yeah im comparing to america, not really looked at the rest of EU ill accept your word on that, but whats the point of regulation if its only molded to fit what those been regulated want?
do you think telling companies to not use an ad again 6 months too late with no fine works well then?
its like telling a rapist as long as you dont do it again the first time is ok
i might be asking for over extremity but what we have now isnt harsh enough as we seeing with isps abusing repeatedly
your comment regarding lawyers hits it as generally if a company never feels the need to legally challenge then you know the regulator isnt pushing hard enough, ofcom have stayed broken since they lost to sky in the courts, scared shaken.
--edit--
I acknowledge I was over heady handed in my initial comment but my opinion that what we have now is too soft has not changed.
My feeling is advertising breaches should be punished by a fine instead of a warning. Maybe a warning if its a first offence, but for serial offenders like VM, clearly a heavier hand is needed. the idea is that regulation removes the "business case" for flouting rules, if a business determines its profitable to flout the rules then that is what they will do. Only a fine can make that a loss making practice. An alternative would be to provide a ban on advertising on an offence so e.g. 3 month ban of advertising, that would also likely achieve the result of making it a poor "business case" to flout the rules.
The ASA hands are tied directly as they actually dont have power to enforce their guidelines, instead ofcom are there to enforce breaches, I dont know what behind the doors arrangement ofcom and the ASA have, but if ofcom has told the ASA they dont want to intervene then this would encourage the ASA in their current warnings policy.
A regulator should be prepared for legal battles, been on constant legal battles yes is not ideal, but I think if a regulator is going for large periods of time such as several years without ever been challenged that to me is a sign that the companies been regulated are too comfortable with the arrangement.
I will also acknowledge legislation cannot be abruptly changed with zero warning (although citizens often have to put up with this from government, sometimes even with backdated legislation), on the flipside it doesnt feel right that the regulators often wait for the companies been regulated to first be happy with the changes, notice how the rules on unlimited usage didnt change until BT retail decided to drop traffic management, that should not have been the trigger for the ASA to start taking an interest.
Part of ofcom's remit is to ensure the companies it regulates are not financially deprived from its actions, that to me is just bizarre, it quite possibly explains why when ofcom do take action against something, they nearly always leave open an alternative dodgy way of companies recovering any lost revenue as a result of that action.
To put this into context, imagine a world where no regulator or law enforcement was not allowed to financially deprive an offender and they all operated in a manner where everyone just got a warning. How good would the world be in terms of law abiding citizens? People speeding couldnt be fined due to been financially deprived, no parking tickets as it financially deprives people so yellow lines would be ignored, rape someone, commit a burglary, doesnt matter as long as you say you wont do it again. The list goes on.
I dont have all the answers but I do strongly feel the current system for the communications sector is inadequate. The focus from ofcom is still centered on regulating openreach which is just plain wrong, its now outdated/obsolete, sky and talktalk are both major players who shouldnt need constant favourable treatment, likewise with virgin media who somehow still escape the restrictions that BT are held under, even tho they are an infrastructure provider. The industry has much more access to ofcom decision makers than the public and even MP's that is just plain wrong as well.
Going back to the original sky 55mbit thing which you called sly. The reason I said its nothing compared to VM, is quite simple. For over a decade VM(aka NTL) have as a standard business policy under invested in local network capacity in areas with high takeup of their services, they have loved to blame it on things like planning permission, unpredictable network usage amongst other things. Yet what we are seeing now is the marketing team have decided these upgrades "need to happen" as otherwise their marketing machine grinds to a halt, all of a sudden because its deemed necessary for marketing, this work is been carried out and these so called obstacles have vanished, dont you find that all a bit "convenient"?
So in short self regulation has clearly failed, but now due to public pressure and political pressure the ASA are considering change and this has resulted in an incumbent finally investing money on quality of service. No doubt once these upgrades are done VM will be pushing for the change as they will then be able to comply and they will know it will hurt xDSL type services. They dont care one bit about their customers QoS, just helping their own marketing and profits.