Don't get me wrong Digital Dave, i'm on both yours and Stans side. It make no sense at all but I think the only way things will change, is if the others follow suit and get a dutch license because then their would be some lee way for the channels to get abit ruder and give Cellcast a run for the money. As it stands at the moment, Cellcast won't see the need to show more due to the fact that none of the other Babechannels can go as far as them and won't want to risk losing out on making money on their encrypted channel.
(12-06-2011 03:07 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Think about it. Pussy slips, leaving the mic on/other incidents do indeed happen every now and then on the Cellcast shows, but do they get reported? You know what, they probably do, however, Ofcom can't act on any complaint they receive regarding the Cellcast channels due to them being regulated by someone else (NICAM). Basically, the Cellcast channels are protected from feeling the wrath of Ofcom if such incidents happen.
Following up my previous post, there is one example of a channel escaping the letter of Ofcom's rules by relocating their uplink to another country and getting a new licence there. That is Revelation TV, a fundamentalist Christian channel.
Up until 2010 they had come under Ofcom’s glare due to fund raising activities that broke the rules (i.e. asking for money on air) and regularly lambasting abortion and homosexuality. Ofcom found them in breach numerous times.
In early 2010 they secured a Spanish licence and in April 2010 they handed back their Ofcom licence. Since then they haven’t been hassled by Ofcom, even though they still broadcast the same crap from the same London studios (via Spain) and they remain on the Sky epg.
So a foreign licence can help to a certain extent in getting Ofcom off your back, but I’m sure if Revelation cranked up the anti-gay hate there would still be local UK laws that Ofcom could bring to bear to get them removed from the Sky epg. Similarly, if Cellcast started broadcasting pussy shots on FTA I'm pretty sure Ofcom would find a way to remove them swiftly from the epg.
At least there was a point to Revelation getting a foreign licence. There seems to be no point in Cellcast’s case (edit: although I take Chilly's point above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV (see sections 3 and 4)
(12-06-2011 03:38 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Following up my previous post, there is one example of a channel escaping the letter of Ofcom's rules by relocating their uplink to another country and getting a new licence there. That is Revelation TV, a fundamentalist Christian channel.
Up until 2010 they had come under Ofcom’s glare due to fund raising activities that broke the rules (i.e. asking for money on air) and regularly lambasting abortion and homosexuality. Ofcom found them in breach numerous times.
In early 2010 they secured a Spanish licence and in April 2010 they handed back their Ofcom licence. Since then they haven’t been hassled by Ofcom, even though they still broadcast the same crap from the same London studios (via Spain) and they remain on the Sky epg.
So a foreign licence can help to a certain extent in getting Ofcom off your back, but I’m sure if Revelation cranked up the anti-gay hate there would still be local UK laws that Ofcom could bring to bear to get them removed from the Sky epg. Similarly, if Cellcast started broadcasting pussy shots on FTA I'm pretty sure Ofcom would find a way to remove them swiftly from the epg.
At least there was a point to Revelation getting a foreign licence. There seems to be no point in Cellcast’s case (edit: although I take Chilly's point above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV (see sections 3 and 4)
Good post, Dave. Not much the legals can do other than issue redundant 90s proscription orders.
(12-06-2011 03:24 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2011 03:07 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Think about it. Pussy slips, leaving the mic on/other incidents do indeed happen every now and then on the Cellcast shows, but do they get reported? You know what, they probably do, however, Ofcom can't act on any complaint they receive regarding the Cellcast channels due to them being regulated by someone else (NICAM). Basically, the Cellcast channels are protected from feeling the wrath of Ofcom if such incidents happen.
It makes perfect sense for a company that is according to Ofcom "based in the Netherlands" to get a licence from the country of it's origin , like "chilly" says it also protects them from the wrath of Ofcom , you have only got to look at all the fines dished out to the likes of Playboy and TVX for their encrypted channels when they failed to encrypt them properly to realise how much this Dutch licence protected Cellcast when they did the same when they showed BSXtreme unencrypted , just look at all the hassle RLC , Elite , Sport xxx channels are having from Ofcom at present , BS is immune from this Ofcom hassle , look a all the fines Bangbabes had to pay Ofcom which eventually led to them going bust , apart from "lolly pop gate" everything else that Bangbabes did on the night shows and got fines for BS also do but BS get away with it , ie Amanda flashing and other girls slipping .
So like what's previously been posted by me , BS are quite happy not to show harder content for free , if you want to see more explicit material of the BS girls then you have to purchase Xtreme or down load the girls pic's and vid's and in doing so lining Cellcast's pockets , BS would loose this revenue if they showed harder content for free . It's also been mentioned by some of the girls on this forum and some time ago by the "Blue Kiss" rep (when Blue Kiss was a Cellcast show) that showing more explicit content doesn't necessarily result in more phone revenue because viewers are more likely to just watch and not call , he said something like the phone in channels are about striking a balance between not being to tame resulting in viewers turning off or being to explicit were viewers just watch and don't call or not lasting long on the phones when they do call .
(12-06-2011 12:39 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]It makes perfect sense for a company that is according to Ofcom "based in the Netherlands" to get a licence from the country of it's origin , like "chilly" says it also protects them from the wrath of Ofcom , you have only got to look at all the fines dished out to the likes of Playboy and TVX for their encrypted channels when they failed to encrypt them properly to realise how much this Dutch licence protected Cellcast when they did the same when they showed BSXtreme unencrypted , just look at all the hassle RLC , Elite , Sport xxx channels are having from Ofcom at present , BS is immune from this Ofcom hassle , look a all the fines Bangbabes had to pay Ofcom which eventually led to them going bust , apart from "lolly pop gate" everything else that Bangbabes did on the night shows and got fines for BS also do but BS get away with it , ie Amanda flashing and other girls slipping.
So like what's previously been posted by me , BS are quite happy not to show harder content for free ,
Exactly, which is why they don't get hassled by Ofcom. Nothing to do with having foreign licences. They're called 'Tamestation' for a reason.
I'm not saying that having a Dutch licence will not help you if you transmit the odd pussy slip or similar, but it's not the cloak of invisibility people seem to think it is, otherwise all the babe channels would be uplinking from Holland.
As a business decision within this commercial market having an overseas licence gives this broadcaster a massive advantage over their rivals.
Not only does it take Cellcast out of the regulatory burden of Ofc@m but also the BCAP code for advertisers.
It is the BCAP code and NOT Ofc@m that stipulates the times that Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services must adhere to..
Rule 23.3 Television only – Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services must not be broadcast before 9pm or after 5:30am.
On Digital Terrestrial Television, advertising for telecommunications based sexual entertainment services must not be broadcast before 12am or after 5:30am.
So legally Cellcast can operate earlier times, as they are doing, on two freeview channels.
The licenses issued to Cellcast by the Dutch Authority, Commissariat Voor De Media (CVDM), ARE teleshopping licenses and not editorial, as per the decision of the European Court of Justice case C-195/06, KommAustria v. ORF which is binding on all EU countries.
The regulation and enforcement of their content is carried out by the Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisual Media (NICAM), and Ofc@m do not have any legal standing in this arrangement.
The Dutch authorities operate a 'No Censorship' policy and leave it up to each licensee to self-classify content under the Kijkwijzer system co-ordinated by NICAM. The Kijkwijzer system is as described in post 599 from Chilly.
Any complaints against Babestation cannot and will not be entertained by Ofc@m, although subject to the Data Protection Act, they will forward complaints onto NICAM on your behalf. Ofc@m DO NOT have any form of 'Memorandum of Understanding' with NICAM with regard to co-regulation/enforcement and i would say any such arrangement would be illegal under the TWF Directive.
As Digital Dave states in post 623 broadcasters will change licence providers to get around restrictions imposed in countries in which they wish to broadcast. All perfectly legal under the TWF.
In fact, the dutch authorities have been fighting through their courts for the last 4 years to try to force RTL Nederland to licence their broadcasts through them rather than the Luxembourg authorities. This is because the Luxembourg authorities have the minimum requirements with regard to advertising restrictions thus allowing RTL longer advertising breaks, split screen advertising etc otherwise restricted on other Dutch licensed operators, SBS and Talpa etc. The Dutch authorities have been unsuccessful in their attempts to overturn this and the situation would be the same if Ofc@m tried to force Cellcast into licensing with them.
The Luxembourg authorities have some of the minimum restrictions with regard to media content having opted to intergrate the TWF directive direct into national law, the Luxembourg Media Act, although they have prohibited 'clandestine advertising and teleshopping' so no babechannels allowed in Luxembourg.
So the question is answered, Ofc@m do not have any control over the content shown by Babestation or Babestation Exteme, this content has already been registered, through Kijkwijzer, with NICAM.
R18 content is not banned on UK television by any national legislation only by the Broadcasting Code, enforced by Ofc@m.
So Babestation are in a strong commercial position if they wished to show stronger content in accordance with Dutch regulations. Occasional full frontal nudity unencrypted after 8pm, full frontal nudity unencrypted after 10pm and R18 encrypted after 10pm.
Ofc@m can complain to the Dutch licensing authorities but would have to demonstrate through the appropriate courts their evidence of harm/offence. Very unlikely.
Sky are already carrying on their EPG many broadcasters with licenses issued by other EU authorities to get round Ofc@m restrictions with no repercussions from Ofc@m. Indeed the majority of the scandinavian broadcasters are licensed with Ofc@m to get around the severe restrictions concerning protection of children in those countries. Ofc@m's apparently are less severe.
So Babestation can get away with full frontal slips, tits out before 10pm, offensive language and the odd insertion on their encrypted channel without any repercussions from Ofc@m.
Will continue this reply tomorrow just been advised by Admin i have a free pass to Shebang. See ya.
GPP
(12-06-2011 23:09 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]As a business decision within this commercial market having an overseas licence gives this broadcaster a massive advantage over their rivals.
Not only does it take Cellcast out of the regulatory burden of Ofc@m but also the BCAP code for advertisers.
It is the BCAP code and NOT Ofc@m that stipulates the times that Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services must adhere to..
Rule 23.3 Television only – Advertising for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services must not be broadcast before 9pm or after 5:30am.
On Digital Terrestrial Television, advertising for telecommunications based sexual entertainment services must not be broadcast before 12am or after 5:30am.
So legally Cellcast can operate earlier times, as they are doing, on two freeview channels.
The licenses issued to Cellcast by the Dutch Authority, Commissariat Voor De Media (CVDM), ARE teleshopping licenses and not editorial, as per the decision of the European Court of Justice case C-195/06, KommAustria v. ORF which is binding on all EU countries.
The regulation and enforcement of their content is carried out by the Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisual Media (NICAM), and Ofc@m do not have any legal standing in this arrangement.
The Dutch authorities operate a 'No Censorship' policy and leave it up to each licensee to self-classify content under the Kijkwijzer system co-ordinated by NICAM. The Kijkwijzer system is as described in post 599 from Chilly.
Any complaints against Babestation cannot and will not be entertained by Ofc@m, although subject to the Data Protection Act, they will forward complaints onto NICAM on your behalf. Ofc@m DO NOT have any form of Memorandum of Understanding' with NICAM with regard to co-regulation/enforcement and i would say any such arrangement would be illegal under the TWF Directive.
As Digital Dave states in post 623 broadcasters will change licence providers to get around restrictions imposed in countries in which they wish to broadcast. All perfectly legal under the TWF.
In fact, the dutch authorities have been fighting through their courts for the last 4 years to try to force RTL Nederland to licence their broadcasts through them rather than the Luxembourg authorities. This is because the Luxembourg authorities have the minimum requirements with regard to advertising restrictions thus allowing RTL longer advertising breaks, split screen advertising etc otherwise restricted on other Dutch licensed operators, SBS and Talpa etc. The Dutch authorities have been unsuccessful in their attempts to overturn this and the situation would be the same if Ofc@m tried to force Cellcast into licensing with them.
The Luxembourg authorities have some of the minimum restrictions with regard to media content having opted to intergrate the TWF directive direct into national, Luxembourg Media Act, although they have prohibited 'clandestine advertising and teleshopping' so no babechannels allowed in Luxembourg.
So the question is answered, Ofc@m do not have any control over the content shown by Babestation or Babestation Exteme, this content has already been registered, through Kijkwijzer, with NICAM.
R18 content is not banned on UK television by any national legislation only by the Broadcasting Code, enforced by Ofc@m.
So Babestation are in a strong commercial position if they wished to show stronger content in accordance with Dutch regulations. Occasional full frontal nudity unencrypted after 8pm, full frontal nudity unencrypted after 10pm and R18 encrypted after 10pm.
Ofc@m can complain to the Dutch licensing authorities but would have to demonstrate through the appropriate courts their evidence of harm/offence. Very unlikely.
Sky are already carrying on their EPG many broadcasters with licenses issued by other EU authorities to get round Ofc@m restrictions with no repercussions from Ofc@m. Indeed the majority of the scandinavian broadcasters are licensed with Ofc@m to get around the severe restrictions concerning protection of children in those countries. Ofc@m's apparently are less severe.
So Babestation can get away with full frontal slips, tits out before 10pm, offensive language and the odd insertion on their encrypted channel without any repercussions from Ofc@m.
Will continue this reply tomorrow just been advised by Admin i have a free pass to Shebang. See ya.
GPP
Good to know about this. I hope now that Babestation shows full frontal from now on after 10, without all of the censorship.
(12-06-2011 23:09 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]As a business decision within this commercial market having an overseas licence gives this broadcaster a massive advantage over their rivals.
(snip for space)
Thanks. All very interesting but it still doesn't answer why Cellcast would have this apparent freedom and not use it more. After all, they have traditionally been too scared to even use the word 'cock' on air, preferring their girls to use 'clock' instead. Now they don't even do that. Just saying foreign licences cover them in case of accidents, whilst true, doesn't really hold water as a reason for having them.
Those people who respond by saying Cellcast keep their harder stuff for the encrypted channels are missing the point - they could just have Ofcom licences for their FTA channels if that's their strategy.
I think the answer as to why they don't produce harder FTA material is because they broadcast to their target market through that country's main satellite infrastructure - the Sky platform, and that makes them vulnerable.
So it leads me back to the original point - why bother with the hassle of Dutch licences when in practice there seem to be few benefits. I think only Cellcast will be able to answer that.
I think the situation with Cellcast, is purely down to the fact that they know if they showed what they could on their fta channels then nobody would purchase their other products. Unfortunatley for us, until one of the other channels do the same, Cellcast will not see the point in taking things further on their fta channels due to them being happy with things how they are.
If another channel does decide to get a dutch license and started to show stronger content on their fta channels, then Cellcast would then start to show stronger content because then they'd have a real competitor on content.
I'm just hoping producers/owners of the other channels read this thread and take the hint.