Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations

Todd Grand tgrand at
Tue Mar 14 16:29:39 UTC 2017

In reply to the group as my reply was only to Luke.

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.

Todd Grand

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory at] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:08 AM
To: Todd Grand <tgrand at>
Cc: Eric Dugas <edugas at>; Graham Johnston <johnstong at>; NANOG <nanog at>
Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations

On transit though? We in the US pay all of these types of fees as well though not on service outside of telephone.

Sent from my iPad


Luke Guillory
Network Operations Manager

Tel:    985.536.1212
Fax:    985.536.0300
Email:  lguillory at

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084


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-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .

On Mar 14, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand at> wrote:
> These costs are related to federal, provincial and/or municipal 
> mandates, programs and requirements such as provincial 9-1-1 fees, 
> spectrum acquisition, licensing charges, and contribution charges to 
> help subsidize telephone service in rural and remote areas. These 
> costs are not taxes or amounts that the government requires carriers 
> to collect. The specific amount of these costs can vary as the 
> fees/costs of government mandates/programs change.
> I would have them outline what regulatory costs they incur, as they 
> have to justify the extension of these costs, or in my opinion it is a 
> form of fraud.
> Todd Grand
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [ at] On 
> Behalf Of Eric Dugas
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 10:00 AM
> To: Graham Johnston <johnstong at>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog at>
> Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
> From what I've gathered so far, every other carriers that we use are 
> either invoicing us from Canada or outside the US (e.g. Telia from 
> Vancouver, BC and Cogent from Toronto, ON).
> A couple of minutes after firing my first email, our rep called me to 
> follow up. He'll escalate this as far as he can with his COO and CFO 
> and suggested two scenarios.
> On Mar 14 2017, at 10:41 am, Graham Johnston 
> <johnstong at>
> wrote:
>> We don't explicitly pay a charge like this for the transit bandwidth 
>> we
> purchase in Toronto from an international carrier, and I doubt that it 
> is built into the cost without any mention of it. I've never heard of 
> such a thing.
>> Graham Johnston
> Network Planner
> Westman Communications Group
> 204.717.2829
> johnstong at
>> \-----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at] On Behalf Of Eric Dugas
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:04 AM
> Subject: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
>> I recently negotiated a new contract with a tier1 for IP transit in 
>> Canada
> and
> just got the invoice. I saw a "new" Regulatory Recovery Surcharge of 
> 10% the MRC (before taxes) that I've never seen before. Do any of my 
> Canadian fellows on this list are paying this outrageous surcharge?
>> 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 
> the MSA or in the contract.

More information about the NANOG mailing list