[194079] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luke Guillory)
Tue Mar 14 12:58:20 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com>
To: Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:58:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7JsW9.724622c6ca.000201d29ce3$8aa1e260$9fe5a720$@tgrand.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
For sure
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com> wrote:
>=20
> I still believe the onus is on them to justify the extension of these cos=
ts,
> regardless of what was in the agreement.
>=20
> Todd Grand
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:39 AM
> To: Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
>=20
> I just went back over my email string with one of our transit providers
> since I recalled submitting an exempt form for something.=20
>=20
> They added the Federal Universal Service Fund Surcharge to our transit li=
nk,
> odd since this isn't a voice related circuit. This also wasn't on the quo=
te
> or anything else, sales tax is assumed but this wasn't. I'm sure it's bur=
ied
> in an agreement somewhere.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Sent from my iPad
>=20
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> In reply to the group as my reply was only to Luke.
>>=20
>>=20
>> This is why I say, they should need to justify the extension of these
> costs.
>> In my opinion a transit provider should not have any justification to
> extend said costs.
>> One might suggest that the unjustified extension of these costs could be
> construed as fraudulent charges.
>>=20
>> Todd Grand
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:08 AM
>> To: Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com>
>> Cc: Eric Dugas <edugas@unknowndevice.ca>; Graham Johnston=20
>> <johnstong@westmancom.com>; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
>>=20
>> On transit though? We in the US pay all of these types of fees as well
> though not on service outside of telephone.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Sent from my iPad
>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Luke Guillory
>> Network Operations Manager
>>=20
>> Tel: 985.536.1212
>> Fax: 985.536.0300
>> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com
>>=20
>> Reserve Telecommunications
>> 100 RTC Dr
>> Reserve, LA 70084
>>=20
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ___________________________
>>=20
>> Disclaimer:
>> The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for
> the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate,
> distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mai=
l
> if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from y=
our
> system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-fr=
ee
> as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive l=
ate
> or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accep=
t
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, wh=
ich
> arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
>>=20
>>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand@tgrand.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> These costs are related to federal, provincial and/or municipal=20
>>> mandates, programs and requirements such as provincial 9-1-1 fees,=20
>>> spectrum acquisition, licensing charges, and contribution charges to=20
>>> help subsidize telephone service in rural and remote areas. These=20
>>> costs are not taxes or amounts that the government requires carriers=20
>>> to collect. The specific amount of these costs can vary as the=20
>>> fees/costs of government mandates/programs change.
>>>=20
>>> I would have them outline what regulatory costs they incur, as they=20
>>> have to justify the extension of these costs, or in my opinion it is=20
>>> a form of fraud.
>>>=20
>>> Todd Grand
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+tgrand=3Dtgrand.com@nanog.org] On=20
>>> Behalf Of Eric Dugas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 10:00 AM
>>> To: Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com>
>>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
>>>=20
>>> From what I've gathered so far, every other carriers that we use are=20
>>> either invoicing us from Canada or outside the US (e.g. Telia from=20
>>> Vancouver, BC and Cogent from Toronto, ON).
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> A couple of minutes after firing my first email, our rep called me to=20
>>> follow up. He'll escalate this as far as he can with his COO and CFO=20
>>> and suggested two scenarios.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Mar 14 2017, at 10:41 am, Graham Johnston=20
>>> <johnstong@westmancom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> We don't explicitly pay a charge like this for the transit bandwidth=20
>>>> we
>>> purchase in Toronto from an international carrier, and I doubt that=20
>>> it is built into the cost without any mention of it. I've never heard=20
>>> of such a thing.
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> Graham Johnston
>>> Network Planner
>>> Westman Communications Group
>>> 204.717.2829
>>> johnstong@westmancom.com
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> \-----Original Message-----
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Dugas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:04 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> I recently negotiated a new contract with a tier1 for IP transit in=20
>>>> Canada
>>> and
>>> just got the invoice. I saw a "new" Regulatory Recovery Surcharge of=20
>>> 10% the MRC (before taxes) that I've never seen before. Do any of my=20
>>> Canadian fellows on this list are paying this outrageous surcharge?
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> Other than saying "it's in the MSA", our rep, their tax and billing
>>> department
>>> are not useful at all. The actual rate is not specified anywhere in=20
>>> the MSA or in the contract.
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
