Disagreement Continues on ICS Rates, Fees

Disagreement continued between inmate calling service providers and advocates on the ICS rate-making process, in replies posted Monday in docket 12-375 (see 2109290074). Permanent caps “should be substantially lower than the current interim caps,” said the Prison Policy Initiative, asking the FCC to “prioritize the issue of USF relief for ICS customers.” PPI finds “that facility size does not correlate to costs and should be considered by the FCC as a rebuttal to the ICS providers’ argument that size impacts costs,” said 33 organizations led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Make a list of ancillary fees that can and can’t be charged to ICS users, said NCIC. The fee caps the FCC previously adopted “have been subverted by certain ICS providers,” it said. All security and surveillance costs “are not inextricably intertwined with telecom costs,” said Worth Rises. Global Tel*Link said they’re “an integral part of ICS.” Consider a "brief pause" on additional reform to "allow for the collection of accurate and reliable data," said Pay Tel. The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates backed comments opposing security and surveillance costs being included in the rate-setting process. Require providers refund account holders after inactivity or an incarcerated person’s release, said the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, United Church of Christ and Public Knowledge. The record “unanimously confirms the commission’s legal authority under Section 225 of the [Communications] Act extends to incarcerated people with disabilities,” said deaf and hard of hearing advocates led by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. ICS providers and facilities “can readily provide modern forms of TRS, including VRS,” the groups said. ZP Better Together recommended a registration system for VRS providers to create an account to provide services to a correctional facility.