topic Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided in Account & Billing

Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:20:08 GMT

Sky contracts are very one-sided, and the main excuse provided that "all other providers do the same" is a very poor reason in these modern times.

In fact, that sounds like a business opportunity, be different, better, than your competitors, especially on these very key emotive points for subscribers.

The contract commitment by customers should be matched by the provider, either fix the price for the full contract term, or only increase by the actual rate of inflation.

In my case, I was paying £58 per month up until March 2025, then from April it went up to £62. That's a 7% increase.

Then being told it will go up to be £73 from July, which is an additional 18% on top of the previous increase! ‌‌

I think it's about time Ofcom reviewed what's going on and do their job to regulate.

I also find the renewal screen somewhat misleading, as it implieas a fixed price of £62 amonth until June 2027, no mention of any anual increases.

Can't seem to add the screenshot image to show thislast point.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

PandJ2020 — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:23:50 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:
In my case, I was paying £58 per month up until March 2025, then from April it went up to £62. That's a 7% increase.
Then being told it will go up to be £73 from July, which is an additional 18% on top of the previous increase! ‌‌

April increase will be the annual increase allowed within the contract you agreed. The July one appears to be an expiring discount which the term you agreed to.

I also find the renewal screen somewhat misleading, as it implieas a fixed price of £62 amonth until June 2027, no mention of any anual increases.

I would imagine it's there, although perhaps could be clearer. Likely in the 'legal bit' that many don't want to read...

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

MarkGoldsmith — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:27:33 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:
Sky contracts are very one-sided, and the main excuse provided that "all other providers do the same" is a very poor reason in these modern times.

In fact, that sounds like a business opportunity, be different, better, than your competitors, especially on these very key emotive points for subscribers.

The contract commitment by customers should be matched by the provider, either fix the price for the full contract term, or only increase by the actual rate of inflation.

In my case, I was paying £58 per month up until March 2025, then from April it went up to £62. That's a 7% increase.
Then being told it will go up to be £73 from July, which is an additional 18% on top of the previous increase! ‌‌

I think it's about time Ofcom reviewed what's going on and do their job to regulate.

I also find the renewal screen somewhat misleading, as it implieas a fixed price of £62 amonth until June 2027, no mention of any anual increases.

Can't seem to add the screenshot image to show thislast point.

One thing to note about OFCOM typically whenever they intervene it leads to higher costs for the consumers.

A great example is the recent regulatory change that companies must pre-bake in pounds and pence annual prices rises into each contract. As contracts are typically 18-24 months this leads to the companies having to pre-guess future inflation rates which is leading to them setting higher than previous price rises baked into the contracts.

Its a very high risk strategy for any business to do something widely different than most of the competitors in the market as it could easily backfire and led to massive losses in a market (TV/ISP) where margins are quite tight and decent profits are hard to obtain.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Mark39 — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 13:33:25 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:

The contract commitment by customers should be matched by the provider, either fix the price for the full contract term, or only increase by the actual rate of inflation.

The amount by which prices can increase is explained in the contract you agreed to. Unless stated otherwise, that applies to all future offers you agree with Sky (they're not new 'contracts', despite the terminology)..

The important point is that you know, or should know, the basis for future price rises when you first sign up. If at that point you don't like the contractual terms don't sign up. Or cancel within the cooling off period.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:42:47 GMT

@MarkGoldsmith

There are many businesses that do actually fix a price for the whole contract term, even those that have a higher risk factor that broadcasters, i.e. energy providers

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:46:10 GMT

@PandJ2020 wrote:
April increase will be the annual increase allowed within the contract you agreed. The July one appears to be an expiring discount which the term you agreed to.

I didn't mention there is another interim increase for June, £67

I would imagine it's there, although perhaps could be clearer. Likely in the 'legal bit' that many don't want to read...

The curent terms state;

Sky TV prices may increase once every 12 months by up to 10%.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

PandJ2020 — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:58:34 GMT

The curent terms state;
Sky TV prices may increase once every 12 months by up to 10%.

Obviously excluding expiring discounts... That clause refers to an increase in base price.

It seems to be the case here as the effect of expiring discount impacts pro-rata over 2 months.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

PandJ2020 — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 09:01:57 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:
@MarkGoldsmith
There are many businesses that do actually fix a price for the whole contract term, even those that have a higher risk factor that broadcasters, i.e. energy providers

Very few in the media and telecoms industry.

Where OfCom implemented new rules it triggered fixed increases that will appear to be higher than inflation (give in pounds and pence) as the firms had to predict the future (of course erring on the side of caution).

Sky took OfCom's other option of allowing penalty-free exit (doesn't apply to TV services currently).

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

MarkGoldsmith — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:05:37 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:
@MarkGoldsmith
There are many businesses that do actually fix a price for the whole contract term, even those that have a higher risk factor that broadcasters, i.e. energy providers

Thats a completely different industry entirely, moreso when with energy providers the prices they can charge are completely affected by the volatile energy markets and the OFGEM price cap. You just cannot compare how the energy market works with the telecoms and TV markets.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

TimmyBGood — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:32:17 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:

I think it's about time Ofcom reviewed what's going on and do their job to regulate.

Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:24:37 GMT

@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.

Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:33:08 GMT

@MarkGoldsmith wrote:
@Vince888 wrote:
@MarkGoldsmith
There are many businesses that do actually fix a price for the whole contract term, even those that have a higher risk factor that broadcasters, i.e. energy providers

Thats a completely different industry entirely, moreso when with energy providers the prices they can charge are completely affected by the volatile energy markets and the OFGEM price cap. You just cannot compare how the energy market works with the telecoms and TV markets.

The fact that energy markets are very volatile, and yet are still able to give you a fixed price contract for 12 months indicates it's possible.
Not forgetting the reason they do it is because there's more competition for energy providers, mainly because the end product is the same whoever you choose as the provider.

In comparison, Sky has no competition for many of it's popular channels.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Mark39 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:36:34 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:

@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.

Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.

Not tv, as @TimmyBGood posted.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:49:00 GMT

@Mark39 wrote:
@Vince888 wrote:
@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.
Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.
Not tv, as @TimmyBGood posted.

Not sure if you guys get facts directly from Ofcom, but the following example proves otherwise:
Ofcom decided that Sky’s pay TV services that rely on satellite transmission fall within the definition of public
electronic communications services.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/switching-provider/cw_01254

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

PandJ2020 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:54:42 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:
@Mark39 wrote:
@Vince888 wrote:
@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.
Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.
Not tv, as @TimmyBGood posted.
Not sure if you guys get facts directly from Ofcom, but the following example proves otherwise:
Ofcom decided that Sky’s pay TV services that rely on satellite transmission fall within the definition of public
electronic communications services.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/switching-provider/cw_01254

I believe they are still in 'dispute' over the scope.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Mark39 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 08:56:59 GMT

@Vince888 wrote:

@Mark39 wrote:

@Vince888 wrote:

@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.

Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.

Not tv, as @TimmyBGood posted.

Not sure if you guys get facts directly from Ofcom, but the following example proves otherwise:
Ofcom decided that Sky’s pay TV services that rely on satellite transmission fall within the definition of public
electronic communications services.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/switching-provider/cw_01254

That relates specifically to end of contract notification and Sky are still in dispute with OFCOM about the decision.

It has nothing to do with the pricing of tv contracts.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

Vince888 — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:30:33 GMT

@Mark39 wrote:
@Vince888 wrote:
@Mark39 wrote:
@Vince888 wrote:
@TimmyBGood wrote:
Note that Ofcom does not have jurisdiction over subscription television pricing.
Ofcom does have jurisdiction over certain types of subscription contracts, especially concerning transparency and fairness.
Not tv, as @TimmyBGood posted.
Not sure if you guys get facts directly from Ofcom, but the following example proves otherwise:
Ofcom decided that Sky’s pay TV services that rely on satellite transmission fall within the definition of public
electronic communications services.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/switching-provider/cw_01254

That relates specifically to end of contract notification and Sky are still in dispute with OFCOM about the decision.

It has nothing to do with the pricing of tv contracts.

The point was about Ofcom having juristiction on contracts, which this proves it does, otherwise the corts would have thrown it out from the start.

Re: Sky contracts are very one-sided

TimmyBGood — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:38:15 GMT

@Vince888

Ofcom is claiming that their ruling on end of contract notification extends into subscription television rather than just telecommunications. The fact remains that provision of subscription television services, being being non-essential, has lighter regulation than broadband and voice calls because that's how the relevant Parliamentary legislation was framed.