A spirited debate rages in our AT&T forum over one user, who uncapped his cable modem and immediately felt the ire of AT&T: no service. Should there be a three "strikes you're out" policy for these users, or are the guidelines clear enough that any user modifying their cap deserves immediate disconnection? Do the lack of enforcement of other terms of service, such as use of P2P or NAT, suggest to naive users that uncapping warnings are equally toothless?

It's clear the terms of service for most ISP's, at least once you've digested the legalese and stumbled through the superfluous language, are fairly open concerning what is acceptable, and unacceptable behavior.

What they aren't so clear on is how seriously they are going to take each particular infringement of policy, and what kind of punishment will be applied. In the case of modem uncapping (The process of technically removing the "speed cap" in place on your broadband service), most ISP's are taking immediate action against users caught modifying their modem.

No Tampering. Such prohibition includes, without limitation, altering a cable modem to change the downloading or uploading capacity of the cable modem.

This user tested the water temperature the hard way. There have been others on multiple occasions who have been abruptly educated as well. Frequent visitors to our forums should clearly know that modem uncapping is something the ISP's are taking very seriously. More seriously, apparently, than fixing the security holes that allow it to happen in the first place.

AT&T has been one of many cable ISP's coming down hard on modifying your modem. But there may be a legally grey area. According to most terms of service, "theft of service" is clearly spelled out as connecting more than one PC or device to a broadband connection without paying for the extra IP address. Yet the most moral of the techies in our forums use NAT to bring multiple household devices on line, which is clearly against the terms of service. While some ISP's have begun to complain about NAT, and talks of other technologies are in the works, there is not much hard-line reinforcement or pursuit of networked users.

Theft of Service. Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises.

File sharing peer to peer applications are another good example. Most ISP's prohibit "running programs or servers from the Premises which provide network content or any other services to others.", which essentially would make any peer to peer application a violation of the terms of service. And while several overseas ISP's have been shutting the door on P2P, businesses here secretly know that it is their cash cow, one of the major driving points for even having a broadband connection. Banning peer to peer would be suicide to any serious ISP. Yet clearly using such services is not allowed, according to the terms of service. There is clearly an obscure hypocrisy that exists in the definition of the rules.

ob·scure Pronunciation Key (b-skyr, b-)
adj. ob·scur·er, ob·scur·est

Not easily understood; not clear or legible; abstruse or blind; as, an obscure passage or inscription.

The same terms of service that tell you not to do something yet still allow it, across multiple situations, are telling you that uncapping your cable modem is a bad idea. There is even greater confusion over what punishment will be applied to each crime. Is there a legitimate question then surrounding what one can reasonably expect is allowed and what is not? Most technical individuals clearly know that uncapping your cable modem crosses a line drawn in the sand, but what about less experienced users, who see the uncapping rule as the same toothless warnings surrounding file trading or the use of NAT? Hardline broadband moralists will argue that a line is a line, stepping over it brings punishment, and deserved punishment at that. In some regards, this is a valid argument.

Others compare a user caught uncapping their modem to speeding on the highway: if one is caught, one must deal with the consequences. But the man in the Silver Ferrari with little regard to human safety gets multiple points taken off his license, and does not immediately lose all driving privileges the first time he breaks a law.

The highway code clearly spells out all the punishments for each offense, from points to arrest, yet ISPs seem content to forbid everything, without specification of punishment, leaving technically naive users wondering what the severity difference between uncapping, sharing and spamming might actually be.

And what if, as this user claims, he downloaded a file that did the work for him? New users could be easily confused by applications available on the web with names like "Connection Enhancer". Others might simply follow instructions on "How to get more from your modem" without entirely understanding that what they're doing is going to end up costing them their service, even though a more technical user would be fully aware.

Is the current system of punishment for modem uncappers fair? Not severe enough? Or should broadband providers switch to a "three (or even two) strikes" policy? Should their warnings concerning NAT and P2P be modified?