As a Sky user this seems the best solution i am not sure how this is delivered but it must be similar to watching a 15 film during the day. The only challenge with this is if there is not a uniform solution for the freeview community it wont fly as they are the majority by some way of Babeshows viewers.
(19-01-2012 10:32 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]As a Sky user this seems the best solution i am not sure how this is delivered but it must be similar to watching a 15 film during the day.
Why not get babestation to rate a programme 15 between 6pm-8pm... it should ask for a PIN. However at 8pm it will stop asking and only work on a pay channel. Somebody have to ask babestation to change EPG data. At least it did when a free channel accidentally set a 15 rating on programme between 5:30am-8pm.
(19-01-2012 10:32 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]As a Sky user this seems the best solution i am not sure how this is delivered but it must be similar to watching a 15 film during the day. The only challenge with this is if there is not a uniform solution for the freeview community it wont fly as they are the majority by some way of Babeshows viewers.
If Ofcom want they can find a way.
Bizarrely Ofcom were dead against allowing babeshows on Freeview even late at night. Having argued that it was not possible to have an Adult EPG section that could be locked out, Ofcom then turned round and said it would be acceptable to simply bookend the adult channels.
Personally I think the solution is for Ofcom to get off their corporate arse and define new standards for Freeview receivers that allow EGP channel groups and section locks. They cant force manufacturers to comply, but having a big "Ofcom Approved - Child Safe" sticker would be a big selling point. Ofcom are supposed to innovate. They are supposed to protect against offence. They dont. Its an irresponsible neglect of duty.
(18-01-2012 10:59 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ] (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*
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?
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.
Grawth, I've truncated your post to highlight the points I want to address, and while I agree with you regarding browsers of the 900s being there becuase they want to be, I suspect Roquentin is referring to people like me when he says 'casual viewer'. I
don't have a favourite babe and usually just browse up and down the 900s on several occasions during the night, looking for the best action - regardless of who's providing it. Given that fact, there is no way on this earth I'd be willing to enter my PIN almost 20 times, each and
every time I wanted to do this, and I think you'll find there's a quite a few who casually 'browse' the channels in the same way.
I am not sure it would be as big an issue as you make it out to be if people were getting what they wanted. Most people would focus on the one or two fave babes on any given night in any event. Its only four numbers which take a few seconds to enter.
Its the only solution I think that will keep the authorities at bay.
As a 'browser' who snatches a quick look every now and again a PIN as described above would be a pain but I would support it to stop this uncontrollable descent into farce
(20-01-2012 15:06 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (18-01-2012 10:59 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ] (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*
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?
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.
Grawth, I've truncated your post to highlight the points I want to address, and while I agree with you regarding browsers of the 900s being there becuase they want to be, I suspect Roquentin is referring to people like me when he says 'casual viewer'. I don't have a favourite babe and usually just browse up and down the 900s on several occasions during the night, looking for the best action - regardless of who's providing it. Given that fact, there is no way on this earth I'd be willing to enter my PIN almost 20 times, each and every time I wanted to do this, and I think you'll find there's a quite a few who casually 'browse' the channels in the same way.
Fair enough. But (and it's a big but) you have to also factor in what you actually want to see on these channels and how we might go about getting it.
If you are happy with the current output, then there is no need for further discussion, and I can easily see how having to pop the pin in every time you change channels would annoy you.
If you are NOT happy with the current shows, then clearly you would like a way of seeing stronger material being broadcast. It seems fairly certain now that no channel is going to bother challenging Ofcom. And the petition (worthy as it is) is not going to force a change either. So what else can be done?
That's the starting point I had. I also didn't want to consider PPV as I don't believe either the viewers or the channels want to use this option (at least, not across the board). So using pin protection to then access a free to view channel seems the only remaining option. It allows stronger material to be shown, it keeps it free, and the annoyance factor is less than having to register a credit card and pay for every night's viewing!
It also gives the broadcasters the option of keeping some channels as they are, and switching some over to pin controlled, which would give you some channels to browse with no annoying interruptions, and some that COULD show stronger stuff.
It's not perfect, but I believe it is the easiest way for everyone to get something they want.
Cheers for your reply by the way :-)
(18-01-2012 16:07 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]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 
Hi. Glad I didn't offend you! Have to say that more and more I am thinking that each broadcaster having some channels remain as they are and some that are pin-protected is the best way forward for everyone. The casual browser still has channels they can flick back and forth between; those in search of something a little stronger can still get them for free; the channels (in my opinion) would probably generate MORE caller income and Ofcom would (hopefully) be slightly reassured by the protection offered by using a pin!
What do you think?
Watching the channel's tonight and what they were previous I just think the whole point of them in serving any purpose has now but all evaporated. To simply say tonight has been an absymal night would be stating the obvious. They have been in decline now for some time, most notably going drastically down hill and reaching new levels of boredom these last 6 months, I've just been looking back on some of the caps of the past few years and it's hard to think that's what we got now compared to this total non event. Elite for starter's used to produce some of the hottest show's in 2010. Also we had Sportxxx with the likes of Bailey Cream and co more or less showing full frontal. Bangabes too wasn't all that far off either. I no longer look forward to watching the babe shows and I've found myself instead watching a movie or documentry. The babe channels are all dying off, even although in the past we still hankered to see the end of Ofcom the show's still served the purpose of offering us something of an erotic nature. I really fucking hope they improve this year. Ofcom are not going to go away either so it's up to the channel's producer's to persuade them into relaxing the rules a lot more or I fear a lot of them will sink into oblivion.
^ Remember how rampant the phone calls were in late 2010 and back? That was when the 2-4-1s were allowed, nude even, but now, many of the calls have dried up. However, it hasn't appeared to hurt these channels enough for them to make a fuss, so we are just stuck with what we have, and vice versa.
I'd love to have a device for our TV's where we could get online content right on the big screen, and babe studios could film the women with their regular TV cameras to ensure a good picture. It would only be accessable through the web, but there could be an HD fibre optic cable that we could attach to our computers, and to the TV, allowing for a clearer picture to be shown than what is on the webstream. That way it would be uncensored, and the channels would not be in any breach. If perhaps they wanted to charge a fee, we could pay on the website, get a code, punch it in, and presto the content is visible!
OK, my brain is going to mush as you all can see
