The Reliance Jio Dispute: A Case Study in Last-Mile Internet Control

12 January, 2026

In July 2025, a request for a standard wired Jio Fiber (FTTH) broadband connection was unilaterally substituted by a local distributor for a wireless "Jio AirFiber" (ODCPE) service during a KYC verification visit. Rs 3200+ was paid to Jio as required. Upon realizing the error during the physical installation, the user immediately halted the process and unplugged the equipment, which has remained physically disconnected with zero bytes of usage recorded to date.

Core Technical Concerns: The "Black Box" Policy Central to this dispute is Jio’s explicit policy regarding Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Formal communication from the Appellate Officer stated that "the end user has no access to router admin/centrum page". 

This creates several critical vulnerabilities: 

• Mandatory Default Credentials: The device requires the use of four ISP-provided default passwords that the user is barred from changing locally, exposing the internal network to credential replay and brute-force risks. 
• Opaque Network Control: By locking the administrative interface, the ISP denies the user control over DNS settings, firewall configurations, and device-level permissions. 
• Restrictive Resource Allocation: Despite holding abundant allocations, the ISP has refused to provide standard IPv6 /60 blocks, offering only a single /64 prefix which is insufficient for proper network management across multiple internal devices. 

Procedural Coercion and Doorstep Aggression 

 

Rather than correcting the mis-installation, local Jio executives "front-ended" a distributor to force a procedural closure of the account. This led to a series of aggressive incidents at the user’s residence. Representatives demanded an "Installation Completed" code to falsely validate the service and pressured the user to surrender hardware that was already mapped to the user's Aadhaar and identity. 

These encounters involved threatening phone calls and the surreptitious recording of conversations by a child accompanying the distributor. Billing Irregularities and False Closures Subsequent attempts at resolution through Jio Priority Care resulted in a deceptive "relocation" narrative. Local teams insisted the user sign a "relocation request"—which would have been a false document—and pay an additional ₹1,110 to receive the wired connection originally ordered. Furthermore, despite the equipment being disconnected, the system has generated multiple undue invoices and sent over 50 automated suspension warnings. 

Current Status and Escalation 

The dispute reached a new stage in January 2026 when the exterior AirFiber equipment was removed from the terrace (unseen) without notice or written confirmation of account closure. The user has escalated the matter to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), MeitY, and the Ministry of Law, demanding a formal "Closure Memorandum" that confirms identity untagging, zero usage, and a formal acknowledgment of the initial mis-selling.

The user has had similar issues across Airtel and Railnet both of whom had severe barriers on static IP requests and modem presets. The letters and details are archived at https://internetenduser.blogspot.com/

(audio above:  ISP Security is a Lie and a Trap)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Analogy: Being provided internet through a "locked box" is like renting a hotel room where the management has superglued the deadbolt and keeps the only key. You can stay in the room, but you cannot lock the door yourself, you cannot see who else has a key, and you cannot even check if the windows are shut. You are forced to trust the landlord's security choices blindly, with no way to verify your own safety.