+- 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 - Sootbag1 - 08-11-2011 21:55
This is something I've commented on a few times in the past. And each time I ask the same question: If you are the owner of a babe channel, why would you bother rocking the boat?
So long as (a) everybody plays by the same rules; and (b) you're making money, there's no reason whatsoever to upset the applecart. In fact, there's probably good reason not to.
The UK market - to a certain degree - operates in isolation to continental Europe, and for as long as you can only offer 'tame' content, you're probably safe from competition from the big European porn-houses. As soon as 'anything goes', you're likely to face a stream of new competitor channels applying for UK licences, knowing that their harder content won't fall foul of the regulator.
Better if everyone plays by the rules, keeps their mouths shut, and counts the money.
Ask youself: why is it that the no. 1 complainant about babe channel content is other babe channels? The answer is because it's in everyone's interest to make sure everybody keeps it tame. And that's why there's no realistic prospect of changes any time soon.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 08-11-2011 22:09
To be honest with Sootbag i can see your point, i think the issue we all have is why in the first place did we have such great free to air channels over the past 10yrs or so, only to be taken away by Ofcom? and when something is suddenly taken away, none of us like it.
I do think the tide will turn in our favour, once Ofcom pisses off, how long that will be is anyones guess, lets just hope the government cuts there bloody funding, that would do for start.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 08-11-2011 22:50
(08-11-2011 21:55 )Sootbag1 Wrote: This is something I've commented on a few times in the past. And each time I ask the same question: If you are the owner of a babe channel, why would you bother rocking the boat?
Try this: If you are owner of a chain of sex shops/publish porn mags/have an online porn business why would you bother rocking the TV boat?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 08-11-2011 23:20
(08-11-2011 22:50 )eccles Wrote:(08-11-2011 21:55 )Sootbag1 Wrote: This is something I've commented on a few times in the past. And each time I ask the same question: If you are the owner of a babe channel, why would you bother rocking the boat?
Try this: If you are owner of a chain of sex shops/publish porn mags/have an online porn business why would you bother rocking the TV boat?
only if it was affecting buisiness,which by the look of it is,babestation is short of girls ,elite has been finishing early a certain channel has dropped d 2 of its channels simply because the revenue of callers has dropped because the shows are so tame,the foreign channels adopted the stance that the girls would get more explicit when they were on the line to a punter at the end of the call they will put on the majority of their attire until the next call ,here its as you were which makes it so bloody boring,i stopped calling in over 6 months ago simply because the call didnt match what i was seeing on the screen ,you may as well shut your eyes and imagine it than look what the girl is doing ,if it does carry on where as they are not getting to fill their boots with your cash whats the betting they start to improve? ofcom this and that makes no difference to them ,if they aint making money they will do some thing about it
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 01:48
(08-11-2011 21:55 )Sootbag1 Wrote: This is something I've commented on a few times in the past. And each time I ask the same question: If you are the owner of a babe channel, why would you bother rocking the boat?
I've been saying this for ages. In fact, it was the basis behind my much derided thread, "Are the fanboys to blame for the current state of the channels?"
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 09-11-2011 18:43
(09-11-2011 18:39 )StanTheMan Wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, shylok, but if it's what I think, then it's been explained countless times that so long as you're broadcasting on UK tv, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference where your license is held, you still have to adhere to Ofcom reg.
Thanks for the reply. So even if say a company rents a transponder on Astra 28E in another country (FTA not via sky EPG) do they still have to tip the hat to OFCOM rules?
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 18:45
(09-11-2011 18:43 )shylok Wrote: Thanks for the reply. So even if say a company rents a transponder on Astra 28E in another country (FTA not on via sky EPG) do they still have to tip the hat to OFCOM rules?
Ah, well that's different. I thought you meant for them to simply obtain their license from Holland, as Babestation do.
As for broadcasting fta, but not on the EPG, you'll have to wait for someone with far more knowledge than I to come along and answer that. It's certainly an interesting one, though.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 18:46
(09-11-2011 18:39 )StanTheMan Wrote:(09-11-2011 18:36 )shylok Wrote: This must beg the question why Playboy etc (who I understand have foreign licences at their disposal) don't get 'more inventive'. I still don't know why channels don't take more advantage of the 'lighter touch' regulation in some countries like Holland.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting, shylok, but if it's what I think, then it's been explained countless times that so long as you're broadcasting on UK tv, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference where your license is held, you still have to adhere to Ofcom reg.
It makes a hell of a lot of difference if you don't have a Ofcom licence , even if you have to adhere to the same regs Ofcom can't give you a 110k fine , Ofcom can't hand out fines to channels that don't use their licence . Put it this way if Playboy used one of their European licence's to broadcast on UK tv in the same way that BS uses the Dutch licence then they wouldn't be paying a 110k fine to Ofcom .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 18:49
(09-11-2011 18:46 )mr mystery Wrote: It makes a hell of a lot of difference if you don't have a Ofcom licence , even if you have to adhere to the same regs Ofcom can't give you a 110k fine , Ofcom can't hand out fines to channels that don't use their licence .
But that doesn't make much sense. If a channel with a foreign license can't be fined by Ofcom, why would they need to bother adhering to their regs?
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 09-11-2011 18:51
(09-11-2011 18:45 )StanTheMan Wrote:(09-11-2011 18:43 )shylok Wrote: Thanks for the reply. So even if say a company rents a transponder on Astra 28E in another country (FTA not on via sky EPG) do they still have to tip the hat to OFCOM rules?
Ah, well that's different. I thought you meant for them to simply obtain their license from Holland, as Babestation do.
As for broadcasting fta, but not on the EPG, you'll have to wait for someone with far more knowledge than I to come along and answer that. It's certainly an interesting one, though.
Yeah I was wondering a) if they could have avoided the fine and b) if they don't use sky at all and go FTA (on 28E like Sky does) that would get them more of a chance - to do business without the cancer of OFCOM on their case.