The point is that changing the service location is not covered in the contract. I wrote the article to warn people that Comcast believes this is covered in the contract and will enforce it. So we fundamentally disagree here on whether I'm changing the terms of the agreement. Maybe my expectations are misguided, but I would expect that conditions where they do not give me service and I continue to pay (especially a common one like moving an office to a non-servicable area) it would be explicitly included in the ToS. This is the reason that I think warning people is a legitimate thing to do.
> I wrote the article to warn people that Comcast believes this is covered in the contract and will enforce it
But they aren't enforcing the service location, they're enforcing your minimum term, which is covered in the contract. You can continue to receive service at the current service location if you wish. Instead you're trying to terminate the contract early.
> Maybe my expectations are misguided, but I would expect that conditions where they do not give me service and I continue to pay (especially a common one like moving an office to a non-servicable area) it would be explicitly included in the ToS.
Then what happens if someone starts a new service, Comcast pays the installation costs, and then that individual moves a month later. Comcast would be out the full cost of the installation.
Now, 36 months is absolute greed on Comcasts part, I'm sure they recoup the cost of installation after less than a year. However in principle Comcast deserve to get reimbursed for the full cost of the installation regardless of if someone moves or not.
