Is it time for a mass attack on OFCOM?

As I have continually said all this goes away when the channels bite the bullet and go pin encryption.That takes away all the legal routes to reclassification and gives us as viewers what we want.It's just a question of economics.

(25-04-2011 04:51 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  As I have continually said all this goes away when the channels bite the bullet and go pin encryption.That takes away all the legal routes to reclassification and gives us as viewers what we want.It's just a question of economics.

I would have thought they'd have gone with pin ecryption already, but there must be a reason they haven't. Expense? What's the big hold up when it comes to this?

(25-04-2011 04:51 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  That takes away all the legal routes to reclassification and gives us as viewers what we want.It's just a question of economics.

I am sure they would still be classified as teleshopping and no change in content level.

(25-04-2011 12:19 )arron88 Wrote:  

(25-04-2011 04:51 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  That takes away all the legal routes to reclassification and gives us as viewers what we want.It's just a question of economics.

I am sure they would still be classified as teleshopping and no change in content level.

Quite. PIN protection isn't the straight forward and simple answer many seem to think it is. PIN protected/encrypted adult channels still have to adhere to Ofcom's regulations - albeit slightly more relaxed. But many a subscriber/paying punter to the sub channels will only be too glad to tell you that they're only marginally stronger anyway.

(25-04-2011 00:36 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Hi Stan it was me who who did the post about if you give Ofcom enough rope they will hang themselves and they at present are doing a pretty good job of it lately, upset the Daily Mail brigade aswell...

Upsetting Daily Mail readers? So Ofcom are useful for something afterall.

Excuse me if I catch up on several points.

A mass attack wont work for 2 reasons. Tens of thousands of viewers and hundreds or thousands of callers just wont play ball. Even if we did it wouldnt last long enough. And we have just seen TVX thrown in the towel.

If the babes have gone cautious it could just be nervousness about Ofcom rather than a guilty concience. We know Ofcom dont play by the rules. Just investigating it often enough will tie mananagement up for months and make the owners nervous. Ofcom havea wide array of rules to pick from - protection of under 18s, advertising, peak rate phones, generally accepted standards to mention just a few. Unlike other sectors they see nothing wrong in moving the goalposts to catch their faourite target out. There are two teams, but one of them employs the referee, linesmen and FA as well.

What is less well known is that some channels fine the models if the channel gets found in breach, let alone sanctioned. There have been bitter posts a while ago about models loosing £1,000 or £2,000 in, ahem, appearance fees. This is despite some or all of the responsibility lying with the cameraman, producer and compliance officer.

Even if fines are not involved, many channels will have no hesitation in dropping a model so they can tell Ofcom the problem has been solved. Of course this means the model has an unplanned drop in earnings and may find it difficult getting work on another channel.

Hence occasional nervousness.

As for the Daily Mail venting its wrath and calling for Ofcom, sorry, but that is NOT A GOOD THING. The Daily Mail is not calling for the abolition of censorship. Here are a few quotes

Daily Mail 23 April Wrote:Last night Ofcom, an unelected quango whose chief executive is paid twice as much as the Prime Minister, was branded a ‘toothless bulldog’.

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘If Ofcom thinks this kind of stuff is acceptable before the watershed, then my question is what isn’t? It is like a toothless bulldog. It seems there is nobody enforcing and upholding broadcasting standards any more.’

Vivienne Pattinson, director of lobby group Mediawatch-UK, said: ‘Ofcom’s decision further erodes viewers’ trust in traditional forms of regulation.

I hate to think what alternative MuffinWatch-UK might propose to "traditional forms of regulation". Throwing a dice? A jury of angry priests and mullahs with the power to order execution? Pre-censorship? Automatic £100 fine per complaint?

Basic PIN protection should not cost much, but it does. Ofcom says PIN protection only justifies stronger content if money changes hands. And it has to be by an age verified mechanism such as a credit card. Basically its a lazy way of keeping under 18s out. And putting "PORNO TV CHANNEL" on the credit card statement where the wife can see it. As soon as you get into payment controlled channel access Sky want a huge wodge of money. From memory it was somethink like £25,000 or £50,000 a year plus a slice of every transaction, so when you cough up £5.99 for pay per view porn a fraction of that ends up in Murdoch's pocket. More importantly you have to be pretty sure that you will get enough subscribers to cover your costs because a big chunk of the cost is up front nonrefundable set up costs.

(25-04-2011 22:18 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-04-2011 12:19 )arron88 Wrote:  

(25-04-2011 04:51 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  That takes away all the legal routes to reclassification and gives us as viewers what we want.It's just a question of economics.

I am sure they would still be classified as teleshopping and no change in content level.

Quite. PIN protection isn't the straight forward and simple answer many seem to think it is. PIN protected/encrypted adult channels still have to adhere to Ofcom's regulations - albeit slightly more relaxed[i]. But many a subscriber/paying punter to the sub channels will only be too glad to tell you that they're only marginally stronger anyway.

That sums up perfectly the hypocrisy from Ofcon. On the one hand pushing for encryption to safeguard "vulnerable" people and on the other hand saying that already-encrypted shows such as BSE, TVX & TAC cannot show full penetration and fellatio as "vulnerable" people are watching.
Only in the UK could this be the case (apart from the 3rd World, of course).

The whole basis of introducing pin protection is not necessarily to create a financial transaction at the point the pin is required but to make a statement that this is:-

1.) Adult Entertainment. It is, there no way around it if we want more then this is the only route.

2.) It makes an almost unequivocal argument against reclassification I think if I was making the legal argument for this I would be quite confident.

3.) Yes it creates an argument for stronger material but there are rules governing that also. It just means everyone has more room to move on content and language.

Finally if the cost is something like £25-£50k per year this would be a marginal cost one would imagine. Given most of the channels pay this out at least once a year in fines at least this would be seen as a constructive way of spending the money.

Ofcom have a big issue with this form of entertainment and view it as a low hanging fruit to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have had sources close to them confirm this.So mass uprisings,petitions or the channels doing things the way they have always been done will not change their attitude towards the babechannels. It is a mature,complex and competitive market far more so than in the last 10 years. They are seeking to regulate it further because of those reasons, more so than than the actual subscription channels.

(26-04-2011 12:24 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  The whole basis of introducing pin protection is not necessarily to create a financial transaction at the point the pin is required but to make a statement that this is:-

1.) Adult Entertainment. It is, there no way around it if we want more then this is the only route.

2.) It makes an almost unequivocal argument against reclassification I think if I was making the legal argument for this I would be quite confident.

3.) Yes it creates an argument for stronger material but there are rules governing that also. It just means everyone has more room to move on content and language.

Finally if the cost is something like £25-£50k per year this would be a marginal cost one would imagine. Given most of the channels pay this out at least once a year in fines at least this would be seen as a constructive way of spending the money.

Ofcom have a big issue with this form of entertainment and view it as a low hanging fruit to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have had sources close to them confirm this.So mass uprisings,petitions or the channels doing things the way they have always been done will not change their attitude towards the babechannels. It is a mature,complex and competitive market far more so than in the last 10 years. They are seeking to regulate it further because of those reasons, more so than than the actual subscription channels.

That's what I thought as well. Seems these channels are the only way for them to make money, and enforce their silly power. Don't see why there's a watershed in the first place, or the 18 rating, if we can't even see full frontal nudity. The channels should change the rating to 12.

If encryption happened, would they be able to show a normal female body part for once at least?

I got a better idea for you guys. How about a mass attack on the fanboys?

After all, the fanboys are partly responsible for the current status quo...

What don't they fucking understand?