{"id":8287,"date":"2018-12-17T15:21:56","date_gmt":"2018-12-17T20:21:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/?p=8287"},"modified":"2024-08-05T15:04:18","modified_gmt":"2024-08-05T19:04:18","slug":"phone_justice_timeline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/2018\/12\/17\/phone_justice_timeline\/","title":{"rendered":"Timeline: The 18-year battle for prison phone justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Journalists and others often ask about how the movement for phone justice began and why this is taking so long. Here are the key dates:<\/p>\n

\n
2000:<\/dt>\n
Martha Wright, a grandmother who was struggling to afford calls to her incarcerated grandson, sues a private prison company<\/a> over the contracts it has with various phone companies.<\/dd>\n
2001:<\/dt>\n
Federal Court grants motions<\/a> by private prison company and telephone companies to refer the case to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).<\/dd>\n
2002-2011:<\/dt>\n
For nearly 10 years, the Federal Communications Commission takes no visible action.<\/dd>\n
2012:<\/dt>\n
The Federal Communications Commission files a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking<\/a> (NPRM) regarding the Wright Petition.<\/dd>\n
2013:<\/dt>\n
The Federal Communications Commission votes 2-1 to approve new regulations<\/a> that set interstate rate caps of 21 cents a minute for debit and pre-paid calls and 25 cents a minute for collect calls. The one dissenting vote<\/a> is from FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who previously<\/a> represented<\/a> prison phone giant Securus in private practice.<\/dd>\n
2014:<\/dt>\n
Despite legal challenges from prison phone companies, the FCC’s new rate caps<\/a> go into effect in February.<\/dd>\n
2015:<\/dt>\n
In October, the FCC issues additional regulations<\/a>, lowering the cost for all calls from prisons (out-of-state and in-state) to 11 cents a minute, and lowering the cost of calls from jails at 14 to 22 cents a minute depending on the size of the institution. The FCC also approves comprehensive reform<\/a> and caps on the cost of “ancillary fees” that can double the cost of a call. Again, Commissioner Pai voted against<\/a> these regulations. Many of the phone companies, several state prison systems, county jail systems, and sheriff associations file suit<\/a> challenging the FCC’s order.<\/dd>\n
2016:<\/dt>\n
The federal court issues a partial stay of the Federal Communications Commission’s October 2015 regulations, preventing the new rate caps from taking effect. The new regulations on fees<\/a>, however, go into effect. The lawsuit moves very slowly.<\/dd>\n
2017:<\/dt>\n
In January, Donald Trump appoints FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai<\/a> the Chairman of the FCC. In February, Pai, who had twice voted against regulating the industry, announces that the FCC will stop defending<\/a> its in-state rate caps in court. However, the FCC does consent to 6 advocacy organizations, including the Prison Policy Initiative, defending that part of the lawsuit as intervenor-defendants<\/a>. In June, despite this effort, the federal court strikes down<\/a> the FCC’s 2015 rate caps. The 2013 rate caps, and the 2015 fee caps, remain in place<\/a>.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n

For more on the struggle for phone justice, see our campaign page<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The fight to make prison and jail phone calls affordable began in 2000. For those wondering “why is this taking so long?”, here are the key dates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,4,1],"tags":[56,57,66],"coauthors":[11,49],"class_list":["post-8287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-briefings","category-phones","category-uncategorized","tag-communication","tag-exploitation","tag-phones"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8287"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8287\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16296,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8287\/revisions\/16296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8287"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}