Info Sought as Securus ICS Petition Raises Eyebrows

A Securus petition for a waiver of FCC rules on per minute rates, allowing inmate calling services to provide subscription plans, is raising eyebrows among other ICS providers and advocates (see 2111120056). Some said more information is needed before a decision is made and the issue at hand could be included in its larger rulemaking to cut interstate rate caps (see 2105200044). Comments are due Jan. 7 in docket 12-375.

The issue is that the FCC “does not have enough context to … make an educated decision,” said Worth Rises Executive Director Bianca Tylek. Securus offers subscription plans in eight facilities through a pilot program, ranging from $22.20 for 25 calls per week to $76.08 for 100 calls monthly, according to data Worth Rises shared with us. The agency should request more data from Securus and make it publicly available before deciding whether to grant the petition, Tylek said.

"This is a subscription service like any other​​​​​​​ commercial subscription providing access to services over a specific time frame," emailed a Securus spokesperson Thursday: "Since the pilot program launched in December 2020, call lengths increased by 27 percent while reducing the per-minute cost by over 50 percent." Securus "shares the goal of ... Chairwoman Rosenworcel and the FCC to improve affordability and accessibility for families so loved ones can stay more connected," the spokesperson said, adding that "consumers have the choice to enroll in the subscription calling plan or pay as they make calls through our prepaid call options" at all pilot locations.

The “catch” about Securus’ petition is that it wants to offer a subscription service in lieu of per minute calls rather than offering it as an alternative, said NCIC Inmate Communications CEO Bill Pope. NCIC plans to file comments against a waiver unless Securus offers both options. The FCC didn’t comment.

Incarcerated people “need the option for both” subscriptions and individual calls, Pope said. Subscriptions may be a good idea for those in long-term state prisons, he said, but “it doesn’t make sense for a guy that’s in a city holding cell” overnight. In Texas, one jail has a 30-day subscription plan at $58 for 100 calls, while another is priced at $38 for 100 calls, Pope said. Securus doesn’t allow refunds or adjustments to voice subscriptions terminated before the expiration date, according to its website.

There's "no way to tell" whether Securus' proposal is beneficial to consumers because it "has provided no detail on how its subscriptions work," said Prison Policy Initiative General Counsel Stephen Raher. The petition "doesn't suggest that Securus is serious about doing that," Raher said. PPI plans to file comments.

Anything Securus does "is designed to ... gouge the consumer and maximize their profits,” said Human Rights Defense Center Executive Director Paul Wright. It's “not gonna live up to” any commitments because its customer service “is pretty much nonexistent" and it has had problems with calls dropping, Wright said. “We really need a lot more information about what they’re planning,” said United Church of Christ Policy Adviser Cheryl Leanza.

The FCC is “going to keep having to be involved in having some type of regulation” until it addresses the lack of competition in the ICS marketplace, Wright said. Several “real-world problems” also need to be considered, like whether a prison or jail goes on lockdown and access to communications services is limited, he said.

If the petition is granted, the FCC would need to cap subscriptions based on an estimated amount per minute, Pope said. It "makes much more sense" for the FCC to address the issue of subscription offerings in its current ICS rulemaking rather than the petition, Raher said. Securus’ plans are based on the number of calls instead, which is “a big problem” because of how often calls can drop, Tylek said. It’s “why the FCC requires per minute pricing,” she said: “My guess is this whole waiver request is now going to turn into a bit of a production … but rightfully so.”