Consumer advocacy organizations and inmate calling services (ICS) providers welcomed a draft order expanding access to telecom relay services for deaf or hard of hearing individuals and an FCC Further NPRM that would seek comment on whether the commission should amend its rules for refunds (see 2209080057). Some sought to eliminate the population threshold for facilities to require compliance with the proposed rules. ICS providers raised implementation concerns. Commissioners will consider the item Thursday.
The California Public Utilities Commission stood by a 7-cent cap on intrastate per-minute rates for incarcerated person calling services (IPCS) in state court Wednesday. The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), also named in a May lawsuit by Securus, said the CPUC’s interim order was “well-reasoned and provides desperately needed relief” to IPCS users. Meanwhile, a California bill to make IPCS calls free and require a CPUC service-quality rulemaking cleared another Assembly committee despite continuing opposition from sheriffs.
California could make jail and prison calls free under a bill cleared Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto disagreed with other county sheriff departments that opposed SB-1008. Meanwhile, at a Senate hearing, ISP associations and Republicans opposed a bill to restrict state contracts only to ISPs that offer affordable internet services.
Consumer groups cheered the California Public Utilities Commission for denying rehearing petitions by prison phone providers of the agency’s August decision to set an interim 7 cents-per-minute intrastate rate cap for incarcerated persons communications services (IPCS) and to eliminate some fees. Securus and NCIC Inmate Communications separately challenged the CPUC decision in September. Securus said the PUC decision in docket R.20-10-002 was legally and factually flawed and undermined the commission’s goal of providing affordable IPCS services (see 2109230035). NCIC the same month said its costs could exceed revenue under the order and argued the cap shouldn’t apply to any facility with fewer than 1,000 average daily population (see 2109210080). Even without using a contract between Global Tel*Link and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a benchmark, the interim rate cap “is based on substantial evidence,” said the CPUC’s final decision released Monday. “The evidence in the record shows that a $0.05 per minute rate is feasible to achieve in jails and, overall, there is a downward trend in rates across both California and the US.” Prison Policy Institute thinks “the CPUC made the right decision,” emailed General Counsel Stephen Raher. “The best thing for parties, consumers, and correctional facilities is to move forward with the next phase of this proceeding. There is plenty of work remaining to be done, and we will continue to press for rate justice for all types of correctional telecommunications services.” Securus and NCIC rehearing applications “were a transparent attempt to delay the Commission’s action so that IPCS providers could continue to gouge incarcerated people and their families and support networks,” emailed Paul Goodman, Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) legal counsel. “The Commission properly found that the providers could not refuse to turn over information about their actual costs of providing service, and then argue that the ample evidence provided by other parties about the costs of providing service were insufficiently reliable.” The Utility Reform Network Managing Director-Telecom Brenda Villanueva emailed that the CPUC’s decision was “supported in the record despite the claims asserted. Parties had repeated and ample opportunities to weigh in and provide data.” NCIC CEO Bill Pope is disappointed that the CPUC "disregarded a decade’s worth of the FCC’s work, including data collected, conducting actual cost analyses" and workshops with incarcerated people's communications providers and organizations managing correctional facilities, he emailed. Securus didn't comment.
Consumer and prison inmate advocates urged the California Public Utilities Commission to regulate video calling and other non-voice services used by incarcerated people to communicate with their families. But big inmate calling service (ICS) providers said Friday the CPUC can’t regulate those products because they're Title I information services under the 1996 Telecom Act.
Securus' subscription plans for inmate calling services "benefit incarcerated persons and their loved ones, as feedback on the pilot programs confirms," it said in comments Monday in docket 12-375 on a petition for waiver of FCC rules requiring interstate and indeterminate calls to be charged at per-minute rates (see 2111220049). Others sought additional information and asked the FCC to require that the plans be offered on a per-minute basis.
Disagreement continued between inmate calling service providers and advocates on the ICS rate-making process, in replies posted Monday in docket 12-375 (see 2109290074). Permanent caps “should be substantially lower than the current interim caps,” said the Prison Policy Initiative, asking the FCC to “prioritize the issue of USF relief for ICS customers.” PPI finds “that facility size does not correlate to costs and should be considered by the FCC as a rebuttal to the ICS providers’ argument that size impacts costs,” said 33 organizations led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Make a list of ancillary fees that can and can’t be charged to ICS users, said NCIC. The fee caps the FCC previously adopted “have been subverted by certain ICS providers,” it said. All security and surveillance costs “are not inextricably intertwined with telecom costs,” said Worth Rises. Global Tel*Link said they’re “an integral part of ICS.” Consider a "brief pause" on additional reform to "allow for the collection of accurate and reliable data," said Pay Tel. The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates backed comments opposing security and surveillance costs being included in the rate-setting process. Require providers refund account holders after inactivity or an incarcerated person’s release, said the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, United Church of Christ and Public Knowledge. The record “unanimously confirms the commission’s legal authority under Section 225 of the [Communications] Act extends to incarcerated people with disabilities,” said deaf and hard of hearing advocates led by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. ICS providers and facilities “can readily provide modern forms of TRS, including VRS,” the groups said. ZP Better Together recommended a registration system for VRS providers to create an account to provide services to a correctional facility.
FCC-proposed mandatory data collection on inmate calling services “fails to recognize that ICS providers are non-dominant competitive carriers that are not required to maintain their records in the same manner required of dominant carriers,” said Global Tel*Link in comments posted Tuesday in docket 12-375. Paperwork Reduction Act comments were due Monday (see 2110180007). GTL said FCC staff “grossly underestimated” how long it would take for ICS providers to respond, saying it would take 1,900 hours if it were to spend one hour per facility it serves. The FCC should also “re-evaluate the potential burden on ICS providers,” it said.
Inmate calling service providers and advocacy groups disagreed with some proposed reporting requirements in FCC mandatory data collection, in comments posted Friday (see 2105200044). Including surveillance and security costs is "vital" to determining rate caps, said Worth Rises in docket 12-375, saying the FCC should impose a penalty on ICS providers that "manipulate" those costs. The Prison Policy Institute sought clarity on how security services are defined. The Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society and Public Knowledge agreed and urged "robust collection" of data. Securus said security costs are "inextricably intertwined with the provisions of ICS," which Global Tel*Link echoed. Mandatory data collection is "not the proper administrative vehicle for evaluating what categories of security costs are directly related to ICS," GTL said. On a reporting period, advocacy groups and Securus want 2019-2021; NCIC suggested 2021 is "the most relevant year." GTL objected to several aspects of the proposed data collection. It said providers don't maintain sufficient records because they're nondominant competitive carriers and aren't required to do so: The FCC would "foist upon" them accounting and reporting requirements "impossible to satisfy."
The FCC Wireline Bureau granted Global Tel*Link's request to extend replies for a Further NPRM on interstate rate caps for inmate calling services, said an order listed in Monday's Daily Digest. The request was backed by the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Free Press, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and the United Church of Christ. Replies are now due by Dec. 17 in docket 12-375, following a previous extension to Oct. 27 (see 2108100036). The bureau denied GTL's request to extend comments on Paperwork Reduction Act and data collection.