It's still a government telling us we don't know our own minds and that therefore they're not going to allow us to watch real adult material, in the early hours of the morning, on channels situated in their own 'adult section' which can be blocked from the system by anyone that doesn't like them or the idea of their children accessing them.
I know, but if everybody stopped subscribing, it may force these channels to contest Ofcom's ridiculous censorship on porn. All the time people are subscribing, there's no incentive for these channels to take ofcom to the courts, human rights, or whatever they can to try to change these silly rules.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - admiral decker - 14-02-2010 21:37
(14-02-2010 04:49 )Cobblers Wrote: If, as is frequently claimed, the use of credit cards is as much an age verification process as a payment method, then what's to stop a channel with PIN protection charging a token 10p a month to verify age, then broadcasting harder material for free supported by income from, say, a Babe style phone operation?
It would be cost prohibitive because it's expensive to set those payment systems up, plus Sky expect a significant fee for every transaction too. Because of these two costs I think the idea is a non-starter.
RE: Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey - Cobblers - 14-02-2010 22:27
(14-02-2010 21:19 )BarrieBF Wrote: The point is that it's a facility that Sky provide to their customers. Sky are not interested in what Ofcom think about it.
But is it mandatory as part of the agreement to broadcast on the Sky platform that they go in the adult section of the EPG?
And have we had a definitive answer from any of the broadcasters as to why none of the Babe channels will enable PIN protection?