Re: GTT Regulatory Recovery Surcharge

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

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 () 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 () nanog org>
> To: nanog () 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