Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations

Tue Mar 14 16:58:13 UTC 2017

For sure

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand at tgrand.com> wrote:
> 
> I still believe the onus is on them to justify the extension of these costs,
> regardless of what was in the agreement.
> 
> Todd Grand
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory at reservetele.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:39 AM
> To: Todd Grand <tgrand at tgrand.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Regulatory Recovery Surcharge for Canadian corporations
> 
> I just went back over my email string with one of our transit providers
> since I recalled submitting an exempt form for something. 
> 
> They added the Federal Universal Service Fund Surcharge to our transit link,
> odd since this isn't a voice related circuit. This also wasn't on the quote
> or anything else, sales tax is assumed but this wasn't. I'm sure it's buried
> in an agreement somewhere. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Todd Grand <tgrand at tgrand.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 reservetele.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:08 AM
>> To: Todd Grand <tgrand at tgrand.com>
>> Cc: Eric Dugas <edugas at unknowndevice.ca>; Graham Johnston 
>> <johnstong at westmancom.com>; NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>> 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 reservetele.com
>> 
>> Reserve Telecommunications
>> 100 RTC Dr
>> Reserve, LA 70084
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ___________________________
>> 
>> 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-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 tgrand.com> 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 [mailto:nanog-bounces+tgrand=tgrand.com at nanog.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of Eric Dugas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 10:00 AM
>>> To: Graham Johnston <johnstong at westmancom.com>
>>> Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>>> 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 westmancom.com>
>>> 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 westmancom.com
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> \-----Original Message-----
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Dugas
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:04 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>