The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed new regulations to curb excessive charges by the prison telephone industry.
The purpose of the proposed regulations, according to Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), is to “protect the families of incarcerated people from the predatory prison telephone industry.”
In October 2014, the FCC called for feedback in an effort to, among other things, ban kickbacks to prisons that award telephone contracts to service providers such as Securus, CenturyLink, ATN, Telmate and Global Tel*Link (GTL).
The FCC reported GTL alone “has more than 1,900 correctional facility customers,” according to its documents.
“The FCC’s previous order said that companies aren’t allowed to treat the kickbacks as part of the cost of doing business,” PPI reported.
Other FCC proposals were to cap in-state and out-of-state calling rates, PPI reported.
“The previous FCC regulation capped only the rates for calls between states, which tend to be more expensive but also only make up about 20 percent of all calls from incarcerated people,” PPI reported.
The new proposal, according to PPI, would make certain a family would not be subject to paying more to talk to a loved one who is incarcerated just because that person is in the same state.
Aside from the proposal to stop kickbacks, PPI reported the FCC wanted feedback regarding placing caps, limits or a complete prohibition on “ancillary fees.”
FCC documents cite such fees. For example, GTL charges a minimum fee of $25 to set up a prepaid account for customers to receive collect calls from inmates. If the customer does not use the account and later requests a refund, GTL will charge a $5 refund fee.
“If the account remains inactive for 180 days, the remaining funds become the property of GTL,” the FCC reported. “The Prison Policy Initiative recommends ‘banning all illegitimate fees.’”
“Our research found that fees drive up the phone bills families have to pay, so this step would make a huge difference for the more than 2 million kids with an incarcerated parent,” PPI reported.
According to PPI, the FCC also requested more feedback on how to address other telecommunication services, like video visitation, that lack many of the same regulatory oversights as phone services.
The FCC is looking for “strategies (on how) to make the prison phone market more competitive, and increase access for individuals with disabilities,” PPI reported. In addition, the FCC is looking to see how it can apply the new regulations to existing contracts.
“Here at PPI, we were pleased to see that the FCC cited our research, presentations, petition submissions, and technical comments throughout their proposal to take a huge step forward,” PPI said.
“The commission took long-overdue steps to provide relief to the millions of Americans paying unjust and unreasonable interstate inmate phone rates. These exorbitantly high rates discouraged phone calls and, at times, made it nearly impossible for inmates to maintain contact with their families, friends, and communities, to society’s detriment,” the FCC said.
In its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC said reforms to Inmate Calling Service (ICS) would benefit society by making it easier and cost-effective for inmates to stay in touch with their families and friends.
Citing an April 2014 study by the Department of Justice, the FCC found that two-thirds of the 400,000 inmates released over a five-year period were rearrested within three years; and 75 percent were rearrested within five years.
“As a nation, we need to take all actions possible to reduce these recidivism rates. Studies have shown that family contact during incarceration is associated with lower recidivism rates,” the FCC said.
The FCC acknowledged the disparity between Local Exchange Carriers that provide service to the public, and those, such as GTL, that provide ICS.
“While the commission prefers to promote competition to ensure rates are just and reasonable, it remains clear that in the inmate-calling service market, as currently structured, competition is failing to do so,” the FCC said.
According to the FCC, companies that provide ICS have been “characterized by some as subject to ‘reverse competition,’ forcing providers to compete not on price or service quality but on the size of site commission payments.”
In the FCC document citing consumer disclosures, it sought comments on “how to ensure that rates and fees are more transparent to consumers.”
The regulatory agency also sought comments on how service providers could better notify customers regarding ICS options that are available to them and the cost of those options.
According to the FCC, “One ICS provider underscored the importance of ‘educating the consumer.’”
