We've got a client in Cleveland getting hammered with these mysterious "fiber infrastructure maintenance" charges from AT&T that started showing up in January. They're billing $847/month extra on top of the regular service fees. The tariff they're citing doesn't seem to match what I'm seeing in the official filings. Has anyone else run into this? The client has three locations downtown and all are getting hit with similar charges.
Anyone else seeing weird AT&T fiber charges?
Frank, I've seen something similar with Ameren in the telecom space here in St. Louis. They're bundling these "infrastructure recovery" fees that weren't there six months ago. The problem is the tariff language is so vague it could mean anything. I'd start by requesting the specific tariff section and cross-reference it with the state commission's approved rate schedules. Sometimes they're applying charges that were approved for one service class to another.
This is happening with ComEd's telecom division too. They started adding these "network modernization surcharges" in February. One of my clients got stuck with an extra $1,200/month across four facilities. The billing department claims it's legitimate but can't produce the supporting documentation. I've filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission. The key is to demand they show you exactly which tariff provision allows the charge.
We're dealing with something similar from Qwest (now CenturyLink) here in Utah. The charges are labeled "facility enhancement fees" and they're applying them retroactively to December. That's the red flag right there - retroactive charges without proper notification. I've had success challenging these by demanding proof of the 30-day advance notice requirement. Most of the time they can't produce it and have to reverse the charges.
Frank, check if they're using the same tariff language that got challenged in Texas last year. We had AT&T try to pull this same stunt with "fiber maintenance assessments" that turned out to be bogus. The PSC ordered them to refund everything plus interest. The problem is these telecom companies are testing the waters to see what they can get away with. Document everything and don't let them push you around.
Thanks everyone, this is really helpful. I'm going to demand the specific tariff citations and cross-reference them with the PUCO filings. Pam's point about the 30-day notice is spot on - I don't think they provided proper notification. Tony, do you have any details on that Texas case? That could be useful precedent for our challenge here in Ohio.
I can send you the Texas PSC docket number if you want. Case was AT&T trying to recover "network upgrade costs" through monthly surcharges that weren't properly approved. They had to refund about $2.3 million across the state. The key argument was that infrastructure costs should be built into base rates, not added as separate line items. Here in Kansas we've used that precedent successfully twice now.