Court orders stay on some of the FCC's new prison phone regulations, but caps on call rates still go into effect on February 11th.
by Aleks Kajstura,
January 14, 2014
Recently, prison phone companies took the FCC to court for the right to charge the families of incarcerated people exorbitant rates for talking to their loved ones in prison. (Securus Technologies v. FCC and United States of America (D.C. Cir. Docket No. 13-1280)). Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a partial stay of the FCC’s new prison phone regulations, but allowed the new rate caps to take effect on February 11.
Communications Daily reports that the Court
kept in place the interim rate cap of 21 cents per minute for debit and prepaid calls, and 25 cents a minute for collect calls. It put on hold three other sections of the FCC’s rules: the requirement that rates and ancillary services be “cost-based”; low safe-harbor rates that presume charges are reasonable; and the annual reporting requirement.
The article quotes Peter Wagner’s analysis of the order:
It is important that the court left intact the most important and immediate of the FCC’s reforms… [b]ut I’m disappointed that the court stayed three sections of the FCC’s order, including the section that reined in the fees….Those fees can double the price of a call…. With new fairer rates, Global Tel*Link will make far more from deposit fees than from multiple 15-minute calls.
Several FCC commissioners were also disappointed in the ruling, but optimistic. Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel issued a joint statement highlighting how even having the partial regulation remain in effect is still a significant stride toward more reasonable phone bills:
We are pleased that millions of families will finally see relief from outrageous rates for inmate calling services when the interim rate caps… go into effect in February 2014. These families have been forced to pay exorbitant rates for far too long. Although we are disappointed that the court granted a partial stay on other aspects of the Inmate Calling Services Order, we look forward to a hearing on the merits soon, and to adopting further reforms quickly.
We are among the organizations intervening in the lawsuit, stay tuned for updates!
Lots of local folks are doing great work to end mass incarceration, and we'd like to create a space where we can connect with each other and strengthen our work.
by Leah Sakala,
January 9, 2014
We are co-organizing, with the Prison Birth Project, a meet and greet event for criminal justice-focused organizations and advocates in Western Massachusetts. Lots of local folks are doing great work to end mass incarceration, and we’d like to create a space where we can connect with each other and strengthen our work.
When: Tuesday, February 11th 2014 from 6-7:30 PM
Where: Peace Development Fund Office, 44 N. Prospect St. Amherst, MA
What: Pizza, conversation, and one-minute introductions from each organization
If you plan to attend, please RSVP so that we can order pizza, arrange childcare, print name tags and make a participant list that we can share with the other attendees.
We’d like to build as many connections as possible, so please forward this information and the RSVP link to any Pioneer Valley advocates who might be interested.
Let us know if you have any questions, and we hope to see you there!
"…the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts research group, urged similar rules for video visitation, email, voice mail and other systems."
by Leah Sakala,
January 7, 2014
Today the New York Times issued a strong editorial praising the Federal Communications Commission for acting to regulate inter-state prison phone call charges, and proclaiming:
The commission now needs to be on the lookout for — and crack down on, if necessary — similar abuses involving newer communication technologies like person-to-person video chat, email and voice mail.
The editorial cites our recent submission to the FCC detailing why it should keep an eye on the prison and jail video communication and email markets:
An analysis provided last month to the commission by the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts research group, urged similar rules for video visitation, email, voice mail and other systems. It said that for-profit video visitation systems (allowing families and inmates to talk using, in some instances, personal computers outside the prison and video terminals inside) are being “driven by the same perverse incentives that caused market failure in the correctional telephone industry.”
Absent regulation, prisons and phone companies will simply use the video chats to get around the price caps on interstate calls.
Whatever the technology, gouging prison inmates and their families is both unfair and counterproductive, weakening family ties that could be critical to an inmate’s adjustment to the world beyond bars.
If you’d like to weigh in, too, please do so on the FCC’s website before the current comment period closes on Monday, January 13.
Leah spoke with the Valley Advocate about PPI's testimony in support of S 1171.
by Leah Sakala,
January 3, 2014
I spoke with the Valley Advocate for a new article on a bill to ban the routine use of physical restraints on incarcerated pregnant women after the first trimester, including during labor and delivery.
The bill was up for a hearing earlier this month, and we submitted written testimony urging the legislature add Massachusetts to the growing list of states that have rejected this inhumane and dangerous practice.
We’ll be reporting back with updates, so stay tuned!
Our local paper awarded the Prison Policy Initiative a “halo” this year for our work to improve justice policy.
by Leah Sakala,
December 31, 2013
We’re excited to share that the Valley Advocate, our local paper, awarded the Prison Policy Initiative a “halo” this year for our work to improve justice policy:
Over the years the Valley Advocate has provided great coverage of our work to expose the broader harm caused by mass incarceration (such as prison gerrymandering and sentencing enhancement zones). We’re honored!
Increasing the number of ways that families can stay in touch is a good thing. But allowing companies to exploit families and undercut the FCC's efforts to bring fairness to this industry is not.
by Leah Sakala,
December 23, 2013
When the Federal Communications Commission approved its first regulation of the prison phone industry in August, the Commissioners put out a call for additional information on the rise of alternate forms of electronic communication in prisons and jails.
We just submitted a comment to the FCC detailing some of our disturbing findings about the burgeoning prison and jail video communications market, and urging the FCC to keep tabs on non-phone forms of communication in future rulings.
Here’s a summary of what we found (but check out the whole submission for examples and footnotes):
- Some jails are using video visitation, which is often fee-based, to replace, rather than supplement, free in person visits.
- Like the prison and jail phone industry, the video communication industry is rife with technical malfunctions and usability issues that need to be addressed.
- In many cases, video communication customers are subject to hefty fees and high rates, and a portion of the proceeds goes to site commissions. (Sound familiar?)
- FCC failure to regulate prison and jail video communication charges will leave this industry with a ready method to instantly circumvent FCC phone charge regulation simply by replacing facilities’ current telephones with video phones and labeling the verbal communications that take place as “video calls”. This would, of course, defeat the FCC’s mission to relieve families from having to pay astronomical phone bills.
We also noted that more and more correctional facilities are adopting email service, which has the similar potential to replace other critical forms of communication and carries similar risks of financial commission-fueled consumer abuse.
As our submission demonstrates, video visitation is here to stay. Increasing the number of ways that families can stay in touch is a good thing. But allowing companies to exploit families and undercut the FCC’s efforts to bring fairiness to this industry is not.
Stanford Law School professor and long time PPI Advisory Board member Pam Karlan will be moving on to defend voting rights in the Department of Justice.
by Peter Wagner,
December 23, 2013
After a rough year for voting rights in the U.S., things are looking up:
I’m thrilled to share that Stanford Law School professor and long-time PPI Advisory Board member Pam Karlan will be moving on to join the Department of Justice. She has been appointed to be the deputy assistant attorney general for voting rights in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.
Congratulations, Professor Karlan!
People all over the country want to ensure that ALL families can afford to stay in touch with incarcerated loved ones.
by Leah Sakala,
December 16, 2013
On Friday we submitted a petition, together with the corporate accountability organization SumOfUs, signed by 23,585 people calling on the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the expensive charges families pay for instate calls from a loved one in prison or jail.
When the FCC ruled in August to regulate the most expensive inter-state phone charges, the Commissioners asked for comments on whether they should extend their regulation to also rein in instate prison and jail phone charges. As we told the FCC in our cover letter, the support for instate regulation is broad:
1,489 of the comments contain unique statements written by individual signers. We have enlarged and highlighted these unique comments to demonstrate the depth of public support for regulating in-state calls from prisons and jails. These comments contain firsthand accounts from mothers, fathers, spouses, stepparents, godparents, aunts, and children of incarcerated people discussing how the unregulated prison and jail telephone industry strains family ties and presents them with an enormous financial burden. We also received comments from correctional facility employees, police officers, probation officers, teachers, ministers, lawyers, child psychiatrists, and social workers explaining how high phone charges break up families, thus increasing the odds that incarcerated people will commit a new offense in the future and return to prison.
And as our map shows, people all over the country want to ensure that ALL families can afford to stay in touch:
The FCC’s initial public comment period on instate prison and jail phone charge regulation is open through this Friday. You can weigh in, too, by submitting comments to the FCC’s docket.
We submitted testimony in support of S.1171, a bill that would ban the routine use of physical restraints on incarcerated pregnant women in Massachusetts.
by Leah Sakala,
December 12, 2013
The list of states that reject the dangerous and inhumane practice of shackling incarcerated women in labor and delivery is growing. But Massachusetts isn’t on it. Yet.
A bill has been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature to ban the routine use of physical restraints on incarcerated pregnant women after the first trimester, including during labor and delivery. The bill also establishes common-sense basic standards for the prenatal, childbirth, and postpartum care afforded to incarcerated women in Massachusetts.
This bill is up for a hearing before the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security this morning, and we submitted written testimony:
This bill presents Massachusetts with the opportunity to ban the dangerous, inhumane, and degrading practice of shackling incarcerated women who give birth while in correctional custody. Current Massachusetts policy fails to protect incarcerated women from being subject to such harmful and degrading restraints. S.1171 is consistent with the national trend to abolish the practice of shackling incarcerated pregnant women: 18 other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have already prohibited the routine use of shackles on incarcerated women who are giving birth, and it is time for Massachusetts to follow suit.
Using physical restraints during labor and childbirth is unsafe for the mother and her infant. For example, the practice prevents healthy, natural labor movement, increases the chances that a laboring woman will fall, impedes medical providers’ ability to provide care during labor and childbirth, delays emergency care when necessary, and obstructs maternal-infant bonding. The practice of shackling incarcerated pregnant women has been widely condemned by the medical community including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Furthermore, the routine use of physical restraints during labor and delivery serves no legitimate public safety purpose. An August 2013 report found that “[a]mong states that have restricted the shackling of pregnant women, none have reported any subsequent instances of women in labor escaping or causing harm to themselves, the public, security guards, or medical staff.”
The Committee should act quickly to pass the bill so that incarcerated women in Massachusetts are permitted to give birth safely and with dignity.
Your gift will go twice as far, and maybe even further!
by Leah Sakala,
December 9, 2013
This year we're thrilled to participate in Valley Gives, a 24-hour celebration of generosity in the Massachusetts Pioneer Valley on December 12th.
Please consider supporting our work this Thursday on 12/12/13, when your gift will be doubled by a matching grant and could be selected to win a prize that would make it go even further.
Schedule your gift today!
