GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge

Sun Dec 2 23:30:36 UTC 2018

Nope… IP transit doesn’t pay into USF generally speaking.

USF is billed as a separate line item (at least on the bills I get where it is a factor).

The “regulatory recovery fee” is a bs name telcos use to make it sound like a tax they are passing on to the government. In reality, it’s a slush fund to help pay for their lobbying efforts to get congress and various PUCs to help them screw over their customers even more.

Owen

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 14:41 , Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> Maybe this?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund>
> https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund <https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund>
> https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service <https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service>
> 
> 
> Kinda crappy they don't spell it out. Well, no, I guess USF would be closer to +-18%.
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> From: "Brandon Wade via NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2018 4:06:30 PM
> Subject: GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge
> 
> We've been a GTT customer for several years and on our latest bill we now have a "Regulatory Recovery Surcharge" of almost 10% tacked on. We only purchase IP Transit services from them, nothing else, and have never had any fees tacked on top of our contracted agreed upon amount. Has anyone else ran into this? If this is a legit "surcharge" any idea of why we were never charged for that before? I figured I'd reach out to the community on this prior to jumping to further conclusions. 
> 
> -Brandon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181202/068dc964/attachment.html>