Broadband News

BT told to not show advert again that it has already stopped running

BT has been told it is a very naughty company for suggesting that Sky might switch off old O2 customers broadband by April 2014. The ASA has responded to a complaint by Sky about a direct mailing BT sent out that had on the outside of the envelope 'SKY TO SWITCH OFF O2 BROADBAND BY APRIL 2014'.

We know lots of people were confused during the year when Sky was going through the motions of moving O2 and Be customers onto their own network after buying the fixed line business. It seems the BT mailing was designed to prey on this confusion when the reality was that if an O2/Be customer did nothing they would be switched to Sky in April 2014, of course many received enticing offers prior to this date to switch at an earlier date and Sky made use of the opportunity to upsell TV packages etc.

The O2/Be move to Sky in the end while problematic and confusing for some has largely gone well, the main issues being differences in how the Sky hardware behaves with some individual lines (i.e. not tweaked for total speed like Be used to be) and confusing invoices for some. We know some will disagree on the smoothness but given the mess that has arisen when much smaller numbers have been switched with other providers before the volume of moans was pretty small.


I suspect most problems would be from BE users who had the additional configuration options for line status in the control panel. O2 users were mostly dynamic IP and unable to change options without calling tech support. I wouldn't be surprised if O2 consisted of the bulk of customers given how many BEings left when FTTC appeared. Nevermind the "Murdoch" factor.

  • jchamier
  • over 6 years ago

The trouble is the ASA sanctions are inadequate - witness advertisers who repeatedly have adjudications against them (which adjudications are invariably seen by only a small fraction of the audience that saw the offending advert). The ASA should require that when an advert is found to have contravened the Code the advertiser must an equally prominent correction. Having to suffer such a financial and reputational cost would make advertisers more careful before publishing material.

  • Chrisandrea
  • over 6 years ago

meant to say "must publish an equally prominent correction"

  • Chrisandrea
  • over 6 years ago

I guess if Sky want damages from BT for misleading O2/BE customers they will have to take it to the courts. Perhaps this ruling would carry some weight.

  • oliver341
  • over 6 years ago

Post a comment

Login Register