FTTC 12 month min term?

FTTC (Fibre the the cabinet) is something we can provide. We buy the links from our favorite telco, or rather the wholesale part of their split personality disorder.

One of our ongoing gripes is the 12 month minimum term. Obviously they can do what they like, but they have none the less tried to justify it on the basis that they have to pay their other half for a 12 month minimum term. Still, we are arguing and pushing, it is clearly not good to encourage take up if you are forced to some onerous term.

However, there is one anomaly that does not stack up here. If we migrate an FTTC away to another ISP who also deals with the same wholesaler, then they don't have to touch the link to the premises - so no new install and no new 12 month term for them to pay their other half, and no penalty to pay either. They are not ceasing the link at all, just reconfiguring their bit slightly.

Yet they still hold us to the 12 months term in that case - in effect asking us to pay the remainder of the 12 months and requiring the new ISP to pay for the same period of time for the same bit of wire. It is bad enough the new ISP is held to a new 12 month term as well, but making two ISPs pay for the same thing is iffy.

After some comments recently where they used the word "ethical", I have now emailed back asking if they really consider it ethical to expect two people to pay for the same thing... No reply on that one yet :-)

Maybe by making lots of people pay for the same thing at the same time they can try and increase their profits towards infinity?


  1. They will need as much money as possible to try and buy their way out of the very worst part of hell where even the folks from Sky TV will shit on them.

  2. I'd dearly love your favourite telco to make my little backwater in RG4 have Infinity (even though all the surrounding area has it).

    I'd even be happy to sign up to a 12 month term (although obviously not with BT directly).

    Round here bandwidth is 1/Infinity.

    If they're going to run a scheme to scam ISPs they should at least have a really large base of customers participate in the scam.

  3. "asking us to pay the remainder of the 12 months"

    Don't you mean asking the customer to pay? I'm assuming what you mean is that AAISP has to pay as well, as the last port of call.

    I have heard that Ofcom are looking into the issue of 12 month contracts, albeit only with a view to solving it through a Wires-Only solution (BT still tell us that they have "no plans" for that). However you make a very good point about migration.

  4. I mean our suppliers expecting *us* to pay them for the remainder of the term. Whether we charge our customers is a separate matter and at present (for migrations) we have not been doing so, but if we can't win this argument then that will change.

    As for stopping 12 month min terms - that is tricky. At a wholesale level they could simply charge us more for the install. As a consumer level a costly install could be provided on 12 months credit and the service have a discount for the first 12 months. The end effect would be much the same. What we need is to convince the suppliers to change.

  5. I hope the minimum 12 month term doesn't apply when it doesn't work and you want to switch back to ADSL2+.

    Not quite at that stage yet, but it does make me wonder...

  6. We have been chasing BT rather a lot on this line - I have been in support today over hearing the calls. Obviously, if it does not work, that is a different matter and we would not charge you (regardless of BT trying to charge us).


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

ISO8601 is wasted

Why did we even bother? Why create ISO8601? A new API, new this year, as an industry standard, has JSON fields like this "nextAccessTim...