[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
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:18 PM

> This can not possibly be true.  Laws are passed by a 
> legislature, enforced by an governmental body.  Police do not 
> arrest someone who solely ignores a contract.


Actually, it is.  Laws are simply social contracts to behave in certain
ways, and if someone violates their contract with society, then they are
subject to the penalties described within.  A contract between entities
in the United States is looked upon as being law between the parties
involved, assuming that no stipulation in the contract is in itself
illegal, including the penalties for violating it.  Yeah, you cannot
send the police to enforce a contract, but you can go to court and have
them send the police on your behalf, if it needs to come to that.


> This is much different.  55/65 is the law established by an 
> elected legislative body, and enforced by an infrastructure 
> run by an elected official or an appointee of an elected 
> official.  It's worth nothing that enforcement of 55/65 has 
> more to do with department policy than officers themselves.


Splitting hairs.  It's still a choice of enforcement.


> They will send the police after me?  Not.  They *might* 
> choose to sue me in civil court but would probably just 
> disconnect my service.  At that point, theft of service would 
> be criminal and fully enforceable.
> However, contract interpretation disputes, over a mutually 
> agreed upon service, are something entirely different.


No, they'll just cut your connection and the business relationship.
Then if you want to fight it, it'll be your time and your expense, so
they have you over a barrel on this if they choose to enforce.


> The fact that I am maxing out my connection is no indicator 
> of the number of PCs/devices.  A standard PC these days has a 
> 100MB ethernet interface on it.  A cable modem just couldn't keep up.

> What if I am running a quad-processor PC or Virtual machines? 
>  What about a clustered setup?  The possibilities for 
> interpretation are endless.  The logic just isn't there to 
> back any contractual words, therefore negating any enforceability.
> 
> Here is the list of Comcast *supported* cable interface devices:
> http://www.comcast.com/Support/Corp1/FAQ/FaqDetail_2427.html
> Are you telling me that full use of 50% of those devices 
> violates my contact with Comcast?  Not.


No, that's not at all what I was saying.  I was saying that if you pull
your full bandwidth for more than 80% of a day, every day, you are going
to be suspected of having more than one machine, and for good reason.
And if the cost of providing you that much used bandwidth costs them
more money than the cost they expect for lines on average, they will
want to keep their profit margin, and will dump you as a customer using
that very clause.  That's why it is there.  It's not because they really
have a problem with people connecting multiple machines, it is because
they want to have an out if they get some serious bandwidth hogs.

bnm