(12-03-2012 23:07 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]It is possible that this will either get thrown out very quickly or Babestation will accept a token punishment and agree to behave.
Punishment for what?
This whole situation is somewhat Kafkaesque.
The Dutch Commissioner for the Media are fully aware of the content of the broadcasts from their licensee Game Network BV and that the transmission is not directed at Holland and contains no Dutch or Friestalige content.
They have recently renewed the dispensation authorisation for such services so will not be suprised by Ofcom's action. I haven't copied the full translation,
Dispensation
Characteristic: 25683/2011013728
Concerns: dispensation request from Article 3.24 of the mediums law 2008.
Arrangement of the Commission for the mediums (hereafter: Commission) concerning request of Game Network for dispensation of the provisions in Article 3.24 of the mediums law 2008 concerning the percentage initially Dutch or Friestalige productions.
........................................................
Relevant provisions Article 3.24, first and second paragraph, of the mediums law 2008.
On a television programme channel the range of programme services for at least forty per cent exists from original Dutch or Friestalige productions.
The Commission can in particular cases entirely or partially grant dispensation of first paragraph. The Commission can link conditions to a dispensation.
...............................................
For the applicant has explained that the programme channels aim non-exclusively at the Netherlands and that the programme format has not been modified since the first dispensation attribution. For that reason it is requested for complete dispensation of obligatory share Dutch or Friestalige productions.
With relation to the first dispensation request, indicated that the television programme channels in the Netherlands be that to receive, but the programme channels not on the Netherlands had been aimed and that could not be taken part in the interactive programme components (indicated since 1 January 2009 as programmes).
...............................................................
With respect to Blue, TV News, Smile TV2 and Psychic TV
...............................................................
For this reason the Commission grants complete dispensation of obligatory share Dutch or Friestalige productions, as long as the programme format of programme channels do not change and the programme channels are not aimed at the Netherlands.
Having regard to the fact that the dispensation of 1 September 2008 have been granted for a period of 2008 up to and including 2011, this dispensation is granted connecting on this period for the year 2012 up to 21 July 2013, the date on which the validity of the authorisations expires.
Decision
The Commission for the mediums decides, seen the previous and having regard to Article 3.24 of Mediums Law 2008, the following:
I. for the programme channels
Blue, TV News, Grant it, Smile TV2 and Psychic TV
Commission Game Network LTD complete dispensation of the provisions in Article 3.24 of the Mediums Law 2008 and puts the percentage original Dutch or Friestalige productions for these programme channels for the year 2012 up to 21 July 2013 permanently on 0%. As condition applies that the programme format is not modified and that programme channels at the Netherlands have not been aimed.
Hilversum, 11 October 2011
Yours sincerely,
COMMISSION FOR THE MEDIUMS
prof. dr. Tineke Bahlmann Voorzitter
drs. Eric Eljon Commissaris
A similar decision was made against Babestation running from 23 June 2010 to 31 December 2012.
Apologise for the translation.
^^^ i would have hit 'Thanks' if i had understood any of it! do you have a translation for dunces? was it good or bad? seriously.
It is just saying that normally channels have a legal minimum percent of native language requirement but here they were granted an exception.
In other words the Dutch have gone and told Ofcom to mind their own business and get to fuck
(13-03-2012 08:10 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]In other words the Dutch have gone and told Ofcom to mind their own business and get to fuck
That's not what it means at all. In fact the 'ruling' Gold Plated qoutes is not directly connected to this Ofcom complaint at all, he is merely pointing out that the dutch regulator is fully aware of what is being broadcast and where as evidenced by this.
From the previous regulations quoted, it seems clear that there is a mechanism in place whereby Ofcom can insist that the dutch regulators force BS to operate at Ofcom-level output for their broadcasts into their area of jurisdiction.
There is a general agreement that BS currently output nothing significantly stronger than is available on other channels, so it would appear to me that the only area Ofcom can significantly affect is the earlier broadcasting start times on freeview. If they can stop that it may have an impact on Xtreme as the early start gives them time to advertise it and pull subscribers in.
munch
I'm quite surprised how bs xtreme managed to get on free tv in the first place, yes it's owned by a dutch company but still it's surprising. Ofcom's reason about children watching is pathetic particularly for small children, where are the parents then? Isn't there authority in the house? And I find it bizarre that the adult channels will be the first thing in a child's mind aged 7 and over so there's lack of foundation and just mere speculation on the part of ofcom.
(13-03-2012 15:31 )shan_123 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm quite surprised how bs xtreme managed to get on free tv in the first place, yes it's owned by a dutch company but still it's surprising. Ofcom's reason about children watching is pathetic particularly for small children, where are the parents then? Isn't there authority in the house? And I find it bizarre that the adult channels will be the first thing in a child's mind aged 7 and over so there's lack of foundation and just mere speculation on the part of ofcom.
BS Xtreme is a encrypted show , you have to be age verified before you can view it , they only advertise the channel on free to air tv and tell you how to purchase the show and who's on etc and don't show the harder stuff untill encrypted , TVX also advertise free to air their encrypted channel on freeview as well and that's got a Ofcom licence . TVX now advertise their encrypted show after 12am , but even after the new rules were brought out concerning the freeview start times they used to advertise it at 11pm for about a year or so after the new rules came in . The freeview start time rules only concern the start time of unencrypted phone in channels and not the start time of encrypted shows ( i think) .
eccles wrote
Ofcom has guidelines for dealing with other EU regulators, written in 9 April 2010 but updated 1 March 2012 - it is suspicious that an update was rushed out just before Ofcom actually used the procedure, and Babestation could have grounds for complaint if Ofcom changed the regulations retrospectively.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...elines.pdf
I don't read to much into the publication date of the revised guidelines with regard to the current complaint. Following the initial publication Monica Ariño, Senior Manager for European Policy from OFCOM, held a presentation on the procedural cooperation guidelines between the regulatory authorities on the 16th June 2010 at one of their regular meeting in Brussels. Whilst several Member States raised questions regarding the duration and the cultural context of the procedures it didn't raise to much interest.
I believe Ofcom have a high standing at these meetings and probably try to impose their will on other smaller authorities that do not have similar administrative/financial clout. Just my call from reading the minutes from the meetings.
Anyway if you google her she has now moved up to Director of International Affairs in quite a short period, and she's not one for public transport, if her travel record is correct.
Still trying to locate a copy of the Ofcom complaint.
Curious that the Dutch authorities normally require 40% Dutch sourced content, as that would seem to fly in the face of EU open market rules, but thats not our problem dear readers.
I may well be paranoid about dates of changes to procedures and complainants motivations as GPP points out. The various press articles read as if based on press releases but there does not seem to be anything on the Ofcom site. Of course it would not be the first time they released a high profile statement and did not link to it from their Press Release section (ParentPort anyone?) but given the level of interest it would be polite to release a statement.
I do remain mystified about what the actual offence is supposed to be, and too lazy to read the whole of this thread again. Starting a topless service at the same time as on Sky? A late night encrypyed pay per view show no stronger than shown in the UK for many years by TVX and Sport? Unlicenced gambling? Or, and this really would get the Dutch going, smokinhg pot instead of eating it in cookies?