Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
Thanks all who replied. Yes in fact it is "ayo"-ending one, and i do have others in the very same location and this doesn't happen at all. Matter handed over to legal team. cheers /Nuno On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 16:58 -0700, Robert L Mathews wrote: > On 10/14/20 2:14 PM, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > > > Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: > > It may be just a coincidence, but I had the same problem with a > company > that begins with "Z" (and ends with "ayo"). > > The quote I got was for a certain exact dollar amount with some tiny > boilerplate-looking text that says they may pass on any taxes. Since > I've used several providers in the same buildings who have never > mentioned any taxes, I ignored it. > > When the actual bill came, it was 8% higher due to absurd things like > "property tax surcharge". This is simply a fee they charge to cover > their own property taxes. The other extras were similar. > > These are not taxes they are required to charge you separately. > They're > just adding money to the bill to get you to contribute towards > *their* > taxes. I complained long and hard about it, but they didn't care. > >
Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
On 10/14/20 2:14 PM, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: It may be just a coincidence, but I had the same problem with a company that begins with "Z" (and ends with "ayo"). The quote I got was for a certain exact dollar amount with some tiny boilerplate-looking text that says they may pass on any taxes. Since I've used several providers in the same buildings who have never mentioned any taxes, I ignored it. When the actual bill came, it was 8% higher due to absurd things like "property tax surcharge". This is simply a fee they charge to cover their own property taxes. The other extras were similar. These are not taxes they are required to charge you separately. They're just adding money to the bill to get you to contribute towards *their* taxes. I complained long and hard about it, but they didn't care. -- Robert L Mathews
Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:16 PM Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Need some help/insight from you guys on this: > > Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, > however it has some pops within USA. If you're complying with all the laws then you've also filed the various documents to do business in the localities where you have the pops, putting you on the hook for the relevant taxes. Don't worry about this too much; hand it to your lawyer. > for IP Transit (other charges representing roughly 6%) This is a common bad behavior, like a "fuel surcharge" on an airline ticket. I try to avoid the companies that pull these shenanigans but it's not always possible. > for the wavelenght (a lot of charges, such as the ones described below) > > - FCC Regulatory Fee (wireline) > - Fed Universal Service Fund > - CA High Cost Fund A > - CA Teleconnect Fund > - CA TRS > - CASF > - Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Charge > - Utility Users Tax THIS is an error. Most of these charges are only supposed to apply to voice telephony services. I've seen the ILECs (classic telephone companies) apply these charges by default, argue with you and then give you a form to sign where you state unequivocally that you're not doing a telephone service. You should challenge it. > So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign > wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those > taxes to the carrier ? Anywhere you have a physical presence you owe taxes. The correct question is: which ones? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those taxes to the carrier ? Those aren't customer taxes, they are company surcharges with names to discourage customers from complaining about them. They are like "resort fees" hotels add on top of room rates or "fuel surcharge" added by package delivery companies. Commonly called "junk fees" even if many companies add the same fees. You'll need to speak with your corporate lawyer how to negotate contracts and billing arrangements. Depending on your negotiating power, you may or may not be successfull. As you've noticed different companies make business decisions to have different surchages, which indicates they aren't determined by a common government entity. Another way you can tell they aren't real taxes, carriers charge government agencies the same surcharges even though government agencies are tax-exempt.
Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
You shouldn't be getting USF recovery charges if you aren't utilizing interstate services from said carrier, although all carriers will try to collect these recovery charges even though a fraction of them actually pay this forward into USF fund! IP Transit is exempt per ITNA/ITFA as well as any waves/private lines etc so long as they aren't interstate, even then it can be exempt (i think) as long as it carries IP traffic. On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 2:35 PM Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > re. > > actually it is more than 20%... (i miscalculated stuff) > > On the IPT part is 6%; on the waveleght part is 48,2%. > > anoyone out there that can point some light on this ? > > Or all the other carriers are wrong ? :) > > On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 22:14 +0100, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Need some help/insight from you guys on this: > > > > Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, > > however it has some pops within USA. > > > > Company A uses services from several companies within USA. (carrier > > H, > > C, Z, G, L, etc..) all in the United States to remotelly connect his > > stuff. > > > > All companies charge company A the agreed fees, except company Z. > > > > Company A has two services with company Z. > > > > One is IP Transit (in SFO, CA) > > Other is a Metro Wavelenght (also in SFO, CA) > > > > Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: > > > > for IP Transit (other charges representing roughly 6%) > > > > for the wavelenght (a lot of charges, such as the ones described > > below) > > > > - FCC Regulatory Fee (wireline) > > - Fed Universal Service Fund > > - CA High Cost Fund A > > - CA Teleconnect Fund > > - CA TRS > > - CASF > > - Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Charge > > - Utility Users Tax > > > > nevertheless company A DOES NOT have any "Telephone" services > > or whatsoever in the USA. > > > > At the end of the day what was meant to be a fixed bill is in fact a > > 20% higher one... > > > > So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign > > wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those > > taxes to the carrier ? > > > > Thanks for all you help. > > > > /Nuno > > > > > >
Re: FCC FUSF charges clarification
re. actually it is more than 20%... (i miscalculated stuff) On the IPT part is 6%; on the waveleght part is 48,2%. anoyone out there that can point some light on this ? Or all the other carriers are wrong ? :) On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 22:14 +0100, Nuno Vieira via NANOG wrote: > Hello All, > > Need some help/insight from you guys on this: > > Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, > however it has some pops within USA. > > Company A uses services from several companies within USA. (carrier > H, > C, Z, G, L, etc..) all in the United States to remotelly connect his > stuff. > > All companies charge company A the agreed fees, except company Z. > > Company A has two services with company Z. > > One is IP Transit (in SFO, CA) > Other is a Metro Wavelenght (also in SFO, CA) > > Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: > > for IP Transit (other charges representing roughly 6%) > > for the wavelenght (a lot of charges, such as the ones described > below) > > - FCC Regulatory Fee (wireline) > - Fed Universal Service Fund > - CA High Cost Fund A > - CA Teleconnect Fund > - CA TRS > - CASF > - Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Charge > - Utility Users Tax > > nevertheless company A DOES NOT have any "Telephone" services > or whatsoever in the USA. > > At the end of the day what was meant to be a fixed bill is in fact a > 20% higher one... > > So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign > wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those > taxes to the carrier ? > > Thanks for all you help. > > /Nuno > >
FCC FUSF charges clarification
Hello All, Need some help/insight from you guys on this: Company A is an incorporated in Europe, where it main business is, however it has some pops within USA. Company A uses services from several companies within USA. (carrier H, C, Z, G, L, etc..) all in the United States to remotelly connect his stuff. All companies charge company A the agreed fees, except company Z. Company A has two services with company Z. One is IP Transit (in SFO, CA) Other is a Metro Wavelenght (also in SFO, CA) Company Z charges company A on top of agreed services: for IP Transit (other charges representing roughly 6%) for the wavelenght (a lot of charges, such as the ones described below) - FCC Regulatory Fee (wireline) - Fed Universal Service Fund - CA High Cost Fund A - CA Teleconnect Fund - CA TRS - CASF - Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Charge - Utility Users Tax nevertheless company A DOES NOT have any "Telephone" services or whatsoever in the USA. At the end of the day what was meant to be a fixed bill is in fact a 20% higher one... So... my question IS: Is an European company (or whatsoever foreign wholesale company) WITHOUT ANY customers in USA liable to pay those taxes to the carrier ? Thanks for all you help. /Nuno
