Recently meshIP, LLC submitted  comments to the FCC’s Docket No. 13-111, Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities. We are re-posting  those comments here:

Introduction

meshIP, LLC (“meshIP” or “Company”) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) in the above- captioned proceeding.

meshIP is the provider of meshDETECT©  Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™. meshDETECT© is a unique solution to the problem of contraband cell phones in prison that also provides enhanced cellular wireless telephone access to detainees and their families. We offer a patented technology platform that can be offered in any prison interested in the smart deployment and management of secure prison cell phones – which reduces contraband wireless phone demand, promotes improved detainee behavior, reduces recidivism and increases officer safety.

We urge the FCC to consider the potential negative impact of blanket cellular jamming on the deployment and provision of alternate solutions to the demand for contraband cell phones as well as on those technologies that would introduce true choice and competition into the prison payphone industry, a stated goal of the FCC.

Demand and Supply are Two Sides of the Same Coin

We have long advocated for a balanced strategy that addresses both supply AND demand for contraband cell phones within prisons and jails. An effective contraband cell phone elimination strategy should focus on reducing demand, in addition to restricting supply.

Corrections officials have shared with us the fact that at least 40% of the calls intercepted by currently implemented managed access systems are to phone numbers already on inmates’ approved calling lists. We suspect that an even higher percentage are to other family and loved ones not on the limited list of allowed contacts and are also non-criminal wireless usage, i.e. conversations not related to criminal activity.

We believe that the problem of demand for smuggled mobile phones in jail goes beyond the very real problems of long-term offenders looking to continue their drug or crime operations, witness intimidation and the avoidance of high calling rates.

The demand is also driven by an inmate desire for more communication and more privacy (not secrecy). As such, any comprehensive solution should address both sides of the equation – supply and demand. However, like the problem of drug smuggling, without addressing the demand for contraband, the problem will never be solved.

A recent CDCR inmate, now released, shared with us the following insight, “California’s gangs have evolved over the past 5 decades to operate efficiently within the system of scarce resources. They can get gang orders out of a locked down county jail and into a locked down prison 70 miles away between midnight and 2 AM without reliance on any contraband inside either facility, telephones, nor help from staff using only technology from the 1970’s plus a large number of people inside and out working towards a common goal (FGA in custody terms – in furtherance of a gang activity). Sanctioned gang action does not travel over any phone for a reason. The reality is contraband phones are used for calls to friends and family, mostly female, because the current prison payphone system is inadequate to serve the number of people housed within CA’s system of incarceration. Managed Access has become an asset for the gang that controls and sells and profits from the technology to defeat it, since it now drives demand for the product they offer to sell inside while reducing supply of competing alternatives.”

An article[1] written by a current CDCR inmate also provides some interesting insights into this demand and how it is met, “The black market within the fences of the California prison in which I am incarcerated is as bad as any corrections department in this country. In my case, this prison is five hours from home, and the distance makes visitation a financial burden. Some prisoners have it even worse. The vast majority of the prison population lives on the support of loved ones alone. While the cost of a contraband cellphone is high, the corporation-run prepaid call system is downright robbery. Desperate to stay in touch with loved ones and faced with only unaffordable options, incarcerated people turn to the black market, where they are charged as much as $1,000 for a contraband smartphone. Incarcerated persons prefer to take the risk and spend the money on contraband phones than rely on the prison phone system because of the freedom they provide and their functionality beyond making simple calls. There are no time limits and fees to place calls…”

“The drug market is self-sustaining because drugs are consumed almost immediately. There will always be a demand for them, and the supply can flow as freely as they can be smuggled into the housing units. But a phone can possibly last years once you have one. So, there is a need for constant manipulation of the supply in order to ensure a steady stream of demand. The models of phone that I’ve come across are difficult to conceal and this could be deliberate. In the outside world, there are keychain-sized smartphones with 3G capabilities, but rarely have I seen one in here. I bought a basic talk and text-only phone the size of two fingers, and costed me the same amount as a 4G touchscreen model the size of my hand.”

An additional driver of contraband cell phones is the risk/reward ratio associated with the significant financial rewards for those smuggling these devices into prisons. Recent research[2] has linked contraband smuggling to low pay and high turnover for guards — and salaries for corrections officers in the states with the highest smuggling rates are indeed among the lowest in the nation.

However, by siphoning off and co-opting this non-criminal wireless usage, we can significantly reduce the overall demand for contraband cell phones and therefore the profitability for those smuggling these devices. Less financial reward for cell phone smugglers changes the risk/reward equation and makes it much less appealing given the high personal and professional risk for those caught smuggling.

In addition to reducing the demand for, and therefore the supply of, contraband cell phones, enhanced access to telecommunications services have the proven, significant, additional benefits of reducing recidivism, improving detainee behavior and increasing officer safety.

However blanket cellular jamming in prisons and jails will significantly reduce the technology options available to address the demand for contraband cell phones.

Introducing Choice and Competition into the Prison Payphone Industry

Not only will jamming significantly reduce the technology options available to address the demand for contraband cell phones, it will hamstring a viable, cost effective solution to introducing choice and competition into the prison payphone industry.  In fact, the FCC has frequently advocated for competition in the provision and availability of inmate communications services (ICS) in prisons and jails.

In its Second Report And Order And Third Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking[3] (NPRM) adopted on 10/22/15, the Commission wrote, “While we adopt regulations in this Order to correct failures in the ICS market, the Commission generally prefers to rely on competition over regulation. We seek additional comment on whether there are ways to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future. In the 2012 NPRM, the Commission noted that the First Wright Petition asked the Commission to “mandate the opening of the ICS market to competition.”

“In the First Wright Petition, the Petitioners further requested that the Commission address high ICS rates by prohibiting exclusive ICS contracts and collect-call-only restrictions at privately administered prisons, and requiring such facilities to permit multiple long-distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems…The Commission sought comment on whether security issues were still a legitimate reason for limiting competition within correctional facilities, and whether any technological advances had changed the justification for such exclusive use.”

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) commented, “The ICS commission issue also illustrates the fundamental problem with the existing status quo; specifically, the lack of competition in the ICS industry, in which, in exchange for commission payments, local jails and 42 state prison systems provide ICS providers with monopoly phone service contracts.[4]”

The American Bar Association commented, “The ABA recommends that the FCC use its statutory authority under section 253(d) of the Act to preempt states from entering into exclusive provider agreements, and open up the ICS market to fair and widespread competition.[5]”

And the Wright Petitioners wrote, “The FCC correctly notes that the Petitioners have been calling for the introduction of competition in the ICS market for more than 15 years, and in fact, this goal served as the basis for Martha Wright and the Petitioners to file the original lawsuit.[6]”

Some of the solutions put forth to achieve this goal include an equal access[7] approach similar to that which was put in place to open up local and long distance services to competition wherein consumers picked their local and long distance providers. Others have suggested a “wholesale/retail” bifurcation of the industry providers.

We believe, like the FCC, ABA, HRDC and the Wright Petitioners, that competition is an essential ingredient in breaking the ICS providers’ monopolies in prisons and jails in order to drive market-based pricing.

However, like the consumer market, unfettered and robust choice is what drives real competition. Completely bypassing the monopolists is the best way to ensure this choice. The consumer telecommunications market, while initially cracked open by regulatory schemes such as equal access, was fully emancipated by the introduction and widespread adoption of cellular phones.

An individual “wireless prison payphone” in the form of a secure cellular service offered to any detainee who wants it, without requiring interconnection to the monopolist’s infrastructure or the forced bifurcation of the industry into wholesale/retail providers, will offer true choice and therefore real competition in an industry that has for so long thrown up barriers to any meaningful competition.

By using commercial cellular networks to bypass the monopolists, no potentially insecure and costly infrastructure, such as WiFi[8], is required in a prison facility and therefore no capital costs to the prison facility as well as no risk of interconnection hurdles and artificial costs imposed by the incumbent ICS provider.

The current prison payphones already installed will remain in place, thereby giving inmates and their families a choice. If desired, the inmate can stand in line, waiting for his 15 minute call in a public area on the traditional prison payphone. Or he can make a controlled and sanctioned cellular call of unlimited length in the relative privacy of his cell.

In this way, real market forces will be introduced into the ICS arena thereby fulfilling the stated goals of the FCC, the ABA, the HDRC and the Wright Petitioners as well as providing choice and cost savings to the families of prisoners throughout the United States.

Conclusion

Accordingly, meshIP requests that the FCC considers the potential negative impact of cellular jamming on the competitive landscape and to alternative technology solutions available to address the problem of contraband cell phones in prisons. The approval of blanket cellular signal jamming runs the risk of hamstringing viable alternative solutions not only to this problem but also to the FCC’s long standing commitment to introducing choice and competition into the prison payphone industry.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

[1] https://shadowproof.com/2017/01/05/corrections-officers-control-supply-demand-contraband-phones-prisons/

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/corrections/southern-prisons-have-smuggled-cellphone-problem-n790251

[3]https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-136A1_Rcd.pdf

[4] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001013059.pdf

[5] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001016566.pdf

[6] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001408397.pdf

[7] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling

[8] https://prisoncellphones.com/blog/2013/06/06/the-risks-of-wifi-and-internet-deployment-in-prisons/

The post Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An Australian-first trial of technology that will stop inmates from making calls from mobile phones they’ve illegally smuggled into jail has begun at a prison west of Sydney. The project trials the use of a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) to jam phones within the prison under the supervision of the ACMA and mobile phone carriers.

The DAS system will jam the channels transmitting mobile phone signals within the prison but prevent disruption outside the prison. Kordia has provided the DAS design which has been installed by an independent contractor under Kordia supervision. Kordia is now activating the jamming system into the DAS and will be running a series of tests to prove the system’s effectiveness and ensure mobile signals outside the prison complex are unaffected.

The jammers and accompanying distributed antenna system will be provided by chosen suppliers WiComm and Lan Installations for contracts worth $462,000 and $178,000 respectively.

NSW Corrective Services had to seek exemptions from the Australian Communications and Media Authority to conduct the trial as current legislation makes it an offence to operate, supply or possess a jamming device. Lithgow Jail is understood to be fit for a jamming-only trial due to its remoteness. If the nine-month $1.06 million Lithgow trial proved successful in stopping calls while not impacting on mobile phone use outside the jail then jamming would likely be rolled out to the state’s other maximum security prisons.

However, using jammers to block signals in Australia’s prisons is not expected to be the all encompassing solution. Containing a signal block to a particular area is difficult to achieve without having leakages affecting surrounding residents accoring to David Stone at New Zealand’s Telecommunications Carriers Forum

The New Zealand Government has hit several roadbumps since introducing jamming technology in all of its 20 prisons in 2009, with reports of cost blowouts, radiation leakage and sparse jamming coverage.

The jamming technology used in NZ prisons reportedly only covered an average 60 percent of each facility, with the government forced to fork out more cash than expected to upgrade and fix the system. It also received complaints from residential areas around the prison.

“There were certainly instances where neighbouring premises were significantly negatively impacted. The actual signal strength was amped up in those sectors to cover it, but some people had negative experiences,” Stone said.

The NZ Government has declined to detail what mix of technology it has used in its jamming project. It is understood the government initially used jammers but on the advice of the local telco industry has started building cell sites within prison facilities.

Paul Brislen of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand said that had the NZ Government listened to the technical advice it had been given, neighbours would not have been affected.

“The telcos said the easiest thing to do would be to put a cellphone tower in the prison, so any smuggled cell phones would lock onto it, but they didn’t want to do that, despite the telcos saying it was the cheapest and best way of doing it. In the end they were forced to implement some kind of jamming regime,” Brislen said.

He said blocking signals was almost impossible to achieve.

“Cell phone signals from the tower to the phone are designed, much like the internet, to lock onto and get around any kind of damage, and all of this kind of stuff is treated as damage, so the signal works really hard to get around it. [The devices are] working quite hard to connect to the nearest tower,” Brislen said.

The post Australia Launches Contraband Prison Cell Phone Jamming Trial appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Here is the latest summary of recent news articles regarding contraband cell phones in prisons around the world. I am calling this round up of articles, “Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs” because this is essentially what smuggled mobile phones in jails have become – a substitute for the current wall mounted prison payphones.

Alabama Inmates With Illegal Cell Phone Active On Facebook: “Cell phones are against the law, that’s a new bill that just passed last year, making the possession, or the introduction of a cell phone into a prison setting a class C felony,” Corbett explains, though he still is not surprised by the discovery.

“Last year we confiscated more than 5,000 cell phones statewide.” The Department also has a policy against inmates using social networks. It’s clearly posted on the DOC’s website that such sites “are a security violation and will be shut down.” (Source)

Cat Caught Smuggling Saw, Cell Phone, Into Prison: The cat’s out of the bag, and that means prisoners at a prison in northeast Brazil will no longer have easy access to cell phones and saws.

Upon inspection, officials noticed that the feline was wrapped with tape. Underneath that tape was a battery of items including a saw, cell phone, drills, an earphone, memory card, batteries, and a phone charger. (Source)

Fourth Circuit to Hear Dispute Over Cell Phone Contraband Conviction: Here’s the issue: Did Beason have “fair and sufficient notice” that his possession of a mobile phone opened him up to criminal liability? Beason’s attorneys, Brian Kornbrath and Kristen Leddy, who work for federal public defender offices in West Virginia, contend the old law is unconstitutional for its vagueness. A cell phone, the attorneys said, “has a legal purpose and productive uses, which can carry over to the prison environment.”

“The vast majority of cell phone possession cases in federal prisons have been resolved through administrative sanctions within prisons, not in federal courts,” Beason’s lawyers said in a brief in the Fourth Circuit. “Beason was not given sufficient notice that his possession of a cell phone would subject him to federal criminal penalties.” (Source)

How Cell Phones Make Prison Drug Dealing Easy: Despite a lack of resources and an isolated consumer base, US correctional facilities host a thriving drugs market. But the limitations and monitoring imposed on the use of prison phones are an obstacle. “You can’t set up nothing on the regular prison phones because they are monitored,” one prisoner tells The Fix. “They record everything and when you are trying to make a move, you don’t want no one eavesdropping on your conversations so that they can make a bust or put the brakes on.” The solution isn’t hard to imagine: “With cell phones it is easy. No one is listening and you can talk freely. Once you got a cell phone, anything is possible.”

Of course, cell phones retail at a premium behind bars: Prisoners will pay up to $1,500 for one. But they’re not that difficult to find. “If you have money you can get a phone easy; you can get an iPhone with Internet access or whatever,” the prisoner says. (Source)

The post Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Another story about a prisoner using a contraband cell phone to post photos on Facebook. This one is from the UK. We have written about the posting of pictures to Facebook before (here and here). This is a significant issue for prison officials and crime victims alike, caused by the growing problem of smuggled cell phones in prison.

Posing for a secret camera in a jail cell packed with goodies, this is teenage murderer Liam Ryan as the outside world should not be allowed to see him.

Ryan, 19, is currently serving a life sentence at a young Offenders’ institute in Brinsford for the murder of Birmingham shopkeeper Suppiah Tharmaseelan, a father-of-four.

But in a series of photographs – apparently illicitly taken because inmates are not allowed mobile phones, computers or cameras in their cells – Ryan is seen making gangster salutes and showing off his material possessions.

The images were posted to an album entitled ‘Mobile Uploads’ on Ryan’s Facebook page from behind bars, according to the source who supplied them to the Birmingham Mail newspaper.

Access to Ryan’s Facebook profile is currently restricted to just online friends, but he is not allowed to update the page – or have anyone else update it for him – while he is in custody.

It is not clear whether the images were taken before or after Ryan was last month jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 21 years.

The source said: ‘We cannot understand how they were taken inside a prison cell.

‘The pics clearly show the convicted killer posing and smiling.

‘I am sickened at this completely brazen showing of not having a care for the actions he was convicted of.’

The Ministry of Justice says prisoners should not have access to mobile phones or computers to update online profiles.

A Prison Service spokesperson said: ‘Prisoners have no access to the internet and are barred from updating their Facebook accounts while serving their sentence, or asking others to do so from outside prison. If they do, their accounts will be terminated.

‘If a prisoner is found in illicit possession of a mobile phone or other contraband they will be dealt with appropriately by the prison.’

The sickening images show him pointing his fingers towards the camera in the shape of a gun.

He also shows off a TV, a PlayStation games console and stereo, all believed to be inside his cell.

One of his shelves is packed with crisps, Pot Noodles, cordial drinks and fruit juice, while another is packed with rows of toiletries.

Source

The post Prisoner Posts Pictures On Facebook With Cell Phone appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Despite the many sensationalist press accounts of prisoners using smuggled contraband cell phones to plot crimes or run criminal enterprises from within jail, the vast majority of prison cell phone use is detainees talking to loved ones.

It has been shown that increased communications between detainees and loved ones helps to keep families together during incarceration and reduces recidivism. Incarceration is a strain on all involved, as this article demonstrates, and leads to the smuggling of cell phones in an attempt to keep a marriage intact.

A prisoner who hid a mobile phone up his bottom claimed he was using it in a desperate last-ditch attempt to save his troubled marriage.

Drug dealer Paul Nolan was found with the phone clenched between his buttocks after a period of home leave was granted by Castle Huntly prison.

Nolan, 45, arrived back at the jail after seven days at home with his wife, who told him that she was planning to bring their marriage to an end.

He handed prison officers an iPhone that he claimed he had accidentally brought back with him and was sent to his cell.

However, a short time later a search of his cell was carried out and a second phone was found.

Nolan, who is serving more than six years in jail after a raid on his Cambuslang home netted £300,000 worth of drugs, had secreted the phone in his bottom.

But he was unable to clench his buttocks tight enough to hold it in place and it fell to the ground when he stood up during the search on September 14 this year.

Fiscal depute Carol Whyte told Perth Sheriff Court on Wednesday: “The accused returned from a seven-day period of home leave. He spoke to members of staff and told them he had accidentally brought an iPhone with him.

“A routine search of his cell was then carried out at 9pm. At that time he was lying on his bed. Officers gave him a full search. They spotted a Samsung phone on the ground which fell from his buttocks.”

A charger was also found connected to a games system.

The accused has been moved to HMP Addiewell in West Calder.

Solicitor Linda Clark, defending, said: “He enjoyed privileges in Castle Huntly and part of that was home leave. During his period at home his wife indicated she had initiated divorce proceedings.

“During the seven days he made attempts to try and dissuade her. He surrendered the iPhone when he got back. When he got to his cell an offer was made to him regarding another mobile phone.

“Stupidly, he purchased that solely with the intention of keeping up contact with his wife in the hope he could dissuade her from proceeding with the divorce action.”

Ms Clark told the court that Nolan’s efforts had failed as his wife was carrying on with her divorce bid and she said he accepted he breached the trust placed in him by prison chiefs.

Nolan admitted having an illicit mobile phone in prison and he had a further 20 days added to his sentence.

He had been moved to the low security open prison just over a year ago after being jailed in March 2010 for drug dealing.

Source

The post Prisoner Hid Cell Phone Up Bottom ‘To Save Troubled Marriage’ appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.