Collections via routing control
owen at netcom.com
owen at netcom.com
Tue Mar 22 18:12:33 UTC 1994
I don't think it's a standard practice, but it is not an unreasonable one.
We have, to my knowledge, only done this once. In the case where we
did it, we were quite sure the money was owed us.
> From jcurran at nic.near.net Mon Mar 21 21:07:21 1994
> To: owen at netcom.com
> cc: mak at aads.com, bmanning at is.rice.edu, regional-techs at merit.edu
> Subject: Collections via routing control
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 00:03:15 -0500
> From: John Curran <jcurran at nic.near.net>
> Content-Length: 1256
> ] (Owen DeLong)
> ] ...
> ] If PA decides not to approve the NACR, the NACR does not happen. The
> ] issue can eventually be forced, and it is usually easier to renumber
> ] the customer. Some less professional providers have done this. Other
> ] providers have gone so far as to issue their customers individual
> ] 8 bit subnets of class B networks owned by the provider. In fact,
> ] some providers (reasonably so, IMHO) refuse to approve a NACR until
> ] the leaving customer has paid their final bill (or the bill up to
> ] current, anyway). Afterall, turning someone off for not paying for
> ] service IS a reasonable collections tactic. It's used by almost every
> ] utility, and Network Service Providers, although competitive, are basically
> ] a utility. If the network number moves somewhere else, then the old
> ] provider has no ability to shut down the connection.
> Wonderful. This practice makes it likely that a client with a
> billing dispute will suffer a service outage during transition.
> Given that I've seen billing disputes go both way, it's not exactly
> Are there any providers that have made this their standard operating
> procedures? It might help to know which engage in this practice
> for transition planning purposes.
More information about the NANOG