The only notable thing about last night's show was the fact that it was Donna's first appearance on the freeview show performing solo.
The other girls on the show were Amanda and Valery Summer.
(02-11-2009 04:39 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2009 03:15 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah most of these channels are free-to-air, but they only used to be available on Sky (and most still are), which requires a subscription (usually 12 months minimum). Even if most channel operators don't profit directly from Sky subscriptions, the Sky platform still provided most of their customers. Elite is a more recent example... The only place you can watch it on TV at the moment is Sky.
Completely, totally and utterly wrong.
etc . . . etc . . . etc . . .
Not forgetting anyone with a Freesat set-up. The only losers are those who can't put up a dish, either because of planning regs or the physical/geographical nature of their location.
(02-11-2009 03:15 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ] (31-10-2009 11:46 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ] (31-10-2009 10:04 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest I don't see why there is even an issue here... Sky originally provided the platform for adult shows in the UK. Sky costs money, Freeview is free. If you pay for Sky, you should expect better content. If anything Sky viewers are gonna be more pissed off by the emergence of Freeview crampin the style of the shows.
I was under the impression that the babe channels were FTA on satellite? If so, you don’t have to ‘pay for $ky’, as you put it, unless you are talking about the one-off payment for equipment & installation; remember, despite its name, Freeview is not free in those terms either, you still have to buy a box, or an IDTV, and potentially, a new antenna, which many people would have also pay to have installed, though it is easier to self install a TV antenna than a satellite dish, even though the latter is still quite feasible. Also, it is not always merely a case of money; some people cannot have a dish, so they have no option but Freeview, so why should they suffer additional censorship?
As for $ky viewers being more pissed off, yes, they should be annoyed at content being compromised by also going out on Freeview, but just think of the vast amount of content they get that doesn’t go out on Freeview; I know which I would rather be pissed off about!
Yeah most of these channels are free-to-air, but they only used to be available on Sky (and most still are), which requires a subscription (usually 12 months minimum).
SNIP
If they are FTA, then you do not require a $ky subscription, nor an FTV card, not even a $ky box, merely a dish receiving signals from 28 East, and a digital satellite receiver.
Sadly, for many, satellite & $ky are synonymous. They probably don't even realise that the satellite from which $ky broadcasts is only one of many, and that, with the right equipment, they could receive broadcasts from the free world, which are, therefore, not subject to UK censorship.
(03-11-2009 01:31 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2009 04:39 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2009 03:15 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah most of these channels are free-to-air, but they only used to be available on Sky (and most still are), which requires a subscription (usually 12 months minimum). Even if most channel operators don't profit directly from Sky subscriptions, the Sky platform still provided most of their customers. Elite is a more recent example... The only place you can watch it on TV at the moment is Sky.
Completely, totally and utterly wrong.
etc . . . etc . . . etc . . .
Not forgetting anyone with a Freesat set-up. The only losers are those who can't put up a dish, either because of planning regs or the physical/geographical nature of their location.
Isn't there also 'Freesat from $ky' (or some such name), which, for a one-off fee, provides $ky box, dish, and installation, but no $ky subscription? Ideal for the 'average person', who doesn’t know the first thing about satellite equipment, installation etc., but would rather have a $ky' box, instead of a 'Freesat' one.
Bugger, I think I've just given some free advertising for Murdoch!
The last couple of mornings on BBF, while better than much of last week’s output, and better than TS, have failed to live upto the first Saturday show, which, sadly, increasingly looks like an aberration, even if it still fell short of $ky strength.
Is there any prospect of ever getting a real babe channel on Freeview? I mean, BBF starts at 03.00, is only on for 2.5 hours, and STILL doesn’t manage ‘$ky’ strength; is it really too much to ask to get something other than Freeview tameness, for a change?
(03-11-2009 02:30 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ]The last couple of mornings on BBF, while better than much of last week’s output, and better than TS, have failed to live upto the first Saturday show, which, sadly, increasingly looks like an aberration, even if it still fell short of $ky strength.
Is there any prospect of ever getting a real babe channel on Freeview? I mean, BBF starts at 03.00, is only on for 2.5 hours, and STILL doesn’t manage ‘$ky’ strength; is it really too much to ask to get something other than Freeview tameness, for a change?
Surely if freeview were to create an adult section, as $ky have, then they could put out the same strength? But until the demand for freeview babe channels is there, that's unlikely to happen, I suppose. I sure which they'd hurry up and do something, though, I'm starting to resent having the last few hours of Babgbabes mutinied. You can have the shit known as Babestation - you can show that to your granny, where ever it goes out - but I don't want to share Bangbabes if it means taming it down.
It appears that Bang Babes have now bottled it completely.
Until tonight I have always been able to find the Freeview feed on the web stream. Tonight it's not there, so it would seem that they have now created an entirely seperate Freeview channel.
I think my interest in BB has just ceased.
Edit: In fact, I think they're perpetrating a fraud. The girl on Freeview Ch 98 is the SAME girl as on the 912 web stream but on a completely different set. Except that while out of the room just now I heard her on the mic and when I came back the set on my tv was the same as that on the web stream. When I looked back to the tv after looking at my pc monitor the picture had changed back to the different set again.
WTF is going on here??? The Freeview picture has to be a recording.
Edit 2: Now I'm doubly confused because the Freeview picture has now appeared on the web stream as Ch 948 and there's a different girl on 912.
Edit 3: Yep, they're cheating, folks. Even on the web stream we now have Cate Harrington on 912 AND 948 but on different studio sets. At least one of those has to be a recording. (I think the previous girl was Charlie Monaco - haven't learned all the BB girls yet.)
Given that they're advertising both as live shows that is presumably a criminal offence, unless they can get out of it by claiming that although the picture is a recording in one case you can actually talk to the on screen girl while she's on the genuine live channel.
Edit 4: OK, I think I've cracked it. The action on Ch 948 stream is about 20 mins behind the action on Freeview. So they're sending out a delayed image on the Ch 948 stream, but is it also delayed on Sky and how come for a few minutes earlier on they appeared to be in sync? Donna's on Freeview now, but it's still Cate on the web stream.
P.S. The good bit is that Donna's left her mic on, although you can only hear odd 'n' ends.
The web stream was playing up yesterday and not working some of the time. Maybe on one of the streams it just got behind with what it was supposed to be streaming.
I may have played "Devil's Advocate" a bit on this forum
, but I didn't join this place to waste time with technical jargon. That's not my domain...
The bottom line is Bang Media & Elite TV paid a lot of money for channel slots on "Sky" because that's where most of their potential viewers/customers are gonna be. In business you gotta cater for your main source...