Other than the obvious, that Sky are charging for unconnected calls, the only thing I wonder is if the calls in question went through to voicemail (or something else that causes the meter to start) and that this was the case when equivalent calls were made from BT, but calls below a set amount weren't itemised, therefore your friend never became aware that the calls were charged.

Also, why is the MoneySavingExpert.com thread now closed?

Sky advisor responds to the question of charging for an unconnected mobile call,s.

"Hi, I've had it confirmed that the connection fee applies when the mobile rings."

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Billing-Payments/Charges-for-unconnected-calls/td-p/...

Question also raised here http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Account-Billing-Q-A/why-do-you-charge-for-unconnecte... recently .(Unhelpful answer me thinks  )

bigjohn wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2012 at 6:01pm:

He however subsequently recognises that this is not how it should be -
Hi, since responding to the earlier post we have had clarification that the information given about when a connection fee applies was wrong.

It appears that nothing further was done to achieve a resolution.

This has echoes of the Virgin Media situation with overcharged calls, where false information was being passed from a third party and was being used for billing purposes.

There is no question that "unanswered calls", as described here, should not be subject to a charge. It is clearly not the policy of Sky to charge in this way, however there appears to be a glitch in their arrangements which is causing this to happen under some circumstances.

If victims would like to forward evidence of the effect and the reaction from the Sky billing department to the fair telecoms campaign, we will be happy to take this matter up at an appropriate level. (We will need sufficient detail for the case to be identified but no personal information.)