Disagreement Continues Between Industry, Advocates on ICS Rates

Disagreement continued between inmate calling services providers and consumer advocacy organizations about how the FCC should proceed with setting permanent ICS rates, in reply comments posted Monday in docket 12-375 (see 2212160061). Some also disagreed whether all facilities, regardless of size, should be required to provide telecom relay services. The FCC will consider an item during its March 16 meeting on implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act (see 2302230059).

"The additional fees consumers are forced to pay are predatory and burdensome," said a coalition of consumer advocacy organizations. The FCC should "improve billing transparency" and ensure incarcerated individuals are "able to recover unused funds in their accounts," said the coalition, which included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, National Consumer Law Center, National Disability Rights Network and Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund. The groups also opposed allowing security and surveillance costs in ICS rates, saying they "cannot be passed on to ratepayers because they do not benefit the ratepayers."

The National Sheriffs' Association disagreed and again asked to allow security and surveillance costs to be recovered in ICS rates. Such costs are "necessary for and directly related to the provision of ICS because inmates use ICS for illegal activities both outside the prison or jail and inside the prison or jail," the group said. NSA also opposed expanding the definition of jails and prisons, saying any expansion should "only apply to facilities that contract with ICS providers to install and maintain secure, corrections-type systems."

NSA "fails to support many of its claims with any citations or data and misrepresents past commission decisions and actions," said Worth Rises about security and surveillance costs. The FCC "cannot include costs in [ICS] rates that are not directly related to the provision of [ICS]," the group said, adding it was "appalled by the NSA's attempt at fearmongering and guilt tripping to manipulate the commission into thinking that a call is anything other than a call." ICS ratepayers "are not the cost causers of security and surveillance services," Worth Rises said.

The interim rate caps are "consistent with the mandates of the Martha Wright-Reed Act and should be adopted as permanent rate caps for all ICS," said ViaPath. The third mandatory data collection also supports permanent adoption of the interim rates, the ICS provider said. The FCC should reject calls to eliminate site commissions from the rate caps and allow providers to offer "alternative pricing arrangements," ViaPath said.

Establishing permanent ICS rates "should be deferred to account for the changes in the Martha Right-Reed Act," said a coalition of consumer advocacy organizations. Require ICS providers to notify individuals when their accounts are at risk of becoming inactive and how to request refunds, said the groups, including the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Prison Policy Initiative, Public Knowledge, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry and Worth Rises. They also backed requiring ICS providers to provide access to telecom relay services, saying the rule should apply to facilities with an average daily population of fewer than 50 people. Securus agreed, saying the rule should be "subject to provisions that enable providers to recover the reasonable costs of offering such services in these very small facilities." It noted "leeway to exceed ICS rate caps may be needed at some facilities" to "efficiently manage the costs that the increased access obligations ... will entail."

Adopting enterprise registration will "prevent delays, enabling incarcerated individuals timely access to IP CTS," said ClearCaptions. It backed requiring ICS providers to provide TRS-eligible users the ability to "access any relay service eligible for TRS Fund support," saying requiring relay providers to "shoulder the cost of providing access to these services would inappropriately shift the burden of responsibility." More than one dozen consumer organizations, including Heard, Telecom for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Communication Service for the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America, National Association of the Deaf, and Gallaudet University's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, agreed and said doing so would "facilitate quicker access to communications services for incarcerated people with disabilities."

TRS should be available in all correctional facilities "regardless of facility size," said Hamilton Relay. The TRS provider backed allowing enterprise registration for IP captioned telephone services to alleviate "heavy bureaucratic obstacles." The FCC should also confirm that ICS providers are responsible for "paying associated equipment acquisition and installation costs, and preventing misuse by ineligible users," Hamilton said. Pay Tel Communications raised concerns about expanding TRS requirements to facilities with an average daily population below five people, saying it "may be cost and logistically prohibitive." Pay Tel recommended requiring providers to notify a facility that "appropriate disability access services are available and can be provided upon 48 hours' notice."