
The Government has managed to get some of the UK’s biggest broadband and phone providers, including BT, Virgin Media (O2), VodafoneThree (Vodafone and Three UK), Sky (Sky Broadband) and TalkTalk, to sign-up to a new Telecoms Consumer Charter that pledges to “stop unexpected bill increases“. But sadly, it’s not an end to mid-contract prices hikes.
Under the commitments, the government said that customers will now know “exactly what they’ll be paying when they sign up for a new mobile or broadband deal” – with “no unexpected price rises midway through a contract“. Customers will be given clear information on any future price changes up front, so the price they sign up to is the price they can expect to pay.
The move is largely seen as a belated reaction to last year’s controversial decision by mobile operator O2 (here), which suddenly increased the cost of their existing mid-contract price hikes policy and applied that to their existing customers too (i.e. those who had signed-up via the previous policy were forced to accept the new one and its higher prices).
Advertisement
Normally, existing customers would remain under the old terms, until they re-contract. But O2’s approach changed that and appeared to go against the spirit of Ofcom’s move to require a more transparent approach to mid-contract price hikes. The regulator did away with the old inflation-based model and replaced it with one that must now set out such price rises “clearly and up-front, in pounds and pence, when a customer signs up” (here).
In fairness, O2 did allow customers impacted by this to exit their contract penalty free, which Ofcom acknowledged when expressing their own “disappointment” at the change (here). The Government were similarly angered, although they did later roll back on suggestions that mid-contract price hikes could be banned entirely (here).
Otherwise, the new Telecoms Consumer Charter said it would also ensure that “eligible customers find it easier to access social tariffs“, which can sometimes still be hard to find on websites for service providers that offer them. “To support those who may be struggling to pay their household bills, providers will proactively signpost social tariffs to eligible customers and offer customers facing financial difficulty the chance to move to cheaper plans without any penalty and manageable payment plans,” said the announcement.
Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, said:
“Broadband and mobile customers deserve to be treated fairly and not face sudden jumps in their bills.
Following action by this government, telecom companies have now agreed to end unexpected mid‑contract price rises and making social tariffs easier to access.
These changes will make a real difference to millions of consumers across the country and help with the cost-of-living pressures.”
On the one hand, this is a positive development and improves pricing transparency, at least for those providers that actually put their signature to it. On the other hand, its scope is limited, and it does NOT address the unfairness of how mid-contract price hikes are currently being applied (e.g. applying the same flat c.£2-£4 monthly increase to those who pay just c.£20 a month and those who pay c.£100 – disproportionately targeting those least able to afford it), which in our view is one of the biggest issues.
Advertisement
Given the above context, some of our readers might well point to the contradiction of how the Government are also busy calling on telecoms operators to “take proactive steps to move legacy customers onto the pounds and pence approach for price communications“. This is despite what we’ve just said above about the reality that, for some consumers, the old CPI + X% (inflation) policy will actually be resulting in lower mid-contract hikes than the new one.
We should point out that many smaller providers are still able to create stable fixed price contracts that don’t apply mid-contract hikes, and so it’s not beyond the bounds of realism for the biggest providers to do the same. But until the government and Ofcom recognise that, then big retail providers will continue to get away with bad practices.
On the bright side, switching between telecoms providers has been made significantly quicker and easier in recent years, thanks to systems like One Touch Switching (OTS) on broadband + landline phone and Text-to-Switch (Auto-Switch) on mobile. Consumers can often vote with their feet if they choose, but many remain wary of doing so.
Ofcom are expected to come back to all this in the future when try review the impact of their policy, although we certainly wouldn’t bet on them ultimately proposing the ban mid-contract hikes.
Advertisement
The Telecoms Consumer Charter
The Charter
- Transparency: Customers should always receive clear and easily understandable information about their telecoms services, prices, and any changes to those, so they know exactly what they are paying for and why.
Under Ofcom’s current rules, consumers should expect:
- Clear contract information and contract summary
- Clear and easily understandable information on prices and contract length
- Clear information about service quality
Building on this:
- All providers commit that, where a contract includes a mid‑contract price increase, the core subscription price that customers sign up to is the price that they will pay. Any exception to this is limited strictly to unforeseeable and externally driven events that materially affect the cost of providing services.
- All providers commit that, for any customers still on legacy inflation-linked terms in respect of consumer services, April 2026 will be the final increase expressed in these terms for the core subscription, after which all such contracts will move to the clearer pounds-and-pence system. Where possible, some providers will communicate the increase in pounds and pence before this date.
- All providers commit to building on Ofcom’s rules and guidance, which set out the information that must be provided before the customer is bound by a contract, such as by presenting clearly and prominently a customer’s full package details in one clear place, including the headline price, contract length, key terms and any add‑ons, and by proactively highlighting and explaining any agreed changes, such as mid‑contract price increases, in a simple, easy‑to‑understand format throughout the life of the contract.
- All providers commit to continuing to work with Ofcom to improve the accuracy of their mobile coverage and network performance data through tools such as “Map Your Mobile”, and their own tools which are also available to the public.
- Empowerment: Consumers should feel confident to manage their telecoms services easily, with the information and tools they need to make informed choices, free from unnecessary friction, penalties or complexities.
Under Ofcom’s current rules, consumers should expect:
- Simple switching processes, and where the right to exit applies, this is penalty-free
- End-of-contract notifications (ECNs) and annual best tariff notifications (ABTNs)
- Transparent information allowing informed choices
Building on this:
- All providers commit to ensuring that, in addition to the ECN and ABTN rules which require that these notifications are clear, timely, and set out the options available to customers, these notifications are in plain English so customers can easily compare choices and make informed decisions.
- All providers will continue to make it easy for customers to switch by ensuring that One Touch Switching, Text‑to‑Switch and related processes remain quick, simple and seamless and by supporting continued improvements in how these processes operate for consumers.
3. Support for those who are struggling to pay: Customers who are struggling to pay should receive practical, tailored support that keeps them connected and removes barriers to accessing essential online public services.Under Ofcom’s current rules, consumers should expect:
- Fair treatment throughout their customer journey.
Building on this:
- Providers commit to ensuring available social tariffs, for those on means tested benefits, are easy to find and signposted to eligible customers in communications, including, for example, in their ECNs, provider websites and app menus, as well as customer service scripts, ensuring they are easy to locate, understand and take-up. Government encourages more providers to offer social tariffs where they are able to do so.
- Providers commit to supporting all customers who are facing financial difficulty by offering practical support such as the ability to move to cheaper packages without charge or penalty or manageable payment plans.
Providers may become signatories at any time. Not signing at the point of launch does not preclude signing later.
UPDATE:
The announcement also included a bunch of samey commentary from the supporting broadband, mobile and phone providers, which we’ve stuck to the bottom of this article to avoid quote spam breaking the flow of things.
Allison Kirkby, Chief Executive of BT Group, said:
“We led the industry on price transparency and fairness, and now we’re calling on other mobile networks to do the same.
Protecting customers is as much about resilient infrastructure as it is about price. Nobody is investing in the UK like BT – and we’re encouraging the Government to take bold decisions to support continued investment. The more people, businesses and society connect, the more our networks fuel growth.”
Lutz Schüler, CEO of Virgin Media O2, said:
“We welcome this Charter which strengthens predictability and transparency for consumers while recognising the significant value the telecoms sector delivers. Virgin Media O2 is making one of the largest investments in the UK worth billions of pounds every year to bring fibre to more places and improve 4G and 5G mobile networks. Maintaining essential digital infrastructure investment like this is essential if the UK is to keep pace with growing demand and emerging technologies which greatly benefit consumers and businesses across the country.”
Devesh Raj, Chief Operating Officer, Sky UK, said:
“Sky is proud to support this voluntary Charter, which strengthens transparency and ensures customers have clear, straightforward information about their services. We also recognise the importance of supporting customers who are facing financial pressure. That’s why we continue to promote and improve access to our social tariffs, ensuring that those who need extra help can stay connected to the essential services they rely on. By working with Government and industry partners, we’re committed to raising standards across the sector and ensuring every customer receives great value, fair treatment, and the support they need.”
Paddy Paddison, CEO of the INCA, said:
“INCA welcomes this engagement between Government, Ofcom and industry through the Telecoms Consumer Charter. Strengthening consumer confidence is good for the whole sector. Customers should be able to understand, in plain pounds and pence, what they are signing up to and what they can expect to pay. It is important these commitments are practical and maintain the conditions for continued investment and network competition, because that is what delivers better coverage, service quality and value over time.”
Steve Leighton, Chair of the ISPA, said:
“ISPA is proud to be supporting the Telecoms Consumer Charter which builds on the range of pro-consumer regulatory reforms that our members are already putting in place. Providers are continuing to implement these in addition to providing support for those struggling with affordability through initiatives such as social tariffs, device donations and digital upskilling. Meanwhile, it’s easier to switch now than ever before.
With this in mind, we believe now should be the best time to be a telecoms customer, with lower prices, and greater competition. But, this can only be achieved through a stable policy and regulatory environment, spearheaded by a Government which places connectivity at the heart of its ambitions on productivity and growth. This is all whilst broadband providers, including our members, have invested over £50bn to support the Government’s target of nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Government to ensure broadband continues to be seen as a national priority – ultimately resulting in better outcomes for consumers.”
Advertisement
Brings to mind the old saying, “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”
Radical suggestion: plan any retail in-contract prices increase EITHER in £p, —or— in CPI+%, but the regulator insists that any one product may only be advertised and contracted with one or the other, and will not allow anything more than CPI+3% for the products with that structure. Any one contract may only include ONE price increase, and it doesn’t have to be April.
The consumer chooses which product they feel suits them better at the time it is offered. The provider competes with the other providers to provide the most certainty and to plan against future price rises.
No more lazy CPI+5% like the old days. And every incentive for providers to plan to keep prices under review all year round, not just when they get twitchy about OfCom reviews.
Why MUST it be assumed that communications prices MUST increase. After the capital costs on NEW installations is recovered, the phone companies must be told to reduce prices, or it becomes like the electrical industry and paying a standing change for not getting a decent service.
They may not inherently need to increase in real terms, but the companies will have salaries and suppliers that will likely keep pace with inflation in the long term, so will need to recover those costs.
All businesses have to deal with annual increases in their costs of operation. On top of that, prices must also increase to accommodate the government’s own policies, which are adding to their operational and investment costs.
Further, if the Left do indeed now force Starmer to turn to the left, we will likely see a ludicrous employment policy adopted that will break businesses and perhaps cause the Pound Sterling to collapse.
That’s unworkable.
Would need to have a single telecoms network covering fixed and mobile for this to be feasible else it would heavily skew investment.
Valuation and monitoring of investment in ‘new installations’ difficult.
No consideration given to recovering costs of upgrading existing ‘installations’ so probably wouldn’t happen.
Would need to have a single retailer of that network as hardly anyone owns the network providing the service end to end so cannot apply the same controls across the board.
Some have no network of their own at all. How do you propose regulating their pricing?
The truth is broadband pricing in the UK is broken, and everyone can see it, I wrote about that recently on my Sub Stack
https://open.substack.com/pub/andysayle/p/broadband-pricing-we-all-know-somethings?utm_source=direct&r=6sfjb0&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
The substack is a lot of words but very little else. Why is it broken? There’s no reasoning, no solution, not much of anything.
Assuming that the companies and their suppliers give pay rises to their staff in line with inflation is optimistic. It would be a nice thing to have.
Thats a mental comment when we know how many are on bare minimum – therefore by law get a pay rise every year – and how often people right here encourage union support and paying workers fair share.
There’s no reason that a £10 a month contract needs to increase by £2 in April similarly to a £30 a month contract.
There’s nothing technically stopping providers from having the £10 a month contract go up by £0.60p a month in April while the £30 one goes up by £2.
ISPs are having their cake and eating it. They are both locking customers into the now standard 24 month contract, but not fixing the price throughout that contract.
Customers end up committing to 24 months, but not getting anything in return.
ISP contracts should be capped at 12 months, or longer-term contracts should be at a fixed cost throughout the contract that the ISP has to honour.
Ben, Twelve month contracts would certainly feel more honest, though it might promote the reappearance of set up charges – modem, switching, on-boarding etc.
Our social consciences could be better served by fixed in-contract prices and a one-off discount for using an existing modem instead of contributing to an e-waste mountain, yet this could be seen as an existing-customer reduction which is, we are told, bad.
While I agree on fixed costs for the duration but if that happens they would just charge slightly more a month for the duration, the end goal is you would still.pay the same overall.
I don’t mind 24 month contracts if it came with additional savings but they should also offer 12 months.
From one Ben to Another….
Definitely agree here.
should be a simple 12 month fixed cost. Any rises can happen once out of contract.
as for Ken above, theres no need for any of those charges unless its a completely new install. We already have a leaving fee of sorts.
As for the modem/router. The issue here is support. Not everyone is an IT admin, and for an ISP they cannot support every modem/router under the sun.
To use your own should still be allowed, and a disclaimer you agree should anything go wrong.
If businesses are forced to offer contracts of no more than one year’s duration, the churn rate will likely rise. As a consequence, businesses will have topass on the costs toconsumers.
It’s an uncomfortable truth: most people won’t shop around unless something explodes into the headlines. Only when a price hike makes national news do we see real outrage. By then, it feels like a scandal. But the majority of increases? They slip quietly under the radar. A small bump here, a revised term there — buried in an email or text that many will skim, ignore, or simply accept. And the rise goes through without a ripple.
It’s only when something happens en masse; like the O2 situation, that momentum builds. Customers start talking. Social media amplifies it. Mainstream media picks it up. The pile-on effect begins, and suddenly companies are forced to respond. Pressure works, but only when it’s collective and visible.
The reality is that the major operators, steered by accountants and shareholders, will always look for ways to protect margins and navigate around regulatory tweaks. And most customers? They’ll continue to pay. Not because they agree, but because switching feels like hassle, inconvenience, disruption. Even when it’s simple, it feels like effort.
And in that gap between irritation and action — companies quietly win.
In other words, price controls. The usual response of governments that impose increased costs on economies through their own policy initiatives. It willwork for a while, but inevitably it will unwind painfully when the cost of the controls can no longer be afforded.
No, just prices that can’t magically change. The way that most contracts work.
@Winston Smith:
No, it is clearly a price control policy.
The consequences of this will be reduced investment in the networks and services if the government continues to increase costs.
I would make the point that many AltNet ISPs are not charging realistic prices, so it hardly makes a difference to them if they do not increase prices mid-way on a two-year contract.
It will make a difference, contrary from what you have said, it will put them further into debt each contract they sell, at an even bigger loss.
@The Truth:
Many of the AltNets are bound to the heavy discounting. Increases in costs due to moderate inflation will be negligible against existing losses.
Have BDUK ever looked at the practical and sustainable let alone cost effectiveness of all the disparet *nets’ and over provisioning rather than just having 1 (or 2 for some feeble resillience) network infrastructure for endpoints/consumers?
Gee if ‘they’ were in charge of HS2, we’d have more rail lines, lines HS 2.0000 to 2.5001 all sparate and un cordinated, more lines than land, is it just me or it really just a farce?