For those of you who follow this story, I’m sure you would never have thought that we’d still be talking about it some 13 years after the initial petition was filed by Martha Wright, asking the Commission to do something about the exorbitant rates charged to inmates and their families. The history of the FCC’s attempt to set inmate calling service (ICS) rate caps is a long one, and new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has often been in dissent. So, what does his rise to Chairmanship of the FCC mean for the future of ICS rates? Will the rate caps go away? Will the FCC’s attempt to cap intrastate ICS rates ever see the light of day? What’s the status of the court appeal? And what about the newly approved ICS reporting and disclosure rules? TMI Briefing Service Subscribers see Briefing dated 3/3/17.
See our timeline for a quick review
Suddenly it’s January 2017 and there’s a new administration in Washington. Former Chairman Tom Wheeler is out, and the two Republican Commissioners who dissented from the 2015 order are now in majority control of the agency. So where does that leave the industry? It seems the FCC still believes it has authority to limit and cap fees for ancillary services, and stands by the reasonableness of those fees and reforms it adopted. It also stands behind its decision to exclude commissions from the rate cap calculation.
With the FCC apparently giving up its attempt to justify regulating intrastate ICS rates, and in light of the fact that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) filed its own appeal challenging the FCC’s authority to cap state rates, what is likely to happen to state ICS rates? While several states currently cap ICS rates, most do not. Most of the states were more than likely adopting a “wait and see” attitude. . . not wanting to initiate their own rulemaking if they were ultimately going to be preempted by the FCC’s Order.
Will there ever be a point in time when the inmate advocates and the service providers can agree on what’s fair? The FCC continues to take action because as they see it it’s a total market failure, and some at the FCC feel that because the states have failed to take their own action, the FCC is having to step in and preempt the state’s authority to regulate this industry. Now with the new regime there is one person left at the FCC that’s been a huge champion for this effort, and two Commissioners that, while they may believe in the issue, continue to dissent any action that the FCC tries to take to remedy it.
Could Congressional pressure force the FCC to take some action? Earlier this month, Congressmen Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), and G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-District of Columbia) sent a letter to the FCC’s General Counsel asking him to explain the FCC’s decision not to defend, in whole, its ICS order. Among other things, they said that the “sudden reversal raises serious questions about why the FCC is now choosing to promote the financial interests of private sector telecommunications companies over those of inmates and their families” and asked that certain documents be provided. This includes a list of previous cases in which the FCC has declined to defend one of its own orders.
Will 2017 be the year to provide some long-awaited relief for inmates and their families that have to pay higher rates and fees to talk to their loved ones? Will we see new, permanent rate caps from the FCC, and if so will they be allowed to preempt the states? Or will the courts decide this does in fact exceed the bounds of the FCC’s jurisdiction?
While there are definitely additional costs to providing service to correctional institutions, with the additional security features such as biometrics and voice recognition capabilities… why shouldn’t these providers be able to recover some of these added costs? There seems to be a fine line between providing service at a fair and reasonable rate, while still being able to make a profit. And what about site commissions? This has been a hot point in these proceedings from the beginning. Should the FCC eliminate site commissions? Do they even have the authority to do this? Is there anything wrong with paying site commissions as long as the rates and fees charged for the services are reasonable?
There are still many unanswered questions. Unfortunately, it looks like the one group that has been looking for relief for the past 13 years will have to continue to wait for that relief.
