Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "phone-rates"
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.
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.
