(07-10-2011 17:53 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]this could also answer the question that some people have asked as to why the feeview unencrypted babe channels seem to be at times tamer than the Sky only shows , maybe the owners of freeview don't want the content to be quite so explicit as the Sky owners ? .
That wouldn't surprise me at all, if freeview's truly owned or part owned by the BBC and ITV, as far as the unencrypted shows go anyway. I would have thought encrypted shows like Babestation Xtreme were another matter though - as they are encrypted shows and therefore only viewable to subscribers, nobody's going to get shocked by the content after stumbling across it accidentally, so why would the owners worry about it?
(07-10-2011 15:26 )elgar1uk Wrote: [ -> ]I thought Freeview was owned by the BBC and ITV, so anyone showing R18 would surely be kicked of the air immediately, regardless of what any regulator thought about it or did about it.
Youd have thought so wouldnt you. But Ive seen posts and rules elsewhere about Sky being FORCED to operate a free market for access to its satellite. I think its an anti monopoly European rule that stops them mucking their competitors about if they start taking trade away from the subscription channels. Freeview is an even tighter monopoly - anyone can stick a satellite up, but there are only so many terrestrial channels. And under European law (TWF: Television Without Frontiers) any European licenced channel can operate in the UK.
There ARE rules but its more complex than just kicking off a channel the owners dont like.
(07-10-2011 17:53 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest i've never thought about it like that before , you could be right , whatever is or is not allowed by various regulators from different country's the owners of the tv networks such as Sky , freeview , Cable etc probably have a say as to what content is shown on their tv platforms , this could also answer the question that some people have asked as to why the feeview unencrypted babe channels seem to be at times tamer than the Sky only shows , maybe the owners of freeview don't want the content to be quite so explicit as the Sky owners ? .
I can't quite see that. It would mean they were objecting to content which is tamer than what they show on the mainstream general entertainment channels.
Like everything else in this business their bottom line will start with a '£' sign. As long as the transponder rents continue to roll in I doubt they would bother about content provided it stayed within the limits set by the regulator.
(09-10-2011 02:19 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]I can't quite see that. It would mean they were objecting to content which is tamer than what they show on the mainstream general entertainment channels.
Like everything else in this business their bottom line will start with a '£' sign. As long as the transponder rents continue to roll in I doubt they would bother about content provided it stayed within the limits set by the regulator.
If vila's taking about Sky he's wrong about the £ signs. My understanding is that Sky CANNOT REFUSE a broadcaster if they have a valid licence to boadcast, so nothing to do at all with £ signs. When Sky merged with BSB I seem to remember that the Competition Commission laid down a rule that BSkyB could not refuse a licenced broadcaster and that's why they allowed the merger to go ahead even though it created a monopoly.
(09-10-2011 10:42 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2011 02:19 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]I can't quite see that. It would mean they were objecting to content which is tamer than what they show on the mainstream general entertainment channels.
Like everything else in this business their bottom line will start with a '£' sign. As long as the transponder rents continue to roll in I doubt they would bother about content provided it stayed within the limits set by the regulator.
If vila's taking about Sky he's wrong about the £ signs. My understanding is that Sky CANNOT REFUSE a broadcaster if they have a valid licence to boadcast, so nothing to do at all with £ signs. When Sky merged with BSB I seem to remember that the Competition Commission laid down a rule that BSkyB could not refuse a licenced broadcaster and that's why they allowed the merger to go ahead even though it created a monopoly.
If you look at my post you'll see I'm replying to mr mystery's comments about Freeview's BBC/ITV ownership. The 'babestation' guy has said that Cellcast believe they need to keep Freeview tamer than what they show on Sky outside Freeview hours in order to safeguard their presence there (meaning on Freeview).
Edit: This is a bit of a red herring in this thread because mr mystery was referring to the free-to-air channels.
(09-10-2011 12:15 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2011 10:42 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (09-10-2011 02:19 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]I can't quite see that. It would mean they were objecting to content which is tamer than what they show on the mainstream general entertainment channels.
Like everything else in this business their bottom line will start with a '£' sign. As long as the transponder rents continue to roll in I doubt they would bother about content provided it stayed within the limits set by the regulator.
If vila's taking about Sky he's wrong about the £ signs. My understanding is that Sky CANNOT REFUSE a broadcaster if they have a valid licence to boadcast, so nothing to do at all with £ signs. When Sky merged with BSB I seem to remember that the Competition Commission laid down a rule that BSkyB could not refuse a licenced broadcaster and that's why they allowed the merger to go ahead even though it created a monopoly.
If you look at my post you'll see I'm replying to mr mystery's comments about Freeview's BBC/ITV ownership. The 'babestation' guy has said that Cellcast believe they need to keep Freeview tamer than what they show on Sky outside Freeview hours in order to safeguard their presence there (meaning on Freeview).
Edit: This is a bit of a red herring in this thread because mr mystery was referring to the free-to-air channels.
From the Freeview web-site about us page
----------------
The Organisation
Freeview is managed by DTV Services Ltd, a company owned and run by its five shareholders - BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4, ITV and Arqiva. Launched in October 2002, the Freeview service provides free-to-air digital TV channels, radio stations and interactive services through an aerial.
Write to:
Freeview,
DTV Services Ltd,
27-29 Cursitor Street
London
EC4A 1LT
Freeview is marketed by DTV Services Limited
Registered number: 4435179, registered in England & Wales at the above address
--------------
So you can see that the reason for not showing hard core porn, even in encrypted form on Ch 96, as is shown in europe, is not really a question of regulation, but one of ownership of the distributution network.
Afterall, if they did show real porn, can anyone here really see any of these shareholders wanting to get embroiled in a debate about how loud the girl, who was taking it in the arse on last nights show, should have screamed ???
(11-10-2011 18:38 )fullbunger Wrote: [ -> ]So you can see that the reason for not showing hard core porn, even in encrypted form on Ch 96, as is shown in europe, is not really a question of regulation, but one of ownership of the distributution network.
Afterall, if they did show real porn, can anyone here really see any of these shareholders wanting to get embroiled in a debate about how loud the girl, who was taking it in the arse on last nights show, should have screamed ???
I'm not convinced. This guy wrote to freeview about porn and was told it was a matter for Ofcom:
http://wotsat.techradar.com/news/%E2%80%...9-14-01-11
(12-10-2011 13:45 )trevor format Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2011 18:38 )fullbunger Wrote: [ -> ]So you can see that the reason for not showing hard core porn, even in encrypted form on Ch 96, as is shown in europe, is not really a question of regulation, but one of ownership of the distributution network.
Afterall, if they did show real porn, can anyone here really see any of these shareholders wanting to get embroiled in a debate about how loud the girl, who was taking it in the arse on last nights show, should have screamed ???
I'm not convinced. This guy wrote to freeview about porn and was told it was a matter for Ofcom:
http://wotsat.techradar.com/news/%E2%80%...9-14-01-11
Yes and Ofcom themselves have said that they do not regulate the BS channels with a Dutch licence , BS Xtreme is licenced in the Netherlands and is regulated by "NICAM" the Dutch equivalent of Ofcom , Ofcom will willingly tell you this themselves.
(12-10-2011 15:35 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Yes and Ofcom themselves have said that they do not regulate the BS channels with a Dutch licence , BS Xtreme is licenced in the Netherlands and is regulated by "NICAM" the Dutch equivalent of Ofcom , Ofcom will willingly tell you this themselves .
That is strange. So what code of standards does NICAM enforce?
(12-10-2011 19:02 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ] (12-10-2011 15:35 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Yes and Ofcom themselves have said that they do not regulate the BS channels with a Dutch licence , BS Xtreme is licenced in the Netherlands and is regulated by "NICAM" the Dutch equivalent of Ofcom , Ofcom will willingly tell you this themselves .
That is strange. So what code of standards does NICAM enforce?
I've no idea mate , but you can bet your bottom Dollar that Ofcom still monitor the channel and stick their nose into things when they feel like it , even though their official line is that they don't regulate the BS channels with the Dutch licence . A forum member actually asked Ofcom themselves about the BS channels with the Dutch licence and was told something like "because the BS company is based and licenced in the Netherlands it is not regulated by them" , can't remember off hand the actual wording but it was something like that , the exact quote is on this forum somewhere .