On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh <[email protected]> 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 > >
