[rotty]

Originally Posted by lstar337

They are the ones with a girl on a sofa chatting to people on the phone.

I think the term 'girl' is pushing the boundaries of reality or imagination somewhat

[naddieuk]

Slapper channels should not be confused with slaphead channels.

Sorry, bad joke.

However, it is good news as the problem was that even though I would try to avoid it, it would get in the way when moving up to check channel 301. There was no way to avoid the channel and if children were to use the remote control, then those names would appear and they would ask what those channels mean.

[wgmorg]

Before buying any STB or PVR you should ensure channels can be deleted or hidden using parental controls.

Originally Posted by naddieuk

There was no way to avoid the channel and if children were to use the remote control, then those names would appear and they would ask what those channels mean.

[Jason100]

Love the thread title!

Ray i see your "S" key still seems to be broken.

[TelevisionUser]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

Ofcon have released a regulatory statement and new consultation on Adult PRS services.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...ticipationtv3/

It appears that they require the slapper channels to be in a segregated part of the EPG although not encrypted. It is currently not possible to segregate off any channels on Freeview although future receivers might be capable of doing this.

This means that if the current consultation becomes a final regulatory statement in early 2010, as usual with Ofcon consultations, then slapper channels would have to be removed from Freeview.

Obviously cable and $ky EPGs can be segregated so there would be no problem there. Not sure about FreeSat as there are no slapper channels on it yet. I presume that Ofcon disregard FTA satellite viewing.

The whole thing seems to be a way of getting the slapper channels off Freeview without closing them down completely. The usual Ofcon smoke and mirrors trick.

And what an excellent thing that would be as these channels are just wastes of scarce Freeview space.

Speaking of which, would the biggest waste of all, the sleazy Television X, have to go as well? I hope so.

[slackereconomy]

grahamrudkin says "this can only be good news for the consumer"...yes graham, but only the consumers you agree with...the fact these channels exist mean there is a market from them, albeit a niche one. documentaries and the arts are also very niche products today, perhaps their demise would also be good for "the consumer", whoever that may be. a backward step for choice in my opinion.

[quin_the_eskimo]

Originally Posted by russellelly

Then they make almost no money.

No, they still make money: You call an Freefone or lo-call (08) number so it doesn't show on the 'phone bill but pay for services by credit card.

[my_login]

Originally Posted by slackereconomy

the fact these channels exist mean there is a market from them

Yes.

My post here is not on this topic's main issues of channel segregation and any regulatory changes.

I think those of you with apparently strong views on what should or shouldn't be on a TV platform need to get on with your lives and stop obsessing over it.

You don't like certain channels? Don't watch them.
You don't think they deserve spectrum space? Don't watch them.
I don't phone or get any thrill from the babe channels, by the way.
You passionately want certain channels? Lobby proactively for them through meaningful recognised avenues.

There are many channels around that I may feel are a waste of spectrum or even unethical, but I don't see any point in pursuing an apparent agenda on an internet forum.
Why delude myself that the regulator and companies care about or even read what some faceless web people say? That applies to much of the hysterical / speculative / obsessive babble anywhere on this site.

Assuming compliance within the wisdom of Ofcom, profit and viewership will determine what happens. End of story.

[figrin_dan]

Agree with everything my_login said. But the British do like to whinge to eachother. It's our way. I also don't think the term "Slapper Channels" is accurate, it's just trying to be offensive.

[gianni]

Bandwidth on DTT is cheap because there is low coverage and market penetration - hence the babe channels and diamante-kak selling channels can afford them. Now fast-forward to 2012 when there is ubiquitous coverage at high signal strength. Then there is a platform for high-quality channels to pay big bucks to sell advertising because their audience is large.

It is satellite in reverse: that started with very expensive slots and high quality programmes, now a slot is cheap and you get the burgeoning of babes, god-botherers /Allah-botherers/Ganesh-botherers and people selling cheap jewelry and rock-hard abs.

Edit - changed slappers to babes to avoid offence.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by gianni

Bandwidth on DTT is cheap

No it isn't.

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by my_login

I think those of you with apparently strong views on what should or shouldn't be on a TV platform need to get on with your lives and stop obsessing over it.

You don't like certain channels? Don't watch them.

Too simplistic a view. Do you want children watching these channels? I wouldn't. Most of those who advocate unrestricted viewing do not have children or have not considered the needs of those who do.

The Ofcon changes go some way towards restricting the availability of these channels by only allowing them on platforms where parents can choose to restrict them being viewed by children. The more adult material must be encrypted.

If Freeview brings in EPG changes then erotic channels can be shown on Freeview. Otherwise not. That sounds a lot more sensible than your plan.

[angustay]

Bandwidth on Freeview is expensive but not as bad as satellite and the EPG on Freeview is the most expensive in the UK so far. Like it or not some of the big name channels on Freeview lease space to the babe channels in order to make a profit to keep them on the EPG, take these channels away or move them to a less noticable area and you lose the so called quality channels as well. Some are already talking of leaving Freeview next year doing this will ensure it. Most boxes can lock out channels and all future boxes in time will also be able to lock channels surely this is better than alienating good channels and forcing them to move platforms and further destroying this once great platform.

[my_login]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

Too simplistic a view.

I agree with the arguments about segregation / protecting people from certain content.

I was ranting about how people repeatedly vent on this site and others when it doesn't achieve anything.
I appreciate though, how my 'moan' is arguably not much different to other kinds of 'moan'. It's still moaning pointlessly on the internet.

[my_login]

Originally Posted by figrin_dan

I also don't think the term "Slapper Channels" is accurate, it's just trying to be offensive.

Yes, slapper does have a tone of derision.
I do however think of the 'babes' as TV prostitutes, because sex is what they are selling.

I don't care if the channels exist or not; I just find it somewhat incredulous that some people find value for money from using their services.
I assume such people are incapable for various reasons of actual 1-2-1 contact with a woman or prostitute.

[gianni]

OK, bandwidth on DTT is available relatively cheaply from prime purchasers at reduced rates during the wee small hours.

I think my argument still holds? Once Discovery/Disney/etc. see a market opportunity the babe channels will be pushed aside.

[Charnham]

but the babe channels are midnight to 6am, there is a very real chance that NOTHING will replace them, at best its going to be teleshopping, or roulette.

There will not be a raft of new channels starting up, sure V1 might get its hours back, but thats about it.

[lnp]

Don't rate Cellcast's chances of finding compliant programming as of January for their 5 streams. At the moment they have none.

Whilst it's good for Ofcon to act in the interests of consumers fleetingly, this isn't going to mean a return of broadcasting hours lost. There will simply be a shift to allowed transaction based programming. As Ofcon love gambling it'll likely be that.

The babe channels may not actually go anywhere. In the original consultation non-adult chat would still be allowed as teleshopping. There would be no semi naked 'babes', which is all Ofcon is worried about anyway, any care for consumers only comes when it suits their agenda.

[my_login]

Originally Posted by lnp

Don't rate Cellcast's chances of finding compliant programming

However, if anyone can find a loophole on the fringes of the code, Cellcast will as they have based a business model on doing it.

[wgmorg]

It was interesting the OP chose that term rather than PERV channels ... the derision should be direct at those that watch ... BUT then that would have meant the derision directed at males.

Originally Posted by my_login

Yes, slapper does have a tone of derision.
I do however think of the 'babes' as TV prostitutes, because sex is what they are selling.

I don't care if the channels exist or not; I just find it somewhat incredulous that some people find value for money from using their services.
I assume such people are incapable for various reasons of actual 1-2-1 contact with a woman or prostitute.

[Jonboy92]

Not so fast!

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthrea...d=12392&page=5

post #103 suggests that only Partyland may be under threat.

[The Snakes]

These channels are only on late at night anyway. If children are up late at night watching them, isn't it down to their parents?

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Jonboy92

Not so fast!

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthrea...d=12392&page=5

post #103 suggests that only Partyland may be under threat.

That explains why Babestation uses the "16" logo.
admin posted some time ago in answer to my question that it was for Dutch viewers who have a lower age limit. I assumed it was just for Dutch viewers who pick up the Sky broadcasts. Its obviously got something to do with the Dutch licences as well.

It says nothink about partyland but PL will be rename babestation3 soon

[FoxhoundTCF]

Originally Posted by The Snakes

These channels are only on late at night anyway. If children are up late at night watching them, isn't it down to their parents?

Well Tease Me TV for one broadcasts from 03:00-09:00. Most kids will be up by 07:00 on a schoolday and maybe 08:00 on a weekend/school holiday. Of course by then the "hosts" have to be covered up but they will still be pretty suggestive

[michael21]

Originally Posted by FoxhoundTCF

Well Tease Me TV for one broadcasts from 03:00-09:00. Most kids will be up by 07:00 on a schoolday and maybe 08:00 on a weekend/school holiday. Of course by then the "hosts" have to be covered up but they will still be pretty suggestive

Well there are tv show on in the day and eveing were girls wear less when you say kids 14-18 it will not harm them any way youn can delete channel