Users of PBX telephone systems could then regularly update the currently used Robo/Telemarketer numbers, and remove false poisitives. Public would be assured that the listed numbers are current and that private subscribers and false positives are not being blocked.
The current system of collecting these numbers from diverse web databases means anyone can blacklist YOUR NUMBER.
Why is this idea important?
Users of PBX telephone systems could then regularly update the currently used Robo/Telemarketer numbers, and remove false poisitives. Public would be assured that the listed numbers are current and that private subscribers and false positives are not being blocked.
The current system of collecting these numbers from diverse web databases means anyone can blacklist YOUR NUMBER.
Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.
The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!
At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.
1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.
2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.
3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).
4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?
5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?
Why is this idea important?
Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.
The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!
At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.
1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.
2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.
3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).
4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?
5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?
Make it quick and easy to cancel TV subscriptions. Equality!
Some small operators of TV satellite channels require subscribers to sign up for a minimum of 12 months. Some make cacellation difficult – 14 days written notice must be given for something that can be effected in 5 minutes. Notifications are "lost". When evetually acknowledged, requests to cancel are too late for this month. A viewer who starts cancelling after 12 months often ends up paying for 15.
None of this would be too bad if viewers were getting the package they signed up for, but under one sided contracts, viewers must sign up for 12 months but the broadcaster can drastically vary their content, removing flagship shows that were the main reason for signing up and gave every appearance of being permanent features.
The channels in question do not incur any equipment set up costs, simply the cost of processing a direct debit, usually 5-10 minutes time for an operator in a call centre.
The operators in question have atrack record of laying on attractive flagship shows and luring subscribers in, knowing full well that they cannot sustain the output, and without the restrictive clauses audience churn would be much higher.
Why is this idea important?
Make it quick and easy to cancel TV subscriptions. Equality!
Some small operators of TV satellite channels require subscribers to sign up for a minimum of 12 months. Some make cacellation difficult – 14 days written notice must be given for something that can be effected in 5 minutes. Notifications are "lost". When evetually acknowledged, requests to cancel are too late for this month. A viewer who starts cancelling after 12 months often ends up paying for 15.
None of this would be too bad if viewers were getting the package they signed up for, but under one sided contracts, viewers must sign up for 12 months but the broadcaster can drastically vary their content, removing flagship shows that were the main reason for signing up and gave every appearance of being permanent features.
The channels in question do not incur any equipment set up costs, simply the cost of processing a direct debit, usually 5-10 minutes time for an operator in a call centre.
The operators in question have atrack record of laying on attractive flagship shows and luring subscribers in, knowing full well that they cannot sustain the output, and without the restrictive clauses audience churn would be much higher.
Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.
This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.
The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.
Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).
Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.
Why is this idea important?
Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.
This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.
The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.
Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).
Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.
Many businesses and even public sector organisations continue to use 0845 (HMRC), 0844 (SIA) which are not Phonepay Plus regulated and often charge much more than standard landline rate to call, especially 0844. A ban on all unregulated telephone revenue sharing, as Ofcom did with 0870, would then pave the way for calls to 08 numbers to be price-capped at the same level as 01/02/03 numbers without need for expensive rebranding of literature.
In addition,
callers should not be left "on hold" for more than a maximum permitted time specified in law (e.g. 4 minutes), without being given opportunity to be called back.
UK Mobile operators should be legally required to connect 0800 numbers free of charge, for a limited no of minutes e.g. 20 mins per call.
Why is this idea important?
Many businesses and even public sector organisations continue to use 0845 (HMRC), 0844 (SIA) which are not Phonepay Plus regulated and often charge much more than standard landline rate to call, especially 0844. A ban on all unregulated telephone revenue sharing, as Ofcom did with 0870, would then pave the way for calls to 08 numbers to be price-capped at the same level as 01/02/03 numbers without need for expensive rebranding of literature.
In addition,
callers should not be left "on hold" for more than a maximum permitted time specified in law (e.g. 4 minutes), without being given opportunity to be called back.
UK Mobile operators should be legally required to connect 0800 numbers free of charge, for a limited no of minutes e.g. 20 mins per call.
I work for a company which has had a large number of its home worker broadband connections "slammed" i.e. An attempt made to transfer the service to another provider.
The current provider was the person advising ous of the change using a standard termination notice but with no indication of who the new provider is – they are not told this.
We were abe to cancel this change but the only advice to determine the company taking over the connection was to contact OFTEL.
In every case after contacting OFTEL to report the problem and then waiting the required week for them to "investigate" the result in every case is – "We do not know and have not been able to find anything".
What is the purpose of OFTEL and if they cannot tell us why bother investigating? That is if they have ever bothered, which given the attitude of the staff taking the calls is anything to go by, I doubt they do anyway.
Why is this idea important?
I work for a company which has had a large number of its home worker broadband connections "slammed" i.e. An attempt made to transfer the service to another provider.
The current provider was the person advising ous of the change using a standard termination notice but with no indication of who the new provider is – they are not told this.
We were abe to cancel this change but the only advice to determine the company taking over the connection was to contact OFTEL.
In every case after contacting OFTEL to report the problem and then waiting the required week for them to "investigate" the result in every case is – "We do not know and have not been able to find anything".
What is the purpose of OFTEL and if they cannot tell us why bother investigating? That is if they have ever bothered, which given the attitude of the staff taking the calls is anything to go by, I doubt they do anyway.
Revise or repeal Sections 1 and 13 of the 1949 Telegraphy Act to allow the blocking of mobile phone signals under certain circumstances, such as prisons, schools and colleges.Mobile phone signal blocking is available technology, and would be useful in a variety of settings. Applications for use of such technology could be submitted, with reasons for which it is justified, and chance for any reasonable objections to be made before the application is accepted. Signage could be displayed to inform visitors/inmates/etc that they are in an area where mobile phones are banned and/or will not work.
Why is this idea important?
Revise or repeal Sections 1 and 13 of the 1949 Telegraphy Act to allow the blocking of mobile phone signals under certain circumstances, such as prisons, schools and colleges.Mobile phone signal blocking is available technology, and would be useful in a variety of settings. Applications for use of such technology could be submitted, with reasons for which it is justified, and chance for any reasonable objections to be made before the application is accepted. Signage could be displayed to inform visitors/inmates/etc that they are in an area where mobile phones are banned and/or will not work.
Allow any one to set up a local TV station. Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier. Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.
OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.
Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.
Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.
And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.
Why is this idea important?
Allow any one to set up a local TV station. Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier. Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.
OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.
Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.
Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.
And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.
At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK.
Why is this idea important?
At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK.
CE Marking conformity assessments and examination facilities for EMC, R&TTE and LVD are simply too expensive at around 500 to 5000 pounds for the small manufacturer making one offs or small runs. These facilities need to be made available to all small manufacturers at a reasonable price. I don’t think the examinations should be for free, but I do think that they should be made at a cost that is affordable, maybe for the same price as a car MOT examination. Ofcom, Universities and some technical colleges have the test equipment to make these assessments and examinations very easily. Such an examination could be made in 1 to 2 hours. I know Ofcom have regional offices all over the UK in the major cities for policing communications in those areas. It is also Ofcom that is responsible for monitoring compliance with the EMC and R&TTE directives. Without evidence of this compliance you cannot CE Mark your product and therefore you cannot place it on the market. Surely it must be possible to make a program or process where the small manufacturer can take new designs for assessment and examination at the regional Ofcom offices for a small fee that will cover the cost of the time used by the of Ofcom employee. This would not result in any further cost to the taxpayer, in fact if enough assessments were made Ofcom may make a profit, this would open the market up to small manufacturers with new inventions, innovations and ideas that would lead to more jobs and skills.
Why is this idea important?
CE Marking conformity assessments and examination facilities for EMC, R&TTE and LVD are simply too expensive at around 500 to 5000 pounds for the small manufacturer making one offs or small runs. These facilities need to be made available to all small manufacturers at a reasonable price. I don’t think the examinations should be for free, but I do think that they should be made at a cost that is affordable, maybe for the same price as a car MOT examination. Ofcom, Universities and some technical colleges have the test equipment to make these assessments and examinations very easily. Such an examination could be made in 1 to 2 hours. I know Ofcom have regional offices all over the UK in the major cities for policing communications in those areas. It is also Ofcom that is responsible for monitoring compliance with the EMC and R&TTE directives. Without evidence of this compliance you cannot CE Mark your product and therefore you cannot place it on the market. Surely it must be possible to make a program or process where the small manufacturer can take new designs for assessment and examination at the regional Ofcom offices for a small fee that will cover the cost of the time used by the of Ofcom employee. This would not result in any further cost to the taxpayer, in fact if enough assessments were made Ofcom may make a profit, this would open the market up to small manufacturers with new inventions, innovations and ideas that would lead to more jobs and skills.
The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.
Why is this idea important?
The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.
The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system. The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.
Why is this idea important?
The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system. The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.
I've been adviseed the PIN I must enter to watch movies at certain times on my Pay TV is foreced on Sky and Virgin by Ofcom
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/code08/section1.pdf
This should be optional for those that want it (and have kids).
Apparently it is to protect the children (oh the chirldren). Well I dont have any so why is the government prying into my home to tell me I must use a PIN to protect non-existent children.
If I buy a beer to put in my fridge should I now also have a PIN on the fridge to protect the non-existnet children in my house from getter to the beer?
Agree there are those that may want this for their family, and the regulation should thus allow an Opt-In ability so those that want it can have it.
But what of those children who will find a way to opt-out thier dads Pay TV? Well if they work that out then they surely already know the PIN anyway and would already be watching all those bad movies but with the parents thinking they are safe as the PIN protects everyone.
Why is this idea important?
I've been adviseed the PIN I must enter to watch movies at certain times on my Pay TV is foreced on Sky and Virgin by Ofcom
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/code08/section1.pdf
This should be optional for those that want it (and have kids).
Apparently it is to protect the children (oh the chirldren). Well I dont have any so why is the government prying into my home to tell me I must use a PIN to protect non-existent children.
If I buy a beer to put in my fridge should I now also have a PIN on the fridge to protect the non-existnet children in my house from getter to the beer?
Agree there are those that may want this for their family, and the regulation should thus allow an Opt-In ability so those that want it can have it.
But what of those children who will find a way to opt-out thier dads Pay TV? Well if they work that out then they surely already know the PIN anyway and would already be watching all those bad movies but with the parents thinking they are safe as the PIN protects everyone.
OFCOM makes decisions that are commercially ludicrous and it's power in the area of charges made by monopoly suppliers BT/Openreach, Virgin etc need to be curtailed such that re-sellers can hope to have some possibility of making a profit in the telecoms industry.
For example there is currently a charge made by BT of around £25 for disconnecting a broadband, user If a user moves and wants their broadband moving to a new line fees in excess of £70 are levied (Somehow BT can manage to transfer their phone line and number for no/very little cost)
A business reselling the service is supposed to pass these charges to the end user…., lets get real who has ever heard of a charge for discontinuing a service?, "excuse me Tesco, I won't be using your Stores again", "that's fine sir just pay a £25 fee"
The whole idea of charging someone to stop using a service is a nonsense, unenforceable(Except on the re-seller who needs to continue purchasing from the supplier) and any Regulator who lives in the real world would recognise this.
OFCOM needs major reform and small business awareness injecting into them
Why is this idea important?
OFCOM makes decisions that are commercially ludicrous and it's power in the area of charges made by monopoly suppliers BT/Openreach, Virgin etc need to be curtailed such that re-sellers can hope to have some possibility of making a profit in the telecoms industry.
For example there is currently a charge made by BT of around £25 for disconnecting a broadband, user If a user moves and wants their broadband moving to a new line fees in excess of £70 are levied (Somehow BT can manage to transfer their phone line and number for no/very little cost)
A business reselling the service is supposed to pass these charges to the end user…., lets get real who has ever heard of a charge for discontinuing a service?, "excuse me Tesco, I won't be using your Stores again", "that's fine sir just pay a £25 fee"
The whole idea of charging someone to stop using a service is a nonsense, unenforceable(Except on the re-seller who needs to continue purchasing from the supplier) and any Regulator who lives in the real world would recognise this.
OFCOM needs major reform and small business awareness injecting into them
Expand Ofcom or create another organisation for the monitoring of the reliability of information in newspapers and on tv.
Why is this idea important?
Expand Ofcom or create another organisation for the monitoring of the reliability of information in newspapers and on tv.
I would like to see Ofcom split into a media regulator, and a telecommunications regulator.
Why is this idea important?
I would like to see Ofcom split into a media regulator, and a telecommunications regulator.
-
Hand over responsibility for managing press complaints to OFCOM.
-
Dissolve the existing commission's policy of self-regulation with the change, and replace it with independent figures.
-
As OFCOM has statutory powers, ensure that those handling the role of the PCC within OFCOM will be able to impose fines on publications when they are in breach of the code.
Why is this idea important?
-
Hand over responsibility for managing press complaints to OFCOM.
-
Dissolve the existing commission's policy of self-regulation with the change, and replace it with independent figures.
-
As OFCOM has statutory powers, ensure that those handling the role of the PCC within OFCOM will be able to impose fines on publications when they are in breach of the code.
abolish the legislation which allowed foreigners to own/control British media (newspapers / TV / radio), and force them to hand over controlling interest to British owners.
Why is this idea important?
abolish the legislation which allowed foreigners to own/control British media (newspapers / TV / radio), and force them to hand over controlling interest to British owners.
Remove Ofcoms and Governments the right to censor what UK broadcasters are allowed to screen as long PIN control is in enforced and the material is legally available to the public…..
In particulare the rediculous ban on the Adult channels to be allowed to broadcast R18 material…..Blatent violation of human rights for adults…….Need to learn a few lessons from European governments and their civilised aproach to the subject…..
Why is this idea important?
Remove Ofcoms and Governments the right to censor what UK broadcasters are allowed to screen as long PIN control is in enforced and the material is legally available to the public…..
In particulare the rediculous ban on the Adult channels to be allowed to broadcast R18 material…..Blatent violation of human rights for adults…….Need to learn a few lessons from European governments and their civilised aproach to the subject…..
It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.
Why is this idea important?
It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.
Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence. This is an unfair and outdated penalty.
The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped. The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.
Why is this idea important?
Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence. This is an unfair and outdated penalty.
The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped. The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.
It seems like the current system for sporting TV rights is clearly unfair and allows one broadcaster the ability to control the market and the price that consumers pay. This is highly uncompetitive and unfair on the general sports fan. The sporting bodies seem to want this monopoly as it is allowing increasing revenues, however at the expense of the consumer interests.
I feel that the law should be changed to ensure that no 1 broadcaster can have all of the rights to any "prime" sporting rights and at least one package of rights has to go to a FTV TV provider, assuming that they bid for the rights and pay what is deemed to be a "fair" market price for a commercial broadcaster. This figure could come from the average estimated revenue from advertising which a broadcaster will receive from this type of sport.
Why is this idea important?
It seems like the current system for sporting TV rights is clearly unfair and allows one broadcaster the ability to control the market and the price that consumers pay. This is highly uncompetitive and unfair on the general sports fan. The sporting bodies seem to want this monopoly as it is allowing increasing revenues, however at the expense of the consumer interests.
I feel that the law should be changed to ensure that no 1 broadcaster can have all of the rights to any "prime" sporting rights and at least one package of rights has to go to a FTV TV provider, assuming that they bid for the rights and pay what is deemed to be a "fair" market price for a commercial broadcaster. This figure could come from the average estimated revenue from advertising which a broadcaster will receive from this type of sport.
Ofcom have no problem with real sex as long as it’s for art sake or for educational reasons. I have seen medical programs and art that is very graphic. The reason that this is permitted for transmission is because it’s not for titillation value. Do they think that the young children they are trying to protect understand that these images are educational? That the camera showing sexual intercourse to see how it works is educational? There is no way that a child understands these things. And then they have at the same time stopped people from viewing anything of a strong sexual nature on TV channels that were designed for this purpose. These channels are pin protected unlike the art and education channel that are showing far stronger material.
So let’s see what Ofcom have managed to do:
Provide very hard nudity and sexual content to almost all in the name of art. Show any and almost every act of sex on TV to all in the name of education. And prevent anyone who would like to view sex for sex sake from viewing it. The standards they have set are just wrong.
Why is this idea important?
Ofcom have no problem with real sex as long as it’s for art sake or for educational reasons. I have seen medical programs and art that is very graphic. The reason that this is permitted for transmission is because it’s not for titillation value. Do they think that the young children they are trying to protect understand that these images are educational? That the camera showing sexual intercourse to see how it works is educational? There is no way that a child understands these things. And then they have at the same time stopped people from viewing anything of a strong sexual nature on TV channels that were designed for this purpose. These channels are pin protected unlike the art and education channel that are showing far stronger material.
So let’s see what Ofcom have managed to do:
Provide very hard nudity and sexual content to almost all in the name of art. Show any and almost every act of sex on TV to all in the name of education. And prevent anyone who would like to view sex for sex sake from viewing it. The standards they have set are just wrong.
Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.
Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.
Why is this idea important?
Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.
Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.