Re: 23,000 IP addresses

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () americafree tv>]

On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> 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.

I am not a lawyer, and you would be a fool to use NANOG for legal advice, but if I were to charge something for this, I 
would want
to be able to justify the charge in front of a judge, regardless of what anyone else charges. In other words, something 
like "we find it typically takes $ 100 to get the backups out of storage, 15 minutes @ $X per minute for a tech to find 
the right backup disk and 10 minutes at $Y per minute for a network engineer to review the dump." 

Regards
Marshall 



> 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