+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: Babestation : Freeview vs Sky (/showthread.php?tid=13807)
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Moderation Station - 14-11-2009 22:18
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: Oh........ my............god.
Is this still going on?
[moves soap box]
"Is this mic on? Ok, i'll begin."
For Christs sake Sky are NOT 'leaning' on anyone to control content... you've been watching too much 24 my friend. There is no conspiracy against anybody.
As i have said before, quite a while ago during the Party Girls era. If you go onto a 'new platform' it is a new marketplace. In this case Freeview and as a new marketplace, with a substantial amount of new viewers who are not accustomed to seeing the sort of thing that these shows, well show. They do not have the history of BS on SKY and might be truly shocked and/or offended by what they see.
People do not have SKY for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being money. I don't have SKY anymore because £50 a month for the pretty basic package gets you repeats and pretty much sod all else with regards to decent programmes considering the large number of channels. The other reasons Vila has mentioned.
Any 'new business' entering a marketplace with any aspect of it being 'sensitive' to the local/national populace has to be careful. Considering the sizable investment these companies make in distributing their products care and consideration for the bigger picture is paramount for it to be a success. Try setting up a western restaurant in the Gaza strip and watch how frickin' careful you are about selling bacon sandwiches.
It may seem like a weird analogy but people, especially in this country, with the 'old school' prim and proper types. Would write and complain immediately if they could. Look what the tabloids did to the Johnathon Ross and Russell Brand 'incident'. Nobody complained until they felt they could when the sodding papers reported it! That just goes to show how fickle and sheep-like a lot of sad people are out there. Sure what was done wasn't in great taste but it's a matter of perspective and or context, without either anything can be construed as 'wrong'. If you listened to the whole show i'm sure it would have been very funny and more importantly, appropriately contextual.
Similarly, if you're watching Countdown reruns ora detective thriller and spill tea on the remote and find youself on channel 94 at 10:03 you might be a bit taken aback.
So seriously guys, like i've said before give it time for FV to acclimatise to these shows. You might think it's been long enough (for you) and harp on about "Party Girls being on FV already and look where that went" (they only had a short license remember, they might as well have pushed it for those last few months!). I've heard the arguments, you've had them before. Let's leave the people who run the shows to do just that and trust that they know more about the industry than we do. I mean I don't work in TV, do you? What the F*** does anybody on here really know then? When they feel they can equal the output i'm sure they will, i mean 'Hello?' Then they would only make more money, so i think you'll find that would be in a business' best interests.
Right, i'm going back to gaming.
Well said that man.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - mofozombie81 - 14-11-2009 23:17
I also think they were wise words from Gamehead. I've posted this in another thread, but it's worth bringing up again as it gives an insight into what some people are like; it's the latest bulletin from Ofcom:
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin Nov 09
But I'm also with sm© in that I'm a freeview only viewer and find it hard to actually complain about this free TV service I'm getting (excluding the TV license fee of cause). But I have said before I'm not watching it expecting/hoping to see more hardcore stuff anyway, so maybe I'm not the best person to talk about it
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Sooky™ - 14-11-2009 23:51
(14-11-2009 18:44 )sm© Wrote: I only have Freeview, do you ever hear me moaning?
Yeah, quite a lot actually
Though granted, not so much about this issue
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Censorship :-( - 15-11-2009 00:55
(14-11-2009 17:26 )biker200 Wrote: What is this all about really, you freeview users dont miss a lot.Everything is posted on here, thats worth posting ,by JOSH and SKATE ,so if you think you have missed anything just come on here and download it for free.
Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone can get broadband, even if they wanted it, so downloading here isn't always an option.
I don’t have broadband, so haven’t been able to view any materiel on this site, so please excuse my ignorance, but how does the quality compare with broadcast TV?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Censorship :-( - 15-11-2009 01:06
(14-11-2009 23:17 )mofozombie81 Wrote: SNIP
But I'm also with sm© in that I'm a freeview only viewer and find it hard to actually complain about this free TV service I'm getting (excluding the TV license fee of cause). But I have said before I'm not watching it expecting/hoping to see more hardcore stuff anyway, so maybe I'm not the best person to talk about it
Obviously, as even the encrypted ‘adult channels’ are limited to softcore by Ofcon, we know it’s never going to be that great on FTA, but I fail to see why it is so much to ask to merely have the same content, on the same channels, from the same broadcasters, on 2 different FTA platforms?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vila - 15-11-2009 01:33
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: As i have said before, quite a while ago during the Party Girls era. If you go onto a 'new platform' it is a new marketplace. In this case Freeview and as a new marketplace, with a substantial amount of new viewers who are not accustomed to seeing the sort of thing that these shows, well show. They do not have the history of BS on SKY and might be truly shocked and/or offended by what they see.
As you said later in your post the original Party Girls was quite a while back, like a year ago, and started at 9:00 not 12:00. So this is not, by any means a ’new platform’. We’ve been through all this before. Are you seriously suggesting that since the advent of Freeview, or the babe channels for that matter, NOBODY has signed a new contract with Sky??? This programming will also be new to every new Sky customer and with the advance of analogue switch-off there will be more and more of those every day. Are you saying that those new Sky customers are some kind of different breed of human being from those who choose Freeview, and that they are not likely to be offended but those who choose Freeview are? What a ridiculous concept.
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: Similarly, if you're watching Countdown reruns ora detective thriller and spill tea on the remote and find youself on channel 94 at 10:03 you might be a bit taken aback.
If you flick onto Ch 94 at 10:03 you’ll get sod all because it doesn’t start transmission until 12:00.
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: Right, i'm going back to gaming.
Good plan.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Censorship :-( - 15-11-2009 01:44
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: Oh........ my............god.
Is this still going on?
Is the disparity between 2 different FTA platforms 'still going on'?
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: As i have said before, quite a while ago during the Party Girls era. If you go onto a 'new platform' it is a new marketplace. In this Also, case Freeview and as a new marketplace, with a substantial amount of new viewers who are not accustomed to seeing the sort of thing that these shows, well show. They do not have the history of BS on SKY and might be truly shocked and/or offended by what they see.
PP started years ago. PG started in 2008. PL started, what, 8 months ago? The channels have now been grouped together, on high channel numbers, since the end of September, so how is Freeview a 'new platform' for babe channels?
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: People do not have SKY for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being money. I don't have SKY anymore because £50 a month for the pretty basic package gets you repeats and pretty much sod all else with regards to decent programmes considering the large number of channels. The other reasons Vila has mentioned.
As has been pointed out many times, you don't have to 'have $ky', the channels are FTA.
(14-11-2009 22:14 )Gamehead Wrote: SNIP
So seriously guys, like i've said before give it time for FV to acclimatise to these shows. You might think it's been long enough (for you) and harp on about "Party Girls being on FV already and look where that went" (they only had a short license remember, they might as well have pushed it for those last few months!).
Doesn't that defeat your own argument? Irrespective of whether or not it was a short license, in terms of content, the precedent has been set. So why do the channels that follow have to be markedly more tame?
As for complaints about the channels; the type of people who complain about such things are just as likely to complain about the mere existence of these channels as they are about the specific level of content, so whether a channel merely shows scantily clad babes, not doing much, or whether they have topless babes, not doing much, or they have babes who move/pose in an overtly sexual manner etc., it’s not likely to placate them to any great degree, I would suggest.
Also, If the broadcasters are providing a deliberately cut down service, because they are 'easing in' content, then shouldn’t they also provide that service at a commensurately cut-down price?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vostok 1 - 15-11-2009 01:54
(14-11-2009 18:58 )TheWatcher Wrote: Of course Cellcast have a deal with Sky.
They pay Sky to transmit their program.
Do you think Sky do it for nothing?
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/104016/presentations/BSkyB_SSSL_Published_PriceList.pdf
Each individual Sky EPG Slot: £80K per year.
Transponder space: £250K per year, per channel.
But you can be sure that if they didn't continue to pay the above figures, then Sky would ditch them in a heartbeat, regardless of any theories about Sky restricting "levels of explicitness" compared to Freeview to gain subscribers.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - IanG - 15-11-2009 04:49
vostok1, I know you're probably aware of Ofcom's latest PRS/PTV consultation but, I wonder how many other folks on this thread are?
If you don't know folks, Ofcom are 'recommending' the removal of the babe channels from Freeview FULL STOP!
How this fits in with Ofcom's LEGAL DUTY to promote "a diverse range of programming" is anyone's guess. What it actually does is ensure B$kyB's monopolistic control over all material of an 'adult nature' - with Ofcom's express blessing!!
If you're feeling let down and ripped off now, just wait until early next year when Ofcom pull the plug on all Freeview babe channels...
No disrespect to Gamehead but, this 'new market' bull doesn't wash. No one has any right to curtail perfectly legal viewing on the basis that it offends them (despite what Ofcom think the Comms Act allows them to do). The whole point of the watershed is to allow for more adult-oriented material to be broadcast. Adults are supposed to be able to get over being offended - its part and parcel of the definition of acting like an adult ffs! What happened to the Bristish resolve - that stiff upper lip? According to Ofcom, we're all supposed to put up with the levels of entertainment dictated by hyper-sensitive religious halfwits. I for one am utterly sick and tired of having the type of programming I enjoy watching totally ruined by supposed adults that act like whinging little kids and believe they occupy some higher moral ground that allows them to dictate what you and I 'should not' be allowed to see.
Can I suggest that you all respond to Ofcom's 'Participation TV' consultation and let them know exactly what you want to see and where you want to see it. And remember, Ofcom get paid with your taxes so, they have a duty to deliver what you damn well pay for them to deliver - and BY LAW that means a full range of viewing on your choice of platform!
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vostok 1 - 15-11-2009 06:57
(15-11-2009 04:49 )IanG Wrote: vostok1, I know you're probably aware of Ofcom's latest PRS/PTV consultation but, I wonder how many other folks on this thread are?
If you don't know folks, Ofcom are 'recommending' the removal of the babe channels from Freeview FULL STOP!
Indeed. However as discussed in the Ofcom thread, making the right and valid response is not altogether easy for many.
I was hoping one of the channels could ask a PTBA rep to sign up and assist in certain areas, which could maximise the amount of responses:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=13581&pid=273099#pid273099