...plan their household budgets," Ofcome told us. ...

Another classic Ofcom failure, but it's only part of a wider pattern of regulators who are plodding "Arms Length Bodies" and that dramatically limits their authority (compared to being part of a government department) and weakens the link between experience of how regulation works in practice and how policy (made by government departments) then needs to develop. Look at the miserable and dysfunctional state of energy supply, telecoms, post, water, and the single common theme is that the regulator is an ALB.

ALB exist for two reasons only - firstly so that shit head politicians can distance themselves from the regulator and pretend that the outcomes are not their fault, and second to pretend that ALB workforce isn't part of the civil service, thus pretending that they've made some reduction in the size of the civil service.

They did try and ban it, but the terminology was nerfed by lobbying.

They banned mid contract price rises *linked to inflation*.

The spirit of this ban was to prevent mid contract price rises...but instead of linking to inflation, price rises are now just arbitrary because of the loose terminology.

Thats why they mean by "the spirit" of the rules.

Ofcom were negligent when they removed the inflation link they also removed the 3.9% cap on real-terms increases.

Net effect has been that for many the new annual mid contract price increase has been more (both as a percentage and in monetary terms) than it would have been under the old formula.

If Ofcom were really concerned about consumers having certainty they would have banned mid-contract price increases, for all contracts of 36 months or less.

This would also encourage the mobile providers to “plan their household budgets”…

If only the market were truly free, they'd have one big surprise the next day, when all of their customers went somewhere else.

And that's all they deserve.

O2 also do 30-day rolling contracts both directly and, at a modestly reduced cost, via giffgaff. However, their 24 month contracts are significantly cheaper on a monthly basis than either: of course they'll recoup some of that from people who fail to act promptly at the end of the contract when the prices jump.

I'm not, in principle, against the idea of fixed-term contracts, but it seems to me that the permitted maximum contract period is far too long: a lot can happen to prices in 24 months. I suspect if the maximum contract period were 12 months people would feel a lot less aggrieved.

I'm sure I've mentioned before that recent aggressive competition in Portugal (where 24 month contracts were the norm) has brought typical contracts down to 3 months as well as significantly lowering costs. This has largely been delivered through no-frills operations (often subsidiaries of the traditional operators) that have largely eliminated the highly-incentivised sales staff and "free" TVs and tablets that were previously required to get people to sign up to long, expensive contracts against their better judgment. I've been surprised at how long phone shops have persisted in the high street when we no longer expect to find an Electricity or Gas Board selling cookers and fridges. It might be useful if Ofcom were to separate the network operators from their other commercial activities.

No, the real problem was allowing the market to consolidate to the degree it has. In a competitive market service is quality is much a differential as price or type of product; in consolidated markets the need to differentiate is removed as is, therefore, customer choice.

In regulated markets, price increases related to inflation should be possible – you can have chronic underinvestment where this isn't the case. However, the rise in company costs will rarely be the same as retail price inflation (RPI) and price increases should, therefore, require approval by the regulator on a pre-agreed basis. RPI will certainly be a factor – many pay deals include a link – but other costs will be the same or may have fallen.

abend0c4,

The problem with 12 month contracts is that they become incredibly expensive when tied to buying a new phone. Plus most people are now keeping their phones for 2 years, at least. It would be better if people bought their handsets themselves, and bought SIM-only contracts, because you then don't have this problem.

It's not like we're being horribly ripped off though. My Mum has a contract for £6 or £7 a month that gives her unlimited calls and texts and 5GB of data a month. Admittedly that's with Lebara, not one of the actual providers. We just renewed the company contract and I think we're paying more like £12 a month per handset - but get more data, and we're with EE direct. I also did the calculation and if we'd taken the deal that got us all new iPhones for 2 years, then I think we were paying about £20 extra - which is effectively interest on a hire purchase.

On the other hand, some companies clearly take the piss.

I took the opportunity to cancel the contract and move elsewhere. It was going to expire next month anyway, and I was gonig to move then anyway, because the renewal prices were rubbish compared to what I can get elsewhere.

Sadly not everyone has this option, phone signal for other providers around here is terrible. I live in the heart of NIMBY land, so getting masts rolled out is difficult.

The real fix here is to prevent local interference with mast installs. This country needs to grow up and understand that local NIMBYs have a lot to answer for when it comes to being part of the general decline of this country. Immigration is a problem, sure, but we have problems with our own people as well.

Quite a lot of legislation needs to be fixed...not least rules around road resurfacing...if a councillor decides the road outside their house needs to be fixed, and only that piece of road...they should be forced to resurface everything within a minimum radius for that to happen.

My previous local council was made up mostly of a local residents association, plus a sprinkling of conservatives...and you could tell where they lived because the patches of road and the lamp posts out side their houses were always perfect...but everywhere else was loaded with dead lamp posts, pot holes etc.

They've gone now, replaced by the Lib Dems no less...and as a result, things are now getting done that benefit the whole area not just the select spots outside of councillors homes.

We need to put a stop to cross authority bail outs as well...if a board of councillors drives a local authority into the ground, they should be ousted and banned from standing again...it's that simple...they should not be able to go cap in hand to the next authority over and beg for a bail out.

My local authority has spent a lot of money in the past bailing out other failed authorities which has led to less spending in my area using my tax money...lots of local authority funded services and schemes were shut down because we were spunking money elsewhere.

I have never understood where that 3.9% came from and why they were allowed to make it 'inflation + 3.9%' rather than 'inflation or 3.9% whichever is higher'.

Latter obviously isn't great either but at least makes more sense.

I seem to recall reading, probably here, that some of the telco's, ISP's etc. would also base the total rise on the 'non-discounted' contract price so you'd be thinking the rise would be say 10% on £10 a month but was actually 10% on £30 a month because you were getting a £20pm 'discount'. Shady practise.

The extra 3.9% is necessary as the C Suite wouldn't be able to afford another yacht without it - the ludicrous idea that O2 et al and Ofcom state that "it's for investment" is manure of the highest ordure; witness Thames Water and the endless "investment" that ended up in the pockets of Macquarie rather than being spent on something useful like a working sewage farm. Clearly the latest scam mid-contract price rise is because those at the top of the O2 dung heap now also need another Ferrari.

The wringing of hands at Ofcom is truly pathetic. "Those nasty mobile networks have added yet more to their profits beyond the 3.9% + inflation limit. If only there was a regulatory agency that had responsibility for overseeing them. Oh wait, that's us isn't it? In that case, here's a slap on the wrist and, to all the other networks, please don't do this as well (wink, wink)".

Don't give O2 the Oxygen of Publicity

"If only there was some agency or body which could do something to prevent this or punish trangressors" said Ofcom

Toothless and/or meek regulators are worse than none at all.

"We're very disappointed indeed" - that'll bring the multinationals to heal.

Why does OFCOM not have the balls to suggest legislation that gives them the power to force a contract rate on a mobile, internet connection etc to be fixed?

Lengthy contracts would vanish and companies would have to provide quality services to keep customers. It would improve competition and investment. Thus benefit everyone.

What with this price rise, and O2s announcement of a contract signed with StarLink, I’m switching provider.

I’m not prepared to be a Nazi enabler by putting any of my money, even indirectly, in Elon’s pocket.

Would you care to suggest a non-Nazi sattelite ISP with the same or lower prices?

Thought so.

Relax man, he's just another lost leftie...hopefully they will eventually return to what the left wing actually stood for and we can have balance again.

They don't seem to understand that they need people like Elon Musk in order to have something to collectively moan about, he's their anti-christ, they just don't know it yet. For a long time we've had virtue signalling corporations and inclusion policies...so the lefties couldn't complain about the corporates anymore...ever since they've been on a search for that one thing they can all moan about...but it turns out they all have different whacky ideas and can no longer even agree on one collective thing to moan about...so they moan about everything and consequently they've lost sight of exactly what it is that they stand for. They fought the corporate overlords, the overlords gave them what they wanted, the left fragmented under the weight of their own hubris, the corporates are starting to wind everything back and the left is a mess because the needle keeps skipping on calling everyone a nazi...the corporations won.

If Elon plays his cards right, he could become the focal point of all the left wing angst...if he pulls that off, he'll be able to control left wing anger like a cat with a laser pointer.

Musk as a lot of shortcomings, but you can't deny that Starlink is a shockingly good service.

I came in contact with it twice this year on two holidays in extremely remote areas and it was just excellent. Had none of the shortcomings I expected from satellite broadband. I'm a network engineer and you can bet your ass I tested the fuck out of it and approached it with a level of skepticism. Is it perfect? No...no it's not...is it a better experience than say...5G or ADSL...absolutely. It's not as good as a fixed line fibre connection, but it's better than everything else and for what it is, it's reasonably priced. The routers could be better, they are a bit cheap...but the connection itself...insane.

I had a 150mbps connection slap dab in the middle of the ocean and I didn't have to pay stupid maritime network roaming fees. It was expensive, but not extortionate as maritime roaming usually is.

Being on a cruise ship with nothing but ocean in every direction for hundreds of miles with a blazing fast internet connection made me feel like my first Compuserve disk had arrived again. It's that good. That feeling that you are so remote and yet still connected everywhere.

Where politics are concerned...you can't really avoid the "bad guys" since there aren't actually any "good guys"...the left has lost it's way. The left has become so inclusive and diverse that it doesn't represent anyone or anything in particular. They are so detached that they've essentially decapitated themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ze10S-PCH2M

At the very least, at least "bad guys" like Elon actually build things and do things. As much as I'm sure it pains you to do so, you have to give credit where it is due. I don't particularly like the guy, but I can't deny that he's built something solid.

Why not cut out the bullshit entirely and go fully off grid. You could be Unabomber 2.0.

For ALL industries that require a regulator, it's a fairly safe bet that every company in that industry is a bunch of sharks, ripping off their customers to the maximum extent allowed by the regulator. Most, if not all, of those companies will have a compliance department whose job it is to work out exactly how far they can bend the rules before the legal penalties exceed the profits available from doing so. Honest and decent companies cannot compete in such an environment.

Therefore always assume you are being borderline scammed when dealing with a company that is subject to a regulator.

This is the problem with regulation...it always fails to regulate and ends up being a "paint by numbers" guide on how to optimise a scam.

Regulation only works when there is a threat of intervention, not just oversight.

OFCOM needs the power to be able to shut down a company if compliance isn't to their liking. Because fines and court action are all just part of the game to large businesses. It's all operational cost which gets loaded on to the customers.

If OFCOM could actually intervene with actions such as reversing direct debits, firing CEOs etc etc the threat to these companies would actually mean something.

What the current system produces is executives that wear court outcomes like medals..."Dave Jones, CEO, brought down a fine from £100m cash down to £250k in service credit over 5 years".

What they're less likely to wear as a medal "Dave Jones, CEO, brought O2 to it's knees for 6 months because they couldn't take payments until the court hearings were over, worst annual figures since the business began".

> "For those still paying off their device, they can only cancel penalty-free if they pay that bill off in full – which many won't be able to afford to do either within the 30-day time limit or on top of another monthly plan elsewhere," the post states.

You can buy a new basic smartphone for 75 quid that will do everything you need it to do. It runs exactly the same OS and Apps as a 1500 quid model. I cannot fathom why anybody would take out a mortgage in order to get a top of the line phone that they cannot afford.

I cannot fathom why anybody would take out a mortgage in order to get a top of the line phone that they cannot afford Or need.

But the crux is: Keeping up with the Kardashians. (The modern verion of keeping up with the Jones)

Perhaps the rules should be that if the contract price increases, the customer should be able to cancel the contract without exit fees, and without needing to finish paying for any phone that was included in the deal.

That would focus the minds of the mobile companies suddenly hiking bills beyond reason.

I'd have thought you could argue this. Since they've unilaterally changed the terms of the contract, I'd argue that in order to cancel it you should be able to hand them their phone back with no extra payments. Since the hire purchase on the phone is rolled into the data contract, you don't sign two separate ones. So giving you the right to cancel one, should cancel both. I can't see how they can enforec making you pay for the handset, and I'm pretty sure they'd lose in county court if they tried.

Gonna cunt.

"The big concern, as Lewis states, is that other mobile providers will feel emboldened"

I wouldn't mind if EE did this. When I left BT Broadband earlier this year, I ported my number from the BT Mobile MVNO to EE without reading some of the small print*. It was the path of least resistance, but now it feels rather silly of me. As such, I wouldn't mind the opportunity to port out.

* 5G speeds capped unless you pay for an absurdly priced plan (and that's with SIM only), plus the daily charge they levy for roaming in Europe.

I've also discovered that EE have now removed the ability to change your tariff online: You have to contact their call centre and suffer the hard sell on numerous up-sells.