The UK Babe Channels Forum

(11-06-2011 19:44 )bcl Wrote: [ -> ]Not too sure about this, but even if the channels had a dutch liciense, could ofcom just not have them removed from the sky and freeview epg if they wanted?

Shwo what you want but hardly anyone will be watching cos you have to manually tune in.

If all this about a Dutch license, and the freedom it would give them, is true, I'm surprised other channels haven't considered switching their licence, keeping their main show the same (thus maintaining their slot on the EPG) and setting up a secondary 'naughty' channel that you have to manually tune it to watch.

But it's all speculation anyway, because I've heard a few (knowledgeable) folk on here insist that it matters not a jot where your licence is held. If you're broadcasting on UK television (and that includes any channels that have to be manually tuned, i.e not on the main EPG) then you have to adhere to Ofcom regulation.

It's all very confusing.

A babe channel representative once said on this very forum that Ofcom's powers are strictly limited to what they can or can't enforce when channels use a off shore adult licence . So long has channels that use a NON Ofcom licence don't show more than what is allowed on UK tv, ie R18 material or broadcast adult material before the watershed then i don't think Ofcom can do much about it because they are not showing anything that is not allowed on UK tv . Like i have posted previously BS use a Dutch adult content licence and not a Teleshopping licence that the UK licenced babe channels use . Ofcom can't give out fines or sit in judgement of channels that do not use their Teleshopping licence , it can't be true that channels with a Dutch licence when transmitting in the UK have to adhere to all Ofcom regulations , if this was the case then BS would not be allowed to transmit on freeview at 10pm , Ofcom have stated that babe channels on freeview can't be shown before 12am , like i have posted before Ofcom said themselves when the new rules were brought out last year that they would not apply to the Celcast channels with the Dutch adult licence . So if Ofcom say that Cellcast are exempt from their new rules because of their Dutch licence then i tend to think that they are .

Thought I'd ask the enemy to clarify the situation regarding Babestation; this was their reply:

Quote:Because the company which provides Babestation is based in the Netherlands, it is licensed and regulated by the relevant authorities in the Netherlands, and not by Ofcom. The relevant authorities in the Netherlands are the Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisual Media (NICAM), which regulates the content of television channels, and the Commissariat Voor De Media (CVDM), which has issued the licence.

Television broadcast licences which are granted in one European country are recognised in other European countries, and TV channels licensed in one EC country are often available to viewers in other countries. Babestation is an example of this. Although the channel is licensed in the Netherlands, it is carried on the Freeview platform here in the UK.

(11-06-2011 21:17 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]Thought I'd ask the enemy to clarify the situation regarding Babestation; this was their reply:

Quote:Because the company which provides Babestation is based in the Netherlands, it is licensed and regulated by the relevant authorities in the Netherlands, and not by Ofcom. The relevant authorities in the Netherlands are the Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisual Media (NICAM), which regulates the content of television channels, and the Commissariat Voor De Media (CVDM), which has issued the licence.

Television broadcast licences which are granted in one European country are recognised in other European countries, and TV channels licensed in one EC country are often available to viewers in other countries. Babestation is an example of this. Although the channel is licensed in the Netherlands, it is carried on the Freeview platform here in the UK.

That's great that you've got it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, but I'm none the wiser. Does all that mean they DO have to adhere to Ofcom regs or not?

Well that is good news why don't they all move to Holland??

Channels operating out of other EU countries do NOT have to comply with Ofcom rules. Those are the EU TWF regulations.

EU TWF Wrote:The “country of origin” principle, which ensures that only one EU Member State has jurisdiction over any given media service provider, has been the cornerstone of the Television without Frontiers Directive since 1989 and the basis for all business plans for new services. Audiovisual media service providers need the legal certainty that they do not have to comply with 25 different national laws, but only with the legislation of the country were they are established.

"Operating out of" covers registration and uplinking the signal. Uplink from London and a channel falls under Ofcom, like the Norwegian ones.

Registering and uplinking abroad while filming in UK studios is logistically complex, increases cost and carries some risks.

The broadcast authorities of the country recieving the signal (Ofcom) can ask the authorities in the source country (The Netherlands) to discpline an offending channel.

EU TWF Wrote:The country of origin principle could be said to be abused only if the audiovisual service provider’s choice of establishment could be shown to have been made for the purpose of fraudulently avoiding national rules that would otherwise have applied to it.

One factor that would be taken into account would be whether the channel had an sizable audience in the country of origin, or whether it was specifically aimed at another country (the UK).

But frankly a complaint wont get far unless one channel blatantly broke the rules in the target country. To get a symathetic hearing, Ofcom would have to convince the Dutch authorities that Babestation was breaking Dutch rules on porn/child protection, not provincial UK rules. If it went to appeal Babestation could fight on the grounds that they were complying with EU rules and broadcasting nothing that would harm children. Ofcom would then have to prove otherwise and would be a minor player on the wrong foot. Unlike UK hearings, Ofcom would only be presenting the prosecution case. It would not also act as Judge in its own case. Unlike UK hearings it would basically be two broadcast authorities against each other, 2 equals, unlike UK hearings where it is the big state regulator against a tiny broadcaster.

The occasional pussy flash wont get a channel banned. Full on hardcore would.

The rule preventing Freeview adult channels is based on a UK opinion that Freeview does not have adequate protection for teens. But thats all it is, opinion. Dutch authorities might take the view that most Freeview boxes can have PIN protection, and Adult channels can be deleted. Give it a few years and Ofcom will change the rules.

Both Dutch and EU officials would tell Ofcom to get lost and stop wasting their time if they complained about minor technical breaches of rules. A couple of hours early on systems that offer PIN protection and channel lock outs? Come on. The occasional pussy flash when brief pussy can be seen on editorial shows for entertaiment, like the film Antichrist (Sky Arts) or Sexcetera?

I suspect that most EU countries impose tighter rules on their satellite channels. We have seen examples of Spanish channels elsewhere, but it turns out that they are not available on satellite. So Dutch registered channels probably have a bit of leeway, but only a bit.

So could Ofcom just get them bumped off Sky and Freeview? No. As someone pointed out, Sky must offer access to the Sky platform on an impartial basis to any legit channel that applies. Under EU single market rules they (probably) cant even distinguish between UK and foreign channels.

The EU guidance also makes it clear than banning one channel might be difficult as it could effectively ban all the channels in a multiplex.

So why dont we see harder material? Partly because if a channel rocks the boat too much Ofcom will find ways of making thinfs difficult, and the big operators probably dont want to undermine their encrypted offerings. And frankly the big operators have the market stitched up and are fat and complacent.

Some early info here - might have changed a bit since
EU TWF Press Release

(12-06-2011 00:17 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ][snip] So why dont we see harder material? Partly because if a channel rocks the boat too much Ofcom will find ways of making thinfs difficult, and the big operators probably dont want to undermine their encrypted offerings. [snip]

Not that I'm doubting your research and/or knowledge, eccles, but you've just given us half a dozen paragraphs explaining how Ofcom would be told to go and take a running jump by the other regulators, if they tried to make things difficult.

There has to be more to it than this. I can't accept that Babestation wouldn't be exploiting the situation if it were as simple as you describe. Let's face it, exploitation is where they excel.

(12-06-2011 00:25 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Not that I'm doubting your research and/or knowledge, eccles, but you've just given us half a dozen paragraphs explaining how Ofcom would be told to go and take a running jump by the other regulators, if they tried to make things difficult.

There has to be more to it than this. I can't accept that Babestation wouldn't be exploiting the situation if it were as simple as you describe. Let's face it, exploitation is where they excel.

I know, I know. Based on quite limited research.

The big question is not what is available on Dutch terrestial channels (or Spanish ones) but what is available on Dutch or Spanish satellite channels. Or German, Italian, French. I have Hotbird and get the Mediaset 3 and RAI 3 (Italian) that used to show regular topless dance shows. They tamed down a few years ago. I also get French showcase TV5 and Spanish TVE, which used to feature topless fashion and dance. If they still have these shows they are well hidden. All European satellite TV seems to have toned down.

Like you say, there must be more rules but they are well hidden. But the full wrath of the EU* wont be incurred by minor variations. (* Belgian wrath?)

The reason why BS won't exploit the situation basically comes down to the fact that they've got an encrypted channel and if they exploited the situation on their fta channels, then they would stop making money from BSXtreme subscriptions.

(12-06-2011 00:38 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]The reason why BS won't exploit the situation basically comes down to the fact that they've got an encrypted channel and if they exploited the situation on their fta channels, then they would stop making money from BSXtreme subscriptions.

That makes sense, but it doesn't explain why Cellcast go to the bother and expense of having Dutch licences in the first place. I share Stan's confusion on this point. Unless they're going to make their FTA channels at least a bit ruder than the norm, having foreign licences makes no sense.