The UK Babe Channels Forum

(14-01-2012 02:24 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]You'll find the answer to this in my last post. You know the bit where I said I was bored of the whole situation?

Which in plain English means you haven't got the stomach for the fight. No wonder Ofcom are untouchable!

Admiral its difficult to consider any reasonable protest when the channels themselves dont have the stomach for the fight. They put out a product which is compliant then happily collect their 1.50 per minute effectively reducing us ( who may consider protesting) to a pressure group.

When they stump up the cash to encrypt the whole damn thing then all parties may reach a happy medium. That would certainly be quicker than expecting regulatory change which could take years with the current timetable to get on to the statute books.

Just being realistic I think.

Sorry I am about to repeat something I keep saying.

But encryption might mean something like fumbling to get a new card from sky, or entering in a credit card details, even if for £0, as age verification. I suggest the net effect would be to slash the total number of viewers over time, not us, we would sign up immediately, but without the eye casually looking at the lovelies beforehand, I think eventually revenue would drop, probably worse than the effects of Ofcom nowadays. It's just my take on it, no stats or anything.

Someone (flyinghi) mentioned a very soft entcryption, or effectively a warning screen which would be dispelled by an 'enter' press or something, which sounds alot better. Who knows? *shrug*

(13-01-2012 23:06 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Continental to save yourself the bother of going all the way to Amsterdam (although it would be fun mind you and the last thing I'd be doing there is watching TV ) just get yourself an 80cm Satelite dish and point it directly at 19.2 degree's or get a professional to install it as many offer foreign TV Packages, but that's still missing the point, our channels are a shambles at the moment and Ofcom are running them into the ground. As for Admirals idea of myself and Stan storming the House Of Parliament and Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman and Robin I pissed myself laughing at the very notion. Somebody once said to me that words and reports can do a lot of damage, I will continue protesting and will get in touch with my local MP and persist with e-mails to Ofcom, I might even ring them and put my complaint in over the phone and if all else fails then I'll take my army out and charge the establishments that be dressed ofcourse wearing my kilt just like Braveheart did and we'll do to Ofcom what we did to the English all those centuries ago, and you people will be able to hear the cry again of freedom!!!!!

I"ll be there mate, whether or not i look good in a Kilt is another matter

(14-01-2012 23:42 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-01-2012 19:37 )arron88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-01-2012 17:59 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Or better still every single SKY Box has a slot for an interactive card, couldn't the babe channels not simply be available by the use of a card into this slot, again you register your details to prove you are over 18 and then this is sent out to you,

Hasn't the interactive slot been removed from new sky boxes?

Well? Has it? Anyone know?

Well it looks like it is still there but I maybe read something about it being removed from 'multiroom' receivers. Interactive slot was going to be used for electronic money but far as I know was only ever used once a few years back.

Surely each broadcaster would need their own interactive card - they could not share. Anyways it is all academic because Offcoms will say the parent left the interactive card in the slot and it doesn't prove anything - so there.

EDIT: Also you can't tie the rules into a single platform it would have to be available on majority of platforms.

(15-01-2012 11:47 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(14-01-2012 02:24 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]You'll find the answer to this in my last post. You know the bit where I said I was bored of the whole situation?

Which in plain English means you haven't got the stomach for the fight. No wonder Ofcom are untouchable!

Correct. Well done. Bravo. Halle-fucking-luya!

It's up to you now, admiral. You've certainly got the mouth for this fight, now let's see you go and take on Ofcom for real. Your country is depending on you.

(15-01-2012 17:52 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry I am about to repeat something I keep saying.

But encryption might mean something like fumbling to get a new card from sky, or entering in a credit card details, even if for £0, as age verification. I suggest the net effect would be to slash the total number of viewers over time, not us, we would sign up immediately, but without the eye casually looking at the lovelies beforehand, I think eventually revenue would drop, probably worse than the effects of Ofcom nowadays. It's just my take on it, no stats or anything.

Someone (flyinghi) mentioned a very soft entcryption, or effectively a warning screen which would be dispelled by an 'enter' press or something, which sounds alot better. Who knows? *shrug*

Not meaning any offense hear, but it's this kind of response that gets me down. If you want the content of the babe channels to change, then something different has to be done. As long as people keep trying to shoot down any reasonable suggestions then all we will be able to do is carry on whinging.

You seem convinced that putting a pin number in will cut viewing numbers because the "casual viewer" will disappear. I ask you - what casual viewer? How many people do you think are browsing the 900 channels by accident? And how many of those are the kind of people who would then say "that looks interesting, think I'll stay for a while". You're talking about a TINY number of people.

The people in the 900 channels are there because they want to be. If they want to be there they won't mind having to pop the pin number in a few times. If it's pin protected then channels will be allowed to show stronger content if they want to, which will mean people are more likely to settle on something they want to watch a lot quicker, instead of aimlessly wandering up and down the channels in search of something worth looking at.

Plus, there are a number of people who only watch certain channels or certain girls, so they would only need to use their pin once or twice. And the channels that DIDN'T want to show anything stronger could stay un-pinned and see what happens to their viewing figures.

In fact, I'll lay open a challenge right now. Seeing as these channel providers all have multiple channels, why not each change ONE of them to pin protected, show some stronger content (I'm not talking hardcore, or even necessarily BSX, just stronger), and see whether that channel takes more or less money on the phones.

Not difficult to do, not expensive to do, and no risk cos you're only changing one channel. That could lead to a perfect mix of each provider having some FTA channels, some pin-protected but still free, and maybe even one subscription channel each.

Happy days

(16-01-2012 09:26 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]It's up to you now, admiral. You've certainly got the mouth for this fight, now let's see you go and take on Ofcom for real. Your country is depending on you.

It's true that I am a natural leader, but personally I wouldn't propose that a huge amount of change is needed. I couldn't help the cause of overthrowing the broadcasting code completely, which is what some would like to see. If I am to be your leader I would not be going as far as you would like with your desire for change. I would like to see greater latitude allowed for encrypted broadcasts, as I think the current restrictions on that are definitely wrong, but overall I would not be the right choice for leading the revolution. You need an anti-Ofcom firebrand for that.

Hello Grawth, and no offense at all, in fact a pleasure hearing a thought out response.

Also I hope it was clear enough, this is more a bit of a niggling worry about that option, not a hard view of mine. And sorry it does sound like I constantly shoot it down, but it comes from a genuine concern.

For example, right at the moment there is an advert for some other encrypted 'porn' channels, a bunch of them (6 I think) and the offer at the moment is something like 12 days for a nominal £1. But I haven't seen enough of what I would be getting and I am just not tempted. Partly old fashioned fears about credit cards (though I use them alot in similar situations, but my motives are low here for that offer), partly laziness. Not the exact same kind of example but similar enough. (Out of interest, how do you feel about that offer? It's there as we speak.)

I also think it took me 'discovering' by accident a particular girl or two while flicking through the full range of sky channels, lingering for a while a couple times, before I started consciously returning to particular channels to search them out. A pin probably would have deflected that process in my situation. Is that a tiny proportion of our experience? Maybe so, although I am talking about all of our first encounters with the channels. If they were all advert screens with pin options, how many of us would have gone through the process? Dunno for sure.

So all in all, I just suspect we wouldn't have the same beast if it became encrypted. I also don't think we would have some of the quality babes either. Further, I worry it would be too tempting for channels to put a charge as part of the encryption as well (each channel, grrr), perhaps compensating for loss of footfall browsing. *depressing* sorry I do really want a solution as well, my bet is on parallel internet content, though that has it's problems too, and Elite is dragging it's heels.

PS - that challenge for one channel to experiment with it sounds great. I am happy to be proved wrong of course, win-win

My opinion is about halfway between the two extremes. Many people with Sky chose it knowing there was porn available, and that was a deciding factor. Rather than another platform.

But admitting that to the missus/parents/aunt is something else EVEN IF THEY WOULDNT REALLY MIND.

Encryption at present involves more than entering a PIN, it involves registering, going on a database and having transactions appear on the bills. You might not show your missus your bank statement but plenty of people do and get asked "whats this - £5.99 services?".

Besides its a sheer nuisance not being able to just wander up and down the channels. Once you part with your money you are effectively locked into one channel (or broadcaster) for the night. You arent going to shell out another £5.99 for another channel. Which is tough if it turns out you dont rate the model, or her moves, or theres no hot water in the shower. I know, Ive been there, signed up for live shows and regretted it, but by then its too late.

People say why should shows be free ? If some are free how can paid shows survive ? Well it works for football and movies. Sky has become a multi billion dollar company on the back of people paying good money for content where similar content is available for free on other channels. Details can differ, like depending on premium rate calls, advertising income, competitions, voting and encrypted shows being similat but in a different league, but fact is free and paid content can exist side by side. Heck, I get 3 papers a day, Metro and Standard are free but profitable.

The real killer, apart from causal viewing, is that Sky charges a packet for encryption. So heres my proposal. The Adult channel group if PIN protected by default out of the box - the subscriber must deliberately unlock it. That stops adults being accidentially offended and makes parents responsible for their kids. If thats not enough, the PIN could automatically reset every night at 9pm to avoid problems with sets being unlocked once and parents working late. Drop the cash transaction requirement, its not proof of age and imposes huge costs as well as putting every subscriber on a database.