Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored Links

Ofcom Finds Sky UK Breached Rules on Contract Notifications UPDATE

Friday, Aug 19th, 2022 (11:45 am) - Score 7,672
sky_broadband_minions

A long-running investigation by the UK telecoms and media regulator, Ofcom, has today concluded that Sky (Sky TV, Sky Broadband etc.) broke consumer protection rules by failing to send end-of-contract notifications to their satellite based Pay TV customers.

The End-of-Contract Notifications (ECN) system requires all fixed broadband, mobile, home phone and pay TV providers to issue such notifications to existing customers at the end of their term (sent by text, email or letter). The move is designed to encourage switching and helps to keep subscribers informed about the best deals available to them.

Crucially, the rules state that these notifications must be sent to customers of all public “electronic communications services” (ECS) other than machine-to-machine (M2M) transmission services. Ofcom considers that, as a provider of Pay TV services transmitted via a satellite network, Sky’s TV service is also an electronic communications service and must therefore send end-of-contract notifications to its TV customers.

However, Sky originally disputed this and highlighted section 32 of the 2003 Communications Act, which states: “a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals, except insofar as it is a content service.” Sky’s position was thus that they didn’t need to send such notifications because their satellite TV product is merely a “content service“.

On the flip side, Ofcom argued that it is the digital transmission of content that constitutes an ECS and the regulator hasn’t changed their position. In addition, the regulator made it quite plain in their original ECN announcement that the rules also applied to pay TV services.

Ofcom’s Statement

By failing to send end-of-contract notifications to its pay TV customers, Sky has contravened, and continues to contravene, C1.21 to C1.29 of the General Conditions (and their predecessor obligations at C1.10 to C1.15 of the General Conditions) from at least 26 March 2020. Ofcom has therefore issued a Confirmation Decision to Sky under section 96C of the Communications Act 2003.

We have decided that Sky must take all necessary steps to comply with its regulatory obligations to send end-of-contract notifications to customers of its relevant pay TV services, starting no later than nine months from the date of this decision.

In addition, Sky must provide Ofcom with a progress report no later than four months from the date of this decision on the steps that it will take to ensure that the remedy is fully implemented within the nine months given. If Sky brings an appeal against our decision, those directions will be suspended pending the outcome of a first instance decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The regulator said that Sky has been given two months to decide whether to appeal their decision, and it will be fascinating to see whether the broadcasting giant continues to defend their position. We can understand Sky’s argument on the technical detail, but equally Ofcom makes some valid points and have always clearly stated that ECNs were intended to apply to Pay TV providers too.

Trying to fight Ofcom on this might risk casting Sky in a poor light. We’ve reached out to them for a comment.

UPDATE 12:37pm

We’ve had Sky’s reaction, and they’re sticking to their guns.

A Sky spokesperson said:

“We continue to believe Sky’s Pay TV service is not an electronic communication service under the legal definition in the Communications Act 2003, but we note the outcome of Ofcom’s investigation. We look forward to working with Ofcom to seek a legal review.”

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
Mark-Jackson
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook and .
Search ISP News
Search ISP Listings
Search ISP Reviews
Comments
23 Responses
  1. Avatar photo Me says:

    Good I’m glad they ruled against Sky, I hope they now fine them for breaching the rules. Sky was obviously trying it on, it’s been quite arrogant in its approach to letting customers leave.

  2. Avatar photo anonymous says:

    Good. Fine them or prosecute the CEO, that’s my 2 cents of opinion and without prejudice. If everyone else follows the rules, why can’t they…

  3. Avatar photo Walter says:

    I think this is a bigger story. when seeking clarification from Ofcom they will frequently point you to their convoluted documents and say that the interpretation is up to you to figure out. Later when they decide that you interpreted it incorrectly, then they open a review against you. I would say Ofcom is on shady ground here, will be interesting to see if there is a fine. I think not because of the above.
    Should SKY be sending out ECN to PAY TV customers, tricky one, my opinion is the framework what meant for communications, and TV is broadcast, and they are trying to bend things to suit (as usual)

    1. Avatar photo DaveIsRight says:

      Stop making excuses for these corrupt, mega corporations to continue fleecing their customers. They only do it to screw over customers and for no other reason as not informing customers is certainly not in the subscribers best interests. I hope they lose and get huge fines.
      Sick of companies getting let off or delaying doing what they obviously should because they’ve challenged some loophole or ambiguity while completely ignoring the clear intent of the rule or law. You come to the end of your sub, they’re supposed to send out a notice. Again THE INTENT IS OBVIOUS. It shouldn’t matter about the nuance of what a “content service” is ffs.

    2. Avatar photo spurple says:

      They have been given 9 months to comply, and not slapped with a fine, so they got free legal services from OFCom.

    3. Avatar photo Ad47uk says:

      When Sky was just a content provider and they did not force broadband onto people then yes they were just a content provider, but as soon as they start putting broadband into the picture, then that is a different thing. While you can still have Sky Tv without their broadband, how long will they keep that up for?

      i have not had Sky for over 15 years and i only had it for 12 months, I would never have sky TV again.

  4. Avatar photo Matthew Williams says:

    I think it puts Sky in a bad light personally they shouldn’t be forced to send out end of notices by law in the first place if they care about there customers should just do it as a way to show they care about customers in my opinion. This just shows they don’t really care about customers interests

    1. Avatar photo JmJohnson says:

      It’s a shame because there was a time (before Comcast) when they were proactive.
      They’d even phone you with a new offer.
      I haven’t been notified that I’m out of contract (2 months ago for FTTC, phone and satellite) and all going well with Trooli I’ll be phoning Sky to end my services next month.
      A Trooli 1Gbps service plus Netflix is under half what my Sky package is (not even all the channels and my FTTC is 38/9 atm)

  5. Avatar photo anonymous says:

    here here!

    If a customer centric organisation as they make out, they would clearly have done this anyway without OFCOM rules 🙂

  6. Avatar photo MrTruth says:

    Sky are a poorly managed company with poor products.

  7. Avatar photo Jack says:

    This is Sky in bad light, they pretend to be for customers but actually do the opposite unless they are forced. It’s 2022 and you still can’t close an account online, nor can you remove the cash cow of sports without many hurdles.

    Ofcom should be looking further into Sky along with this, force then to allow full customer control of their account such as if you add sky sports online then you must be able to remove it online etc.

    1. Avatar photo Bad Sky says:

      Yes you are right, you can add to your Sky package online (without human interaction) but you can’t remove anything online. Just shows what type of low life company they are.

  8. Avatar photo anonymous says:

    DEFUND SKY!!!
    Cheaper alternatives and the sport that now cost a fortune was on terrestrial tv once…..

  9. Avatar photo anonymous says:

    Sky staff get free FULL PACKAGE Sky TV and extensive discounts to other family members. The rest of those subscribers are paying for this. Also their new offices are rather plush.

    Many entertainment channels will be lost and Sky know this, hence why they are bolstering Sky’s own channels like Sky Nature and Sky Comedy and Sky Documentaries, except they are rubbish in comparison to some other established players like National Geographic/Discovery.

    They know these channels will disappear into the broadcaster direct streaming world.

    1. Avatar photo Me says:

      I can tell you as fact, the only reason Sky staff get the full package for free, is so they can promote it to others. Every single customer facing member of Sky, no matter what their role is, is encouraged to sell Sky products at every opportunity, they can be disciplined if they don’t. Hence they get and are encouraged to take the full packaged for free for themselves. It’s scummy selling tactics really if you call because your phone doesn’t work, and you have products and packaged offered to you.
      Sky is a scummy company really, but it is a cash cow and thinks nothing of spending billions on a single football league rights for 3 years, it makes every single customer pay for it anyway.

    2. Avatar photo Johnson says:

      Sky have been giving their TV content free to staff for many, many years. It’s a staff benefit, like healthcare or retailer discounts. It’s been done for a lot, lot longer than when they asked engineers to sell products. Giving content to staff has zero cost, its just switching on the viewing card. BT staff get free broadband. VM staff get free content

      Imagine a customer asking an engineer or CS advisor what the movies or sports are like and them saying “dunno love, I’d have to pay for that so I don’t know”. Would be ludicrous customer service.

      I pay for basic and multiroom as I’ve no desire for the rest. Sports is of no interest and movies I can watch elsewhere. You can always tell how bitter and angry people are in life when they hate on a company so vociferously. Guess what, no one is forced to pay for TV content apart from the licence fee, which is another argument. So if you don’t like it, don’t subscribe to it.

  10. Avatar photo Skynomore says:

    So glad I ditched the tv package. The amount of calls I got trying to get me to stay was unreal… they never once told me when my contract was up. Luckily I actually wrote it down in my diary..

  11. Avatar photo Laurence 'GreenReaper' Parry says:

    I think Sky should appeal this and they should win, based on a plain language interpretation of the law. What else is intended to be a “content service” other than Pay TV?

    True communications requires a meaningful interaction both ways. Sky et. al. got a carve-out and if Ofcom wants to get rid of it, they need to get primary legislation to amend it.

    1. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

      If that were true any tv station or service could be deemed pay for tv.

  12. Avatar photo RaptorX says:

    That excuse of being a broadcaster therefore not needing to send out notifications is garbage.

    It shouldn’t matter what the service is, come the end of a contract, a notification should be sent. I’m including anything here, eg a car’s service contract, insurance contract etc.

    Yes, it puts Sky in a bad light, but that doesn’t really hurt their bottom line, does it? Or put the directors in personal legal jeopardy with punitive consequences? That’s all that matters to them.

  13. Avatar photo Buggerlugz says:

    OFCOM, as toothless as OFGEM……see any patterns emerging from these Quango’s here?

    UK Regulators, forever protecting the wealthy by allowing them to fleece their customers, year on year.

  14. Avatar photo Matt says:

    Even if Sky is in the right and paid TV is not covered under the rules, basically arguing that they don’t want to tell people when their contract is up so they can get a better deal is a very bad look for them.

  15. Avatar photo Mark E says:

    Its the same money grabbing reason as most subscription companies. You forget when your contract is up and they get to fleece you for a couple of months at full price until you notice the price has doubled on your bank statement.

    Mobile phone operators are far worse and also get away with day light robbery under OFCOM.

Comments are closed

Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £26.00
132Mbps
Gift: None
Shell Energy UK ISP Logo
Shell Energy £26.99
109Mbps
Gift: None
Sky Broadband UK ISP Logo
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £27.99
145Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
YouFibre UK ISP Logo
YouFibre £19.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
BeFibre UK ISP Logo
BeFibre £21.00
150Mbps
Gift: £25 Love2Shop Card
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5530)
  2. BT (3518)
  3. Politics (2542)
  4. Openreach (2298)
  5. Business (2266)
  6. Building Digital UK (2247)
  7. FTTC (2045)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1977)
  9. Statistics (1790)
  10. 4G (1668)
  11. Virgin Media (1621)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1465)
  13. Fibre Optic (1396)
  14. Wireless Internet (1391)
  15. FTTH (1382)

Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

Promotion
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact
Mastodon