Inmate calling service providers are pushing back against an FCC draft order to cap and restrict ICS rates and discourage -- but not ban -- site commission payments to correctional authorities (see 1509300067. Meanwhile, Standard & Poor's Rating Services placed both Securus and Global Tel*Link on "CreditWatch with negative implications," citing "uncertainty" about the FCC's planned Oct. 22 vote to cap ICS rates. Advocates for inmates and their families recently applauded the commission's draft for the most part (see 1510020059).
The Alabama Public Service Commission disputed Global Tel*Link’s arguments and call for the FCC to impose further sanctions on the APSC and one of its officials who made filings in the inmate calling service rulemaking. Global Tel*Link wants the APSC and Utilities Service Division Director Darrell Baker punished for their responses his release of confidential data in violation of a protective order (see 1510050034). The remedial measures the APSC took to prevent further data breaches are sufficient, said APSC Executive Director John Garner in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 12-375. GTL “incorrectly concluded” that a Baker email, responding to an FCC staffer, violated a Wireline Bureau order barring him from participating in the ICS proceeding, Garner said. The bureau order and APSC measures prohibited Baker from making filings on substantive ICS issues, not from responding to FCC informational queries on his inadvertent release of confidential data from GTL and other ICS providers, said Garner. “The FCC order directed Mr. Baker to respond to the matters addressed herein. ... GTL's interpretation of the APSC's measures would suggest that the FCC, by directing Mr. Baker to respond, was inviting Mr. Baker to violate the APSC's remedial measures by responding to the Order. This interpretation defies common sense,” Garner said. “Mr. Baker made a mistake. The APSC has taken actions to remedy that mistake. GTL's motive in this matter appears less about the violation of the Protective Order and more about seizing an opportunity to attack an individual who has championed the ICS reform effort.” The FCC should focus on the actual data breach -- "which was a hasty mistake by an APSC employee who has devoted himself to this cause" -- and on the APSC's response, Garner said: "Great weight should be given to the fact that there have been no further instances of non-compliance with the terms of the Protective Order. Indeed, the remedial measures implemented by the APSC address the real issues in this cause and are adequate to ensure that there will be no future violations of the Protective Order."
Global Tel*Link sought further FCC sanctions on the Alabama Public Service Commission and David Baker, APSC Utilities Service Division director, for “recidivistic conduct” in allegedly not following FCC orders in the inmate calling service (ICS) rulemaking. In a filing posted Friday in docket 12-375 responding to a Sept. 21 Wireline Bureau order (see 1509220007), Global Tel*Link accused Baker of violating the order’s prohibition and APSC restrictions on his participation in the ICS proceeding by emailing a response to a bureau official email noting the order (see 1509280034). “Mr. Baker seems incapable of following the rules promulgated by the Commission,” said GTL, which also said Baker violated the FCC’s 2013 protective order when he posted confidential information from GTL and other ICS providers on the agency’s public electronic comment filing system, an error Baker acknowledged and for which he apologized. In its recent response to the order, the APSC said Baker reasonably didn’t expect his email to be placed in the record and said it imposed new procedures to oversee filings of confidential information (see 1509300023). But citing FCC rules, GTL said Baker’s email constituted an official “filing” that he was barred from making by the FCC’s Sept. 21 order. “While Mr. Baker no doubt will portray himself as a well-meaning hapless victim of a simple oversight or misunderstanding on his part, his disregard for the Commission’s Order and rules is very difficult to understand,” GTL said. “The APSC also should be held responsible” for failing to enforce the FCC’s Sept. 21 order and its own procedures, said the company. GTL urged the FCC to impose sanctions on Baker and the APSC. It didn’t make a specific recommendation but said the agency could suspend or disbar counsel or consultants from practicing before the FCC, impose fines and issue cease-and-desist orders. In its response, Pay-Tel Communications, which was among the companies whose confidential data was briefly made public, said it believed the restrictions the FCC imposed on the APSC and Baker were sufficient. Pay-Tel called the breach limited in time, scope and impact, and said Baker seemed to have acted in good faith and had made valuable contributions to the proceeding. Pay-Tel also said further sanctions could “chill" future state regulatory participation in FCC proceedings. Any further response from the APSC and Baker is due Tuesday, according to the Sept. 21 bureau order.
Advocates for inmates and their families applauded an FCC draft to cap inmate calling service rates and restrict ancillary ICS fees, with some wishing the agency would further cut charges. But Global Tel*Link questioned the draft’s consistency with the record, and the National Sheriffs’ Association said proposals may not allow adequate compensation and could lead to service reductions.
The Alabama Public Service Commission is moving to prevent release of confidential data in violation of FCC protective orders, APSC Executive Director John Garner said in letter posted in inmate calling service docket 12-375 Tuesday. Responding to a Wireline Bureau request for any additional information on a recent data breach in the inmate calling service proceeding, Garner acknowledged APSC official Darrell Baker had improperly submitted confidential information from Global Tel*Link and other ICS providers to the FCC’s electronic comment filing system, where it was publicly available for three hours. Even though Baker labeled the filing as confidential, it was supposed to have been submitted to the FCC Office of the Secretary. The APSC “recognizes the seriousness of the filing error” and "regrets this mistake," and has adopted measures to prevent further violations, Garner said: retraining staff on protective order rules and filing procedures, securing current confidential information until resolution of the case, preventing Baker from making filings in the ICS proceeding (as required by a recent bureau order) and requiring any future filings in the docket to be reviewed and signed by an attorney. "This incident has prompted the APSC to implement a Protective Order Compliance Protocol which will be implemented in this and all future instances involving information submitted to the APSC and its staff subject to a protective order," Garner said. "This newly implemented procedure requires preapproval from the Executive Director to submit any filing containing information that is the subject of a protective order, the submission of a draft document which must be approved by the APSC Executive Director, and the signature of the Executive Director or another APSC attorney on the document in question." Garner also said Baker reasonably didn't expect a recent email response to a bureau official to be posted in the docket, as it was (see 1509280034). The bureau has asked that any responses from Global Tel*Link or others be filed by Thursday, and said it would decide on possible additional actions after concluding its investigation (see 1509220007).
An Alabama Public Service Commission official said he was working solo and "in a hurry" when he mishandled proprietary company data in the inmate calling service proceeding, but he denied the ICS breach would benefit competitors. Darrell Baker, director of the Alabama PSC Utility Services Division, said he had labeled the proprietary version of a filing as proprietary but submitted it “through the wrong channel,” resulting in its brief, inadvertent release through the FCC’s electronic comment filing system. “To be frank, I am the only one here that has provided any input into this proceeding. Additionally, we have zero clerical staff. Everything I did was on my own. I did all the writing,” Baker said in an email posted in docket 12-375 Friday, responding to a Sept. 21 email from an FCC Wireline Bureau official noting a bureau order that barred Baker from participating in the ICS proceeding until further notice (see 1509220007). “I got into a hurry, assumed I knew the correct filing procedures which I should have researched before submitting. I learned the hard way and submitted the follow up proprietary Ex Parte using the correct procedures.” Baker said the proprietary data itself wasn't released in his filing, only averaged and aggregated data. “I realize it is still proprietary data and was handled incorrectly but there was nothing in that Ex Parte that could benefit a competitor,” he said. Responding in July to Global Tel*Link's request that the FCC sanction him and the PSC for the breach, Baker had previously pleaded ignorance of the rules and apologized for his mistake (see 1507200030).
An Alabama official's release of confidential information was a "serious breach of the protective order" in the inmate calling services (ICS) proceeding and requires further actions to ensure compliance, the FCC Wireline Bureau agreed Monday, citing Global Tel*Link's description of the incident in docket 12-375. Global Tel*Link sought FCC sanctions for Darrell Baker, director of the Alabama Public Service Commission Utility Service Division, and the PSC for Baker's posting of an unredacted version of protected Global Tel*Link information in the FCC's electronic comment filing system before it was taken down (see 1507200030). Baker submitted an explanation to the FCC that apologized and said the release was inadvertent. "We are concerned about the apparent laxity that resulted in the disclosure of confidential information," the bureau said in directing Baker and the PSC to submit by next Monday any additional information on the incident, the protective procedures in place, and actions to rectify the situation and alert parties. GTL and other parties can file responses and any further proposed remedies by Oct. 1. The bureau noted the PSC had secured documents and instituted training and broader reviews of submissions to ensure compliance with confidentiality protections, which "demonstrate that it understands the gravity of the situation and has taken productive steps." But the bureau said further action is needed and it directed the PSC to deny its personnel further access to confidential ICS documents until it further explains the measures and procedures it's taking to prevent future breaches, along with signed acknowledgements from all relevant personnel that they understand the safeguards. Until further notice, it also barred Baker from reviewing any confidential information submitted to the FCC and from participating in the ICS proceeding. When the investigation is concluded, the bureau "will decide whether additional sanctions may be appropriate." The PSC and Baker had no comment Tuesday.
Securus accused Global Tel*Link (GTL) of making “grossly inaccurate” statements after the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted GTL's requests to invalidate two of Securus' patents. In a Tuesday news release, Securus said GTL issued its own news release (see 1509140069) containing "some clearly misleading and inaccurate statements" about the PTAB decision and the extent to which it affected Securus' patent portfolio. Securus said it plans to appeal the PTAB decisions, and the rulings didn't invalidate all of the company's call processing patents. Securus also denied GTL's claims that it's a patent predator and not an innovator, and had patented material invented by others. "Any suggestion that Securus patented what others were doing is wrong," Securus said. "GTL effectively admitted Securus' patents were new and novel and the PTAB did not undermine this."
Securus accused Global Tel*Link (GTL) of making “grossly inaccurate” statements after the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted GTL's requests to invalidate two of Securus' patents. In a Tuesday news release, Securus said GTL issued its own news release (see 1509140069) containing "some clearly misleading and inaccurate statements" about the PTAB decision and the extent to which it affected Securus' patent portfolio. Securus said it plans to appeal the PTAB decisions, and the rulings didn't invalidate all of the company's call processing patents. Securus also denied GTL's claims that it's a patent predator and not an innovator, and had patented material invented by others. "Any suggestion that Securus patented what others were doing is wrong," Securus said. "GTL effectively admitted Securus' patents were new and novel and the PTAB did not undermine this."
The Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued written decisions granting Global Tel*Link's requests to invalidate two patents held by Securus Technologies, GTL said in a news release Monday. The rulings end existing patent infringement claims against GTL made by Securus and prevent any new suits related to the patents, GTL said. In one ruling, PTAB said Securus made incorrect statements to patent officials while seeking approval for one of the invalidated patents, the news release said. Securus didn't comment.