Prison Telcos Say Discount Inmate Calling Poses Security Risk
Prisons and their phone companies urged the FCC to ban call routing services that reduce the cost of prisoner phone calls. In comments Monday supporting a petition by inmate telco Securus Technologies, the groups said security and public safety is threatened by ConsCallHome and similar services that give families of inmates local numbers in a specified prison’s exchange. The local number reroutes calls to the family member’s actual number. Securus, which owns several companies providing phone service for inmates, wants the commission to declare the service is a form of dial-around calling that inmate telcos may block.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Call diversion services present a serious security risk because they hide the number a prisoner is calling, Arent Fox lawyer Stephanie Joyce, representing Securus, said in an interview. Prisons need to know the terminating number because they don’t want inmates calling protected persons or known criminal associates, for example, she said. Not knowing the number also renders inmate telephone providers unable to comply with law enforcement subpoenas seeking inmate calling records, she said.
The FCC received a deluge of comments from families of inmates who defended ConsCallHome because it offers huge cost savings from high rates charged by inmate telcos like Securus (CD Aug 19 p2). “Families are already under financial stress,” said Carol Wilson of Hamilton, Va.
But Joyce said consumers are hurt by companies like ConsCallHome. The companies usually lack certification and aren’t registered VoIP providers, so consumers have no recourse when they're wronged, she said, citing a comment by A.C. Thompson of Gilbert, Ariz., who claimed he “lost over $200” with ConsCallHome. However, consumer awareness regarding the origins of the companies appears to be low, Joyce said.
Inmates’ loved ones turn to call routing services because of inmate telco’s “exorbitant rates,” said Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, a nonprofit representing inmates’ friends and family. The FCC should only block cheaper alternatives if it caps prison local and long-distance rates, CURE said. “Research has consistently found that, to be effective, rehabilitation must include consistent and meaningful contact between an inmate and his or her family and community, which often is limited to telephone calls.” But prison phone rates are much higher than regular consumer rates because many prisons pick phone companies that offer high commissions rather than low rates, CURE said.
Sheriffs and other prison authorities said “call diversion is just another form of circumventing the system” and a danger to public safety. In 12 nearly identical form letters, they said “the Securus Petition should be granted so that I, and other correctional authorities, can get back control over the calls that inmates place.” Call diversion companies operate “underground,” they said. “They do not bid on contracts, they do not announce themselves to us as a service provider, and the local numbers they give out are not registered.”
Inmate telcos supported the Securus petition. “If inmates are to be allowed calling privileges, it is essential that inmate service providers can see, trace, and store the actual numbers that inmates call,” said CenturyLink, which sells inmate service through subsidiary Embarq Payphone Services. Call diversion schemes threaten the FCC’s ability to enforce the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, said Inmate Telephone. “Call diversion scheme operators have no agreement or relationship with correctional facilities and cannot be easily traced. As a result, law enforcement officials have no control over whether these operators comply with CALEA and are thus not able to intercept or monitor such calls.”
Call routing providers “are not operator service providers, local or long distance carriers, or resellers,” said CenturyLink. “They ignore the Commission and state authorities. They do not file tariffs, they do not contribute to universal service, and they do not properly comply with statutory or regulatory requirements intended to protect consumers, ensure quality of service, support law enforcement efforts, or promote compliance with law.”
However, ConsCallHome provider Millicorp said its service is “a legitimate, secure and very popular technological” alternative to “rate gouging” by inmate telcos. “Millicorp is registered with the FCC as an interconnected VOIP provider (FRN 0018930511) and complies with all applicable FCC regulations, including E-911, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ("CALEA"), and universal service,” it said.
Use of ConsCallHome doesn’t frustrate law enforcement efforts to monitor prisoners, Millicorp said. “Inmate confinement facilities have the complete and unhindered ability to monitor all calls to Millicorp customers and to regulate the recipients of all inmate calls to Millicorp customers.” Also, inmates using ConsCallHome must inform the prison what number they're calling, the called party’s address and the service provider’s name, and law enforcement may request all information about Millicorp customers, “including name, billing address and the ultimate destination of the terminating call,” the company said.
Millicorp said inmate telcos are already blocking ConsCallHome numbers, and it could kill the company. As a result of blocking, the company said it’s lost at least 4,000 customers since Dec. 1, and has seen 50-70 percent “average month revenue loss.”