[ale] comcast static IP?

[Brian MacLeod]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Popovitch
 
> I didn't, and frankly still don't, know what you are talking 
> about.  You whole point to date has been that you mostly 
> agree with me in principal, but you prefer to address it by 
> changing the contract terms of a commercial company, 
> something that you seem to think is law.


Contract terms, as long as they themselves do not violate local, state,
or federal statutes, are in fact law, enforced or not.  But much like
our highways in Atlanta, 55/65 is the law, but officers usually choose
not to enforce it so strictly.  A cable or DSL provider will do the
same; only when you are blantantly violating the law agreed to in
contract do they come down on you.


> You shouldn't do it then.  I will, and I don't see myself 
> getting into any trouble over it.  YMMV.


That's fine until they figure out a way (granted, unlikely).


> Yes it will.  That's the way most laws go away.  If it 
> doesn't who cares?


Contract law, this usually holds true: something that is unenforceable
ends up falling out of contract terms.  In real law, however, those laws
stay on the books until someone deliberately takes them off, and while
it may seem that for all intents and purposes it is no longer paid any
attention, those very laws have a habit of coming back into the
limelight with little warning.


> I don't see that in my contract.  YMMV.  Even if you do see 
> that, it doesn't make it enforceable.  


No, it doesn't, but at the same time, if you are pulling data through
your pipe for most of a 24 hour period, they can probably figure you
have more than one machine back there, and if they wanted to be jerks,
have every right to shut down your line and make you jump through hoops
to prove them wrong or to fight that very contract term.  In the
majority of cases, they'll win by default because the crap you have to
go through to prove anything isn't worth it.


> So what do you propose to do?  Abide by something you don't 
> agree with and you know can't be enforced, and is by all 
> accounts probably not valid?  Give me a break. Don't let 
> others, even cable companies, push you around like that.


This, like everything else, is a choice all of us have to make.


> LOL!  You are the one clouding the issue with your "I know 
> it's not right, nor is it enforcable, but I think it's still 
> valid" approach.


It may cloud things, but he is right, it is valid because you agree to
those terms in a contract.  Those terms fit fine with the statutes in
place at all levels.  It would hold up in a court of law very easliy.

Basically, it's the company covering its ass in case you peak your line
most of the time, and then bandwidth you eat up is enough that it would
warrant a business level line and/or costs them more to provide you that
bandwidth than you pay.  That's all.  They can then cancel the contract
for violation of terms, and then offer to provide you with more
expensive service.

bnm