Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "fcc"
Coalition Asks FCC for More Protection of Prisoners' Communications
A broad coalition of public interest, civil rights and other groups has filed comments with the agency asking it to expand its protections in the area in the wake of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision last fall to control rates charged for communications services in jails, prisons and detention centers for immigrants,.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
In a 3-2 ruling in October, the FCC adopted general $1.65-per-15-minutes caps on local and long-distance rates for inmate calls, lowered by as much as 50% an existing cap on interstate calls (with per-minute tiered rates ranging from 11 to 22 cents, for specialized service and small markets), and set sharp new limits on the fees and charges that can be added onto inmate calls. The agency’s press release said it acted to address “excessive rates and egregious fees,” noting prisoners’ calls could run as high as $14 per minute, with add-on fees and charges raising total costs by up to another 40%.
A February 8 filing with the agency by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – a coalition of over 50 civil rights, labor and public interest groups – applauded those actions, but also urged the FCC to act in other areas identified as part of its multi-year probe of whether telecommunications charges to or from corrections and detention facilities have been set at predatory levels.
Calling communications often “essential to vindicate other civil and human rights,” the coalition’s comments seek further FCC action in such areas as: video visitation and other new forms of communication; protections for inmates who are deaf, hearing-impaired or disabled; plus a cap on rates for international calls; and a requirement that telecommunications providers submit contracts and data on costs for prison services.
Despite objections by the American Bar Association and the Department of Justice, video visitations are replacing in-person visits in some penal facilities, at often high charges. Because of lower income and “digital-divide” differences in the availability of home equipment and services, replacing in-person visits with video visitation will also have greater impact on minority group members, the coalition noted.
The coalition comments also asked the FCC to look at abuses in written electronic communications available to prisoners and their families. Unlike ordinary e-mail, inmate communications are usually subject to charges per message and limits on characters. Ancillary charges for written electronic communications – such as monthly account and “convenience” fees -- can be, the coalition stated, as shockingly exorbitant as those the FCC has already addressed for prison phone calls.
The FCC ought to act to set fair price caps for international phone calls, the coalition further urged, supporting a 16-cent per-minute rate. It offered examples, supplied by coalition member the American Immigration Lawyers Association, of immigration detention facilities charging as much as $45 for an international call lasting 15 minutes. Similarly, deaf and hearing-impaired inmates can face per-minute rates of $6 for teletypewriter-to-teletypewriter intrastate calls, and those who communicate primarily through sign language lack video relay systems, even though such systems might be available free of cost to jails, prisons and detention centers.
The coalition comments also complained that inmate communication services providers have been able to adopt fee-splitting arrangements with third-party financial services like MoneyGram and Western Union to evade FCC restrictions on fees for money transfers to prisoners. Finally, the coalition urged the agency to require the prison phone industry – which it notes is not very competitive and is seeing consolidation -- to submit data at least annually.
Why FCC Regulations Haven’t Stopped High Rates for Prison Calls
Making phone calls from prison doesn’t come cheap. It also comes with a lot of controversy.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
FCC Stops Defending Prison Phone Rate Cap Rules
Following a change in its makeup, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reversed its position on rate-cap rules for many inmate calling services which the agency adopted – by a narrow 3-2 party-line vote in October 2015.
Those rules have not yet taken effect, due to legal challenges pending before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, and the FCC has served notice with the court that it will no longer defend key parts of those rules.
Until late January, the FCC and the Department of Justice had defended the rules against six pending lawsuits brought by inmate phone services providers, nine states, and two groups of state and local corrections officials— about the same number of states supported the rules, however. Opponents argued the FCC exceeded its authority in several ways: by extending rules already in effect for interstate calls to also cover intrastate calls (which make up about 80 percent of inmate calls), and by setting rates too low for providers to make a profit.
The FCC’s regulatory and litigation battles over capping prison and jail phone charges have been going on for years. In 2013, responding to a citizen petition, the agency placed interim caps on interstate calls (21¢ per minute for interstate calls and 25¢ per minute for collect interstate calls). At the same time, the FCC also began a rulemaking proceeding to look at curbs on charges for other services. In 2015, the agency lowered the per-minute rate for interstate phone calls to prisons to 11¢, with per-minute rates for jails ranging between 13¢ and 22¢, depending on size.
Besides attacking the coverage of intrastate calls as beyond the FCC’s lawful powers, some opponents of the rules, including major providers of inmate calling services, such as Securus Technologies and Global Tel Link , contended the agency’s method for calculating rates wrongly put them below their costs, especially since the FCC formula fails to take into account the sizable commission payments required by contracts with some state and local facilities – which some cap backers call “kickbacks.” Some sheriffs warned moving against those payments would lead them to drop prisoner phone services.
By late January, two FCC backers of the rule, both Democrats, had left the agency. The former agency head resigned and the term of another member expired. The Trump administration promptly filled the vacant chairmanship with a Republican already in the commission, Ajit Pai, an outspoken advocate of deregulation and a harsh critic of the prison phone rate caps, who noted the federal appeals court has acted to freeze the agency’s actions on prison rate caps four times.
Within days, the new chairman notified the court considering the challenges to the rate cap rules that the FCC would no longer defend major parts of the rules. The Department of Justice soon said it would follow the FCC’s lead.
At a Feb. 6 hearing before a three-judge panel of the appeals court, the remaining Democratic FCC member filed a written statement stressing the importance of phone calls to those incarcerated and their families, and the FCC had turned over part of its scheduled time to a lawyer representing advocates of prison rate caps.
Those rules have not yet taken effect, due to legal challenges pending before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, and the FCC has served notice with the court that it will no longer defend key parts of those rules.
Until late January, the FCC and the Department of Justice had defended the rules against six pending lawsuits brought by inmate phone services providers, nine states, and two groups of state and local corrections officials— about the same number of states supported the rules, however. Opponents argued the FCC exceeded its authority in several ways: by extending rules already in effect for interstate calls to also cover intrastate calls (which make up about 80 percent of inmate calls), and by setting rates too low for providers to make a profit.
The FCC’s regulatory and litigation battles over capping prison and jail phone charges have been going on for years. In 2013, responding to a citizen petition, the agency placed interim caps on interstate calls (21¢ per minute for interstate calls and 25¢ per minute for collect interstate calls). At the same time, the FCC also began a rulemaking proceeding to look at curbs on charges for other services. In 2015, the agency lowered the per-minute rate for interstate phone calls to prisons to 11¢, with per-minute rates for jails ranging between 13¢ and 22¢, depending on size.
Besides attacking the coverage of intrastate calls as beyond the FCC’s lawful powers, some opponents of the rules, including major providers of inmate calling services, such as Securus Technologies and Global Tel Link , contended the agency’s method for calculating rates wrongly put them below their costs, especially since the FCC formula fails to take into account the sizable commission payments required by contracts with some state and local facilities – which some cap backers call “kickbacks.” Some sheriffs warned moving against those payments would lead them to drop prisoner phone services.
By late January, two FCC backers of the rule, both Democrats, had left the agency. The former agency head resigned and the term of another member expired. The Trump administration promptly filled the vacant chairmanship with a Republican already in the commission, Ajit Pai, an outspoken advocate of deregulation and a harsh critic of the prison phone rate caps, who noted the federal appeals court has acted to freeze the agency’s actions on prison rate caps four times.
Within days, the new chairman notified the court considering the challenges to the rate cap rules that the FCC would no longer defend major parts of the rules. The Department of Justice soon said it would follow the FCC’s lead.
At a Feb. 6 hearing before a three-judge panel of the appeals court, the remaining Democratic FCC member filed a written statement stressing the importance of phone calls to those incarcerated and their families, and the FCC had turned over part of its scheduled time to a lawyer representing advocates of prison rate caps.
Appeals Court Tosses FCC Rate Controls on Most Prison Calls
Advocates of government action on lowering phone rates for calls to prison and jail inmates were handed a major setback June 13 when three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. federal appeals court ruled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked legal authority to impose rate limits on intrastate calls to inmates.
In October 2015, the agency – then under Democratic control – voted 3-2 along party lines to issue rules blocking state prisons or local jails from charging inmates more than 11 cents per minute on local and long-distance calls, plus a variety of changes, including caps or bans on a host of other charges, such as for video and other technically advanced services. About 80 percent of inmate calls are intrastate.
A coalition of inmates, their families, and other activists supported the agency’s action, and some even argued for farther-reaching steps, arguing that the high expense of inmate calls interferes with keeping ties with their families and communities. Studies show inmates who stay in contact with their families while incarcerated have lower recidivism rates.
In 2016, companies providing inmate calling services filed a challenge to the new FCC rules in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., as did a group of eight states. Both groups argued many of the regulations exceeded the agency’s authority.
Certain parts of the FCC rules drew challenges from one group or the other. For example, the states challenging the rules said the low FCC-set cap on intrastate call rates would keep state prisons and local jails from recovering their costs for security-related services and technology updates needed for inmate phone systems. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners also opposed the FCC rules as exceeding the agency’s authority.
Earlier this year, while reviewing the legal challenges, the appellate court twice froze large sections of the rules, including the intrastate rate cap. After the Trump administration took control, the FCC’s new chairman – who had been one of the two dissenting agency members when the rules were adopted – announced the FCC would stop defending the rule in court. He pledged he’d work on relief from expensive prison and jail phone rates, but “in a lawful manner.” It was left to a variety of intervening advocates to defend the FCC rules.
But on June 13, the three-judge panel handed down a 2-1 decision knocking down the intrastate rate cap. Writing for the majority, Judge Harry Edwards held the FCC had misinterpreted the Telecommunications Act, as well as earlier decisions by the agency and courts. The appeals court also dismissed the way the FCC rules calculated industry cost data, saying it was arbitrary and capricious, lacked justification in the rulemaking record, and was unsupported “by reasoned decisionmaking.”
The court also found the FCC exceeded its authority in imposing reporting requirements on video visitation communications. While sending a few issues back to the agency for further work, the decision likely means the end—for the time being—of the effort to impose federal regulations on most phone calls to jail and prison inmates.
In October 2015, the agency – then under Democratic control – voted 3-2 along party lines to issue rules blocking state prisons or local jails from charging inmates more than 11 cents per minute on local and long-distance calls, plus a variety of changes, including caps or bans on a host of other charges, such as for video and other technically advanced services. About 80 percent of inmate calls are intrastate.
A coalition of inmates, their families, and other activists supported the agency’s action, and some even argued for farther-reaching steps, arguing that the high expense of inmate calls interferes with keeping ties with their families and communities. Studies show inmates who stay in contact with their families while incarcerated have lower recidivism rates.
In 2016, companies providing inmate calling services filed a challenge to the new FCC rules in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., as did a group of eight states. Both groups argued many of the regulations exceeded the agency’s authority.
Certain parts of the FCC rules drew challenges from one group or the other. For example, the states challenging the rules said the low FCC-set cap on intrastate call rates would keep state prisons and local jails from recovering their costs for security-related services and technology updates needed for inmate phone systems. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners also opposed the FCC rules as exceeding the agency’s authority.
Earlier this year, while reviewing the legal challenges, the appellate court twice froze large sections of the rules, including the intrastate rate cap. After the Trump administration took control, the FCC’s new chairman – who had been one of the two dissenting agency members when the rules were adopted – announced the FCC would stop defending the rule in court. He pledged he’d work on relief from expensive prison and jail phone rates, but “in a lawful manner.” It was left to a variety of intervening advocates to defend the FCC rules.
But on June 13, the three-judge panel handed down a 2-1 decision knocking down the intrastate rate cap. Writing for the majority, Judge Harry Edwards held the FCC had misinterpreted the Telecommunications Act, as well as earlier decisions by the agency and courts. The appeals court also dismissed the way the FCC rules calculated industry cost data, saying it was arbitrary and capricious, lacked justification in the rulemaking record, and was unsupported “by reasoned decisionmaking.”
The court also found the FCC exceeded its authority in imposing reporting requirements on video visitation communications. While sending a few issues back to the agency for further work, the decision likely means the end—for the time being—of the effort to impose federal regulations on most phone calls to jail and prison inmates.
