Inmate Calling Providers Rail Against Proposed Service Quality Standards
Incarcerated people's communications service (IPCS) providers pushed back against FCC proposals for setting uniform service quality standards. While they also argued for redoing the reimbursement process adopted earlier this year, that argument is seeing opposition. Reply comments were filed this week in docket 12-375. The FCC's IPCS order, adopted in July, included a Further NPRM seeking comment on establishing video IPCS rates, updating the definition of jails and prisons, and addressing other service quality issues (see 2407180039).
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!
The record is clear that there's no need for uniform IPCS service quality standards, nor would they ensure just and reasonable IPCS rates, ViaPath Technologies said in comments. It added the "inconsistent and unworkable" reimbursement process in the 2024 IPCS order must be replaced with a uniform rate that covers correctional facility costs. Moreover, it argued that IPCS providers should not be required to allow account holders to designate third-parties to receive refunds and other communications regarding inactive accounts.
Securus Technologies said the FCC lacks authority to impose service quality standards and such standards are unnecessary and unworkable. Contracts between IPCS providers and correctional facilities often include service quality standards covering installation, repair and upkeep of equipment, Securus noted. It advised the FCC to streamline data collection as the agency develops permanent video IPCS rates, particularly with respect to cost allocation. In addition, the FCC should replace its facility reimbursement scheme with a rate additive that would increase certainty of facility cost recovery, Securus said. There's no support in the record for letting incarcerated persons designate non-account holder third parties to receive refunds. That approach would impose undue burdens and risks on providers, including potentially requiring them to become licensed third-party money transfer providers, Securus said.
Calling the FCC's reimbursement provision "flawed," Pay Tel Communications advocated for a cost recovery additive as a way of minimizing confusion and potential abuse. It said the legal basis for service quality regulation is "tenuous [and] a solution in search of a problem" since providers are incentivized under rate caps to maximize call length and prevent disconnections. None of the backers of service quality standards has explained how the FCC’s authority permits enforcement of such standards, NCIC Correctional Services said.
Reevaluating the interim video IPCS rates would be "premature and unfounded," according to the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Pennsylvania Prison Society and Public Knowledge. They said the record supports the FCC's determination that the interim rates are fair and give "a significant cushion" to IPCS providers. There's no evidence a “uniform rate additive” is needed.
The United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry said the record shows that service quality is "an emerging challenge" with IPCS and needs FCC oversight. It argued against the idea that a uniform additive would mean an additional amount on top of rate caps. There's not enough facility cost data to justify or assess rate additives, it added.
A coalition of civil rights groups backed permanent IPCS rate caps and said the FCC should start collecting data on IPCS video costs, equipment used and how much those devices are used for nonregulated services as well as IPCS. The coalition included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, American Association of People with Disabilities, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Council of Churches.
The National Sheriffs' Association urged against cross-subsidizing IPCS video rates with nonregulated revenue as a route toward lowering IPCS video rates.