[140409] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 23,000 IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Tue May 10 20:31:05 2011
In-Reply-To: <4DC943A4.40005@amplex.net>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:30:17 -0500
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net> wrote:
> On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
> compliance fee.
> 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the information.
> Seems like that would take the profit out pretty quickly.
+1.
But don't the fees actually have to be reasonable?
If you say your fee is $150 per IP address, I think they might bring
it to the judge
and claim the ISP is attempting to avoid subpoena compliance by charging an
unreasonable fee.
They can point to all the competitors charging $40 per IP.
This would be very interesting with IPv6 though, and customers assigned /56s.
"You want all the records for every IP in this /56, really?"
--
-JH
