On March 7, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) stayed two provisions of the FCC’s ICS rules: 47 CFR § 64.6010 (setting caps on ICS calling rates that vary based on the size and type of facility being served) and 47 CFR § 64.6020(b)(2) (setting caps for single-call services). The D.C. Circuit’s March 7 Order denied motions for stay of the FCC’s ICS rules “in all other respects.” On March 23, 2016, the D.C. Circuit modified the stay imposed in the March 7 Order to provide that “47 CFR § 64.6030 (imposing interim rate caps)” be stayed as applied to “intrastate calling services.”

In accordance with the 2015 ICS Order, the rules limiting charges for ancillary services—other than the rule related to single-call services, which the D.C. Circuit stayed—took effect on March 17, 2016 for all ICS calls from prisons, and will take effect on June 20, 2016 for all ICS calls from jails (see chart below). Those same effective dates also apply to the rates for ICS calls involving TTY devices, the rule governing the treatment of taxes and fees, the rule prohibiting per-call or per-connection charges, the rule prohibiting flat-rate calling, and the rules governing minimum and maximum calling account balances.

In addition, the interim rate caps – $0.21 per-minute for debit and prepaid ICS calls and $0.25 per-minute for collect ICS calls – set forth in the FCC’s rules are in effect for all interstate ICS calls.

Despite the legal fight over these rates between the FCC and ICS providers such as Securus Technologies and Global Tel*Link, the elephant in the room, commissions paid to correctional facilities by the ICS vendors, has not been fundamentally addressed in this rule-making process.

In a submission to the FCC responding to objections to his petition to reconsider the latest FCC rule-making on ICS rates, lawyer Michael S. Hamden distills the issues and risks succinctly. He states, “But, as set forth in the Petition, the Second ICS Order fell short of the comprehensive reform necessary because the Commission failed to address the primary cause of ICS marketplace dysfunction—site commission payments.”

“In granting a stay of the implementation of permanent ICS rates, the appellate court necessarily concluded that appellants are likely to succeed as to one or more of their challenges to the Second ICS Order. Should appellants ultimately prevail, the foundation upon which the Second ICS Order rests may well collapse. From a practical perspective, such an outcome would be destructive of the investment of time and resources of all parties over two decades, as well as the considerable time, energy, and political capital expended by the Commission in its effort to ensure just and reasonable charges and practices by ICS providers, while taking care to set rates that provide fair compensation for “each and every completed intrastate and interstate call . . ..”

His analysis of the situation continues, “The Commission declined to regulate site commissions or mandate any sort of facility cost recovery, at least in part because the record before it “contain[ed] a wide range of conflicting views regarding whether correctional facilities incur any costs that are directly reasonably related to making ICS available and that must be recovered through ICS rates.” The Commission did not require ICS providers or correctional facilities to report data regarding facility costs, and, consequently, it did not receive “sufficiently detail[ed]” data demonstrating facility costs from which to determine an appropriate level of facility compensation. The Wright Petitioners argue the Commission was correct to decline to establish rules that would have created a facility cost recovery fee additive because it did not have “concrete evidence in the record of the actual costs incurred by correctional facilities.” That lack of data, however, is exactly why the Commission cannot have fully analyzed and ruled on a facility cost recovery mechanism.”

He concludes with, “Comprehensive ICS reform has been a long time coming. This proceeding and its predecessor have been pending for twenty years. The threat is real that the persistent efforts of so many may end in a cataclysmic unraveling of reform measures painstakingly fashioned to provide certainty with regard to just and reasonable ICS charges and practices, as well as fair compensation for all ICS calls.

There is still time for the various parties to come together and work toward an ICS regulatory scheme in which rates and fees are capped at just levels, site commissions are prohibited, and facilities are modestly compensated for their ICS expenses through a fair cost recovery mechanism.”

Whether this happens or not, remains to be seen.

The post FCC Inmate Phone Rate Ruling At Risk appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

UPDATE (10/22/15): The order passed at the FCC by a vote of 3 to 2. Securus and Global Tel*Link immediately issued statements indicating they would seek a stay of the order and appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, to get the entire decision overturned.

Original Post:

After a year of seeking comments on its Further Notice of Proposed Ruling Making focused on inmate phone call rates and fees, the FCC has released an Order stating it is proposing to cap rates for ALL ICS calls – local, long-distance, and international – while limiting or banning excessive fees on calls. The Order also continues the investigation into the prison inmate communications services industry by announcing a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focused on video visitation and other advanced inmate communications services.

The Commission will vote on the Order at the Commission’s October 22 Open Meeting.

Key Reforms:

Establishes caps on all inmate calling rates

• These new caps reduce the average rates for the vast majority of inmate calls substantially, from $2.96 to no more than $1.65 for a 15-minute intrastate call, and from $3.15 to no more than $1.65 for a 15-minute interstate call.

• Tiered rate structure accommodates the higher relative costs faced by jails (especially small jails) as opposed to state and federal prisons. The rate caps are as follows:

• 11 cents/minute for debit/prepaid calls, in state or federal prisons.
• 14 cents/minute for debit/prepaid calls in jails with 1,000 or more inmates.
• 16 cents /minute for debit/prepaid calls in jails with 350-999 inmates.
• 22 cents /minute for debit/prepaid calls in jails of up to 349 inmates.

• Rates for collect calls are slightly higher in the first year and will be phased down to these caps after a two-year transition period.

• Approximately 71% of inmates reside in state or federal prisons.

• Approximately 85% of inmates reside in institutions with populations exceeding 1,000.

• With the exception of the rate for small jails, these rates are substantially lower than the current 21 cents/minute interim cap on interstate rates.

• The rate caps permit recovery for robust security measures, as reflected in costs that ICS providers filed with the Commission.

Caps or bans burdensome and needless ancillary service charges, which can add nearly 40% to the cost of a single call

Limit and cap ancillary service charges to the following list of permitted charges:

• Automated payment by phone or website: $3.
• Payment through a live agent: $5.95.
• Paper bill fee: $2.
• Third-party financial transaction fees, such as fees charged by MoneyGram or Western  Union, may be passed through with no mark-up.
• All other ancillary service charges are prohibited.
• Mandatory taxes and regulatory fees may be passed through with no mark-up.

Discourages “site commission” payments by providers to institutions

• Defines the term “site commission” broadly as payments in money or services from inmate calling service providers to correctional institutions or government agencies.

• Excludes the cost of site commissions in establishing the rate caps and strongly discourages the use of site commissions.

• Continues to monitor the effect of site commissions on rates but does not restrict ICS providers’ sharing or profits if such payments fit within the rate caps.

Bans flat-rate calling

• Disallows providers from imposing so-called “flat-rate calling,” that is, a flat rate for a call up to 15 minutes regardless of actual call duration.

• Clarifies that this practice violates statutory mandates requiring that rates be just, reasonable, and fair, and penalizes callers who stay on the phone less than 15 minutes.

Ensures access for people with disabilities

• Requires providers to offer discounted rates for telephone relay service (TRS) calls for inmates with communications disabilities.

• Reminds correctional institutions of their obligation to make TRS available to people with communications disabilities.

• Encourages jails and prisons to allow commonly used forms of TRS and requires them to report service quality issues.

Transition Period

• Requires rate caps, site commission and ancillary service charge reforms to go into effect 90 days from the effective date of the Order.

Ongoing Review and Oversight

• Commits to reevaluate impact of reforms and rates in two years to determine if adjustments need to be made.

• Requires annual reporting and certification by ICS providers, to ensure compliance and enable monitoring of developments

Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Seeks further comment on promoting competition in inmate calling services without the need for additional regulation

• Video visitation and other advanced inmate communications services

• Recurring Mandatory Data Collection

The post FCC Proposing Capped Rates On All Prisoner Calls appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Wireless carriers rejected proposals to jam wireless signals inside and around U.S. correctional facilities in reply comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission Aug. 23, arguing that jamming wireless signals is unlawful and could prevent legitimate wireless communications.

CTIA – The Wireless Association “strongly opposes” the use of contraband mobile phones in prisons but said any requests by non-federal entities to jam wireless signals would be an illegal violation of the Communications Act. Carriers also noted that the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration had previously denounced non-federal mobile phone jamming because it could prevent the transmission of 911 calls and hinder law enforcement communications.

Their comments came in response to the FCC’s May 1 notice of proposed rulemaking regarding contraband mobile phone use in prisons.

The carriers sought to deter the FCC from considering other proposals to limit spectrum use, including the establishment of wireless exclusion zones in and around correctional facilities. Requiring such “quiet zones” would “unnecessarily complicate network design” and force carriers to re-engineer their networks “potentially to the detriment of consumers,” said CTIA in its filing. The American Corrections Association said quiet zones would create a “modest diminution of rights” that would be far outweighed by the benefits to the public, according to its FCC filing.

Source

The post Wireless Carriers Oppose Jamming Contraband Mobile Phones in Prisons appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.