All advertising in the UK or directed at the UK through whatever media is governed by the CAP and BCAP codes enforced by the ASA.
The ASA is a self-regulatory body financed by the media (independent of government) who decide and make rulings on complaints. They cannot enforce against their rulings but use the Office of Fair Trading (Trading Standards) to carryout enforcement for non-compliance.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx
OFCOM has general regulatory responsibility for broadcasting content standards in the UK. It has contracted out, (through a Memorandum of Understanding) the regulation of most aspects of broadcast advertising to the ASA, but retains responsibility for the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and all other ‘Participation TV’ services, BCAP Code.
The BCAP Code applies to all advertisements (including teleshopping, content on self-promotional television channels, television text and interactive television advertisements) and programme sponsorship credits on radio and television services
licensed by Ofcom.
SKY channel 906 is operated under a licence issued to Game Network B.V by the dutch regulator
Commissariaat voor de Media with content compliant with the dutch Kijkwijzer classification system administered by NICAM.
So the operator of channel 906 is compliant with their own licence restrictions. The strongest sexual content is classified 16.
I an aware (fact) that Game Network BV found themselves in a dispute with BSkyB many years ago, who sought to impose a contractural condition on carrying the client's channel (Cellcast), that its content comply with Ofcom standards. This action would have resulted in a restraint of trade (illegal) by the imposition of an unfair contract term. Such action is readily defended through the issue of a High Court judicial order(injuction). Game Network BV defended their position.
We also know that Ofcom tried to bring Game Network BV in line with the broadcasting hours in the BCAP code for freeview tv through complaint to the commission and as far as i can see from committee minutes from european meetings this failed, although the french authorities are now questioning the regulatory jurisdiction over satellite uplinks. Something for the future.
So in relation to the withdrawal of BSX from the freeview platform, whilst there might have been pressure from the platform providers, who themselves may have been under pressure from a third party (Ofcom) there is much legal recourse available to protect their licence including Human Rights.
There is well established case law under HRA Protocol 1 of Article 1 Protection of Property. A key European authority 'Tre Traktorer' confirms that Article 6(1) is applicable because a licence confers a right on a licensee, in accordance with the conditions of the licence, and the legislation. Therefore a licensee has a 'civil right' to run a business under the licence unless it contravenes the conditions laid down therein, or gives rise to any of the statutory grounds for revocation. So if the dutch media regulator is satisfied with the way Game Network BV operates under it's licence then that should suffice.
If the freeview channel BSX was worth protecting then it would still be operating, like channel 906 So i can only guess that it wasn't financially viable to protect.
Ofcom have just released a revised version of their guidance. Ofcom guidance on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...idance.pdf
Haven't checked it for any further restrictions (or relaxations).
