+- 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 - mofozombie81 - 15-11-2009 12:22
Thanks for providing some links to the consultation. I'm half-way reading through it and it seems to be down to changes in advertising rules, and how best the Babestation channels can fit into these new codes. In fairness to Ofcom, they are taking all things into consideration and of cause welcome input (deadline is 15th Jan). From what I have read so far, they've got nothing against the actually content of the shows, just all the advertising that's also taking place. Once I've read and digested it all, I'll try and add more to the debate.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - TheWatcher - 15-11-2009 12:31
(15-11-2009 00:55 )Censorship :-( Wrote: 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?
Picture quality
Depends on the source and who uploads it.
1) screen capture of webshows - not as good as same show on tv, but watchable.
2) captured tv shows, sky or freeview - can be as good as the tv show. It depends on the video codec used and picture size. In order to keep the file sizes down, compromises are often made. Usually quality is pretty good.
Content quality
1) screen capture of webshows can sometimes be better than the same show on tv.
They are not restricted as to what is shown, so can display stuff while adverts for pics etc are shown on the tv show.
There are sometimes no phone numbers displayed which block the view of parts of the girl.
2) captured tv shows, sky or freeview - content is good because the uploaders have usually picked the best parts of the shows to upload.
Its worth getting broadband to be able to watch the sexstation online webstream.
Just check out some of the threads/pics in that section of the forum to see what you are missing.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - IanG - 15-11-2009 15:53
(15-11-2009 12:22 )mofozombie81 Wrote: Thanks for providing some links to the consultation. I'm half-way reading through it and it seems to be down to changes in advertising rules, and how best the Babestation channels can fit into these new codes. In fairness to Ofcom, they are taking all things into consideration and of cause welcome input (deadline is 15th Jan). From what I have read so far, they've got nothing against the actually content of the shows, just all the advertising that's also taking place. Once I've read and digested it all, I'll try and add more to the debate.
Indeed, passing the buck has become standard practice in all areas of censorship and legislative mission creep. Let's call it getting stitched up by bureaucratic jobsworths.
Ofcom and the ASA have pounced upon this opportunity to 'reclassify' babe chat on the back of an ECJ definition of phone-in quiz shows being supposed 'teleshopping'.
Teleshopping programmes advertise products and sell/supply those products by mail order from orders and payments received over the phone. I've actually worked on the order processing systems of these shows and they work just like ANY catalogue-based tele-sales/mail-order operation.
Phone-in quizzes are in fact a lottery that cost around £1 per entry - i.e. you pay whether your call is 'selected' or 'rejected' for entry into the draw (aka 'queue') and, even then, 'selection' is no gurantee that you will actually be drawn to give an answer (whether your answer is correct or not) on the show before the next round of caller roulette begins - its a con. Moreover, this is telegambling not teleshopping.
Babe chat is indeed a live and interactive service. You pay for as long as you use that service - not per abruptly terminated call as with a quiz show but, per minute as you chat or listen-in. The real question however, is WHY the ASA and Ofcom choose to place restrictions on supposed 'sexual' services? Don't we have a right to satisfy our sexual needs by any legal and harmless (even beneficial) means? And don't those providing such services have a right to advertise them? Who or what permits the preposterous 'religious' claims to some higher moral authority to dictate what we're allowed to see on TV or do in the privacy of our own homes? The restrictive 'rules' placed on supposed sexual services and advertising by the ASA and Ofcom are totally arbitrary and without any real justifications whatsoever - that's the issue! These 'rules' simply perpetuate the myth that British people have some 'problem' with sexual openness or 'pornographic' materials, that we 'enjoy' being sexually repressed by faceless bureaucrats, that this sexually repression defines us as 'British'.
People are only 'shocked' or 'offended' by that which is unfamiliar or unusual to them. So, suppressing 'shocking' or 'offensive' material simply perpertuates this type of material's ability to 'shock' and 'offend' - i.e. people become SENSITISED to it. It's a pointless, rights-abusing and self-sustaining excuse for censorship because, as anyone who treats phobias knows, the only way to get people over their irrational fears and hang-ups is to make them confront that which 'shocks', 'spooks' and 'offends' their senses and thus DESENSITISE them to it.
The ASA and Ofcom are doing the WRONG thing for all the WRONG reasons. Indeed, the courts have stated that "freedom of expression exists to SHOCK and DISTURB states and opinions...in order to progress society" - i.e. to help us climb out from under centuries of sexual repression that have been forced upon us by moralising religious extremists.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - mofozombie81 - 15-11-2009 17:31
I've now read most of the consultation document (and have a headache) but there's definitely some interesting things in there.
It's not just adult chat Participation TV (“PTV”) that will be effected, it's also the Psychic PTV too. It's because with re-classing these shows as 'teleshopping' channels, they'd have to then comply with the TV Advertising code, which doesn't allow the advertising of adult-themed or psychic services on non-encrypted channels.
So why are they re-classing them as teleshopping channels?? Because they can't class all the services they're advertising as editorial content.
I agree with you though IanG, I think they are being harsh on this and maybe this is where the real problem lies.
Ofcom are trying to decide how best to change the Broadcasting Code and the TV Advertising code so that adult chat PTV can continue in their current form. But because most freeview boxes can't receive encrypted channels, they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast
However, section 6.47 states "Three Adult Chat PTV
channels broadcast between midnight and 5:30am on Freeview - Smile TV2, Smile
TV3 and Babestation. These channels are not licensed in the UK, but originate from
the Netherlands and are not therefore subject to the UK Broadcasting or Advertising
Codes. A fourth Adult Chat PTV channel on Freeview – Partyland – broadcasts
between 1am and 5:30am and is licensed in the UK.
So, does that mean they wont disappear after all? Is this why Partyland might be coming to an end and why another Babestation 2 channel has appeared on Freeview??
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vostok 1 - 15-11-2009 17:43
Good points mofozombie. It would be good if one of the broadcasters could offer some clarification as to what this consultation could potentially do to the channels.
Then forum members would be more likely to reply and reply in the right direction.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - TheWatcher - 15-11-2009 17:45
(15-11-2009 17:31 )mofozombie81 Wrote: ~~~
~~~
But because most freeview boxes can't receive encrypted channels, they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast
~~~
~~~
I don't believe this statement is true.
TelevisionX is already encrypted on freeview channel 93
(15-11-2009 17:31 )mofozombie81 Wrote: ~~~
~~~
However, section 6.47 states "Three Adult Chat PTV
channels broadcast between midnight and 5:30am on Freeview - Smile TV2, Smile
TV3 and Babestation. These channels are not licensed in the UK, but originate from
the Netherlands and are not therefore subject to the UK Broadcasting or Advertising
Codes. A fourth Adult Chat PTV channel on Freeview – Partyland – broadcasts
between 1am and 5:30am and is licensed in the UK.
So, does that mean they wont disappear after all? Is this why Partyland might be coming to an end and why another Babestation 2 channel has appeared on Freeview??
This seems a likely outcome.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - mofozombie81 - 15-11-2009 23:06
vostok 1, some clarification would be very good. I don't know how worried I should be, lol.
TheWatcher, it was the actual documentation that stated most freeview set top boxes were incapable:
"As many Freeview set top boxes are unable to support access to
encrypted channels and do not feature a segregated EPG, this would mean that
Adult Chat PTV featuring PRS of a sexual nature could not be carried on that
platform."
I think its more then lack of a segregated EPG that's causing the main problems. Even the recent channel number changes wont be enough:
"8.22 We note that the DTT Multiplex Operators Limited (DMOL) – the body that allocate
channel numbers on Freeview – has recently decided, following consultation, to
classify an Adult channel genre – including Adult Chat PTV – and group such
Participation TV channels from Channel number 93 toward the end of the Freeview EPG. Although
this may reduce the risk of unintended viewing, it does not in our view allow sufficient
labelling and sign-posting for viewers and therefore in itself would not allow channels
to meet the conditions of the Advertising Code rules proposed above. However, as
platforms evolve and segregated and customisable EPGs become more widely
available, it is possible that channels could satisfy the principle in time."
The gist is, Ofcom are considering four different options that relate to changes to the TV advertising code. They like option 4 which would mean they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast on freeview. I like option 2 which means restrictions would be lifted. Ofcom welcome our thoughts so if you're a bit concerned, I do urge people to try and read it and reply (if you've got a spare day or two).
Consultation doc
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vila - 15-11-2009 23:14
(15-11-2009 17:45 )TheWatcher Wrote:(15-11-2009 17:31 )mofozombie81 Wrote: ~~~I don't believe this statement is true.
~~~
But because most freeview boxes can't receive encrypted channels, they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast
~~~
~~~
TelevisionX is already encrypted on freeview channel 93
It could only true in the sense that many are unable to accept smartcards - whether this is 'most' of them is a moot point. As far as I know, all can handle a channel like TVX which I believe requires only PIN access.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - PersonaNonGrata - 23-01-2010 20:33
The Gestapo (OFCOM) seem to have restricted the girls going fully naked to between midnight and 5.00am. As we know, ch99 broadcasts BS2 between 10.00pm and midnight, and ch96 BS1 5.00am - 5.30am - but they seem to have placed a complete ban on any nudity within those slots.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - dave34 - 23-01-2010 23:08
(23-01-2010 20:33 )PersonaNonGrata Wrote: The Gestapo (OFCOM) seem to have restricted the girls going fully naked to between midnight and 5.00am. As we know, ch99 broadcasts BS2 between 10.00pm and midnight, and ch96 BS1 5.00am - 5.30am - but they seem to have placed a complete ban on any nudity within those slots.well see what happen when Camilla & reede are on tonight as they always go naked