BS's Latest Ploy

(22-10-2009 01:36 )oxygenIT Wrote:  Agree on the graphics as well, especially the huge ugly black box with illuminous writing that sits in the top right blocking out a quarter of the screen and resembling something created by a 6 year old on an Amstrad in 1980.

Absolute rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amstrad didn't start making home pc's until 1984

(22-10-2009 01:43 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  

(22-10-2009 01:36 )oxygenIT Wrote:  Agree on the graphics as well, especially the huge ugly black box with illuminous writing that sits in the top right blocking out a quarter of the screen and resembling something created by a 6 year old on an Amstrad in 1980.

Absolute rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amstrad didn't start making home pc's until 1984

Just testing. It's clearly the work of an Atari

(19-10-2009 17:02 )IanG Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 16:25 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  As several people have already pointed out, you see far stronger language and content on TV... So why would regulators like OFCOM wanna pick on these channels?

There are many reasons, but content ain't the main one (that's just a lame excuse). It's the premium rate services splashed all over the screen that's the real issue. Whenever premium rate services are involved, you're askin for a lot of hassle from the regulators - especially if your business is on TV. Basically, there's girl(s) onscreen and only 1 caller can get through at a time, so most of the money will be made from "offscreen girls & eavesdroppers". That in itself explains why the heat is on...

When I used to work in the racing industry, the regulators kept an extra close eye on us the moment we added a premium rate mobile phone service to the business. If it involves things like adult content or betting they always suspect foul play.

Winston Wolfe

Well here's an idea. What if the premium rate ONLY applied to the on-screen girls? That's what they 'advertise' isn't it? You shouldn't be paying full price for speaking to someone you can't see and do the 'Participation TV' thing with should you? And of course no one is strictly 'participating' if they're just a passive eavesdropper.

It seems to me the old "send us 50 texts to flash the gash" was the only real definition of 'Participation TV' - where the viewers dictate the action and call the shots.

In addition, I certainly would not spend £3 to buy a passport-sized photo sight unseen. I mean, I can get a whole magazine full of A4 size pictures of sexy girls showing everything for that sort of money. Indeed, for just £5 you can get a month's access to the website of one rather famous magazine's entire 50+ year archive.

As for Ofcom, they're supposed to be encouraging competition and viewer choice. Thus far they've allowed, even forced, one company into a dominant (even monopolistic) position where they offer very little variety or choice to viewers whatsoever. You get what you're given basically - some of that is down to the operator but, also down to Ofcom's unprecedented (and rather unnecessary) interference.

This market, such as it is, is not free to meet viewer/customer expectations, its not 'self-correcting' due to the normal effects of supply and demand. The entire adult TV market is in fact subject to price fixing, illegal 12 month tie-in contracts, rip-off scams and delivery of sub-standard material all because Ofcom refuse to give adults proper choice, respect and trust.

Thanks for your reply IanG... I've given a more detailed response on the "Are Cellcast Having Problems?" thread...

As for the latest "Cellcast ploy", I actually think the "girl on girl calls" is one of the few good ideas... It must be a good moneyspinner otherwise they wouldn't keep "advertising" it. But at least it's a genuinely good service for eavesdroppers, even if some of the girl callers are "offscreen girls"

Winston Wolfe