UNIVERSAL SERVICE
Rates and Charges for Telephone Calls from Inmates
For many years, inmates of jails and correctional institutions had extremely limited telephone service to make collect telephone calls to a restricted list of specified friends and relatives. Typically there was occasional access to a specialized payphone. Advances in technology resulted in automation and improved efficiency in accounting for inmate calls, monitoring and recording conversations for security and law enforcement purposes, restricting the list of numbers which any particular inmate may call, and preventing fraudulent or criminal schemes. Jail and prison administrators began to see telephone service as a reward for good behavior and as a source of revenue for their agencies. Also, because most inmates sooner or later return to their communities, the maintenance of communication with family is seen as a generally positive influence for the inmate’s reintegration in the larger society after release.
Inmate telephone service is now a very competitive industry that advertises its services to institutional administrators. Despite competition and reduced costs of service due to automation, the rates and charges that must be paid by persons receiving the calls from inmates remain very high. Much of the inmate population comes from low income families, and thus the high cost of telephone service is a significant burden to many families that would like to maintain regular contact through telephone conversations with an incarcerated spouse, child, sibling, or friend, often at a distant prison. In many instances, the cost is so high that otherwise welcome calls must be blocked or refused; in other cases, persons with limited incomes endure significant financial hardship paying for calls they really can not afford.
A major reason for the high rates for those who pay for the calls is that institutions select winning bids for inmate telephone service on the basis of the vendor’s promise to provide commission revenue to the institution. Commissions from 20% to 60% are common under the contracts. News reports have indicated that in New York, the state earns $20 million per year in commissions on telephone charges to recipients of calls from state prison inmates.
In reviewing the reasonableness of rates for calls from inmates, some regulators have allowed rates that are equal to or less than the most expensive operator assisted collect calls from payphones. Those rates, however, are inapplicable to the highly automated inmate telephone systems, and are often avoidable. Recipients of calls from inmates, however, have no alternative choice of telephone service provider.
Jurisdiction over the rates for telephone calls from inmates is split between federal and state jurisdictions. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in recent years has issued several orders dealing with inter-state aspects of charges to recipients of inmate telephone calls, but has declined to take action to reduce the charges. Efforts to allow the long distance portion of the service be provided by the receiver’s chosen long distance provider (“Billed Party Preference”) failed to gain approval at the FCC in the mid-1990s. The FCC has indicated there is a greater role for state commissions in this area. State public utility commissions may approve contract rates for local and intra-state call service.
To date, court litigation by persons paying the high rates have generally not succeeded. Several legislatures have considered elimination or reduction of the commissions from inmate telephone service. The high cost of collect calls from inmates affects a significant number of people who are now organizing to bring about change. In fact, one of Eliot Spitzer’s first acts as Governor, on January 8, 2007, was to eliminate the commission on collect calls from inmates in facilities run by the State Department of Correctional Services. This came the day before the state was to appear before the state Court of Appeals to defend the commission system.
PULP is maintaining this webpage to cover news and legal developments on this issue. For further information, contact PULP at info@pulp.tc
FCC Reports and Articles
NASUCA Reply Comments in FCC Inmate Telephone Proceeding - 04-21-2004
NASUCA Comments To FCC on Inmate Telephone Service - 3-10-2004
NYS DOCS Comments to FCC on Inmate Telephone Issues- 03-09-2004
FCC Extends Time for Comments on Petition for Modification of Federal Inmate Telephone Policies - 02/03/2004
FCC Notice Requesting Comments on Proposals to Abolish Exclusive Inmate long Distance Call Programs - 12/31/03
FCC Advice to Consumers Receiving Calls from Prison Payphones: - 03-31-2003
"Consumers receiving collect calls from inmates in prisons, jails and other correctional institutions can obtain the price of the call by simply pressing no more than 2 digits or by staying on the line. OSPs providing operator services for inmates’ phones in correctional facilities are required to tell the party receiving a collect call of his or her right to obtain rate quotations before the OSP connects and bills for the interstate collect call. (Note: FCC rules only apply to interstate OSP calls. However, most states have similar requirements for local intrastate OSP calls.) The party receiving the call can then decide whether or not to accept the collect call or limit its length."
FCC Order 02-39 on Inmate Phone Services - 03-31-2003
"[T]he record in this proceeding strongly suggests that any solution to the problem of high rates for inmates must embrace the states. States are encouraged to examine the issue of the significant commissions paid by ICS providers to confinement facilities and the downward pressure that these commissions have on ICS providers’ net compensation and, more important, the upward pressure they impose on inmate calling rates. Furthermore, as CURE points out, these commissions limit incentives for the ICS providers to pass cost savings to consumers through lower rates." In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 CC Docket No. 96-128 Order on Remand & Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Adopted: February 12, 2002
FCC - Inmate Phone Service Complaints - 03-24-2003
PULP Comments to the FCC on Billed Party Preference and Inmate Telephone Services- 7-15--94
PULP Reply Comments to the FCC on Billed Party Preference and Inmate Telephone Services- 9-14-94
Exhibit 2 to PULP's Reply Comments - 9-14-94
State Utility Regulatory Agency Proceedings on Inmate Telephone Service Rates
VIRGINIA
Report of Virginia State Corporations Commission to Governor and General Assembly on Rates Charged to Recipients of Inmate Long Distance Calls, Va. State Corp. Com'n. (2001).
MCI argued that a Virginia statute exempts state prison contracts for telephone service from the rate regulation jurisdiction of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC). [There is no comparable exclusion of PSC jurisdiction over state contracts for telephone service in New York]. The Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) 9/26/200 order rejected that argument, finding that the inmate phone service rates paid by customers who receive inmate calls are subject to rate regulation by the SCC.
Virginia SCC Reconsideration order requiring MCI to file a rate case setting out its actual cost of service. 01-23-2002
Virginia Supreme Court Order vacating SCC inmate phone order for lack of agency jurisdiction. 02-28-2003
SCC Order complying with Virginia Supreme Court order, March 12, 2003, dismissing complaint against prison phone rates
NEW YORK
New York Court of Appeals Decision - 02-20-2007
Appellate Division Decision Affirming Dismissal of Walton v. DOCS
01-19-2006
PSC Order Denying PULP Petition for Rehearing - 01-14-2005
Comments of the Department of Corrections In Opposition To Rehearing Petition - 12-02-2003
PULP’s Petition For Rehearing - 11-26-2003
PSC Order Approving Jurisdictional Portion of Rate - 10-30-2003
Center for Constitutional Rights Petition (without Exhibits)To Commence Proceeding and Stay Proposed Tariff Filing of MCI WorldCom to Change Maximum Security Rate Plan - 09-05-2003
PULP’s Comments on Proposed MCI Rates for Calls Received from Prison Inmates - 09-10-2003
PSC Notice Inviting Comments by September 10, 2002 on Proposed MCI Rates for Calls Received from Prison Inmates - 08-28-2003
Revised MCI Tariff For Inmate Calls From NYS
Prisons - 09-05-2003
Proposed New York Inmate Phone Rates To Be Effective August 1, 2003 - 08-05-2003
Appellate Division Decision Affirming Dismissal of Bullard v. State
07-31-2003
MCI Tariff For Inmate Calls From New York State Prisons - 10-21-02
MCI Tariff for Inmate Calls from New York State Prisons - 10-20-01
New York PSC Order Approving MCI-Docs Contract for Inmate Phone Service - 12-17-98
Court Decisions
Walton v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, NY Court of Appeals- 11-23-2009
Court Decision in Byrd v. Goord (S.D.N.Y)8-26-2005
Court Decision in Walton, et al. v. NYDOC & MCI -
10-08-2004
Bullard v. State of New York (NY Ct of Claims) challenge to inmate phone rates dismissed - 05-01-02
New Hampshire Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Filed Prison Telephone Rates - 03-31-2003
"The plaintiffs’’ anti-trust claim alleges that the defendants entered into agreements with the State for prisoner telephone service, which have produced "adverse anti-competitive effects within the market for prisoner-initiated collect telephone calls" and have "unreasonably restrained trade and established a monopoly power over commerce involving the market for prisoner-initiated collect telephone calls." As a result of this conduct, the plaintiffs allege that they have "paid unjustified, exorbitant and unreasonable charges for telephone calls received from prisoners and have been prevented from choosing other options of telephone service" for receiving prisoner calls.
“Absent from the plaintiffs’’ complaint, however, is an allegation that the rates charged the plaintiffs were not the rates stated in the applicable tariff. "[A]ny subscriber who pays the filed rate has suffered no legally cognizable injury because the rate is perse reasonable." Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 801 A.2d 281, 289 (N.J. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir. 1994) ("any filed rate –– that is, one approved by the governing regulatory agency –– is . . . unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers"). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to allege a legally cognizable injury. See Weinberg, 801 A.2d at 289."
Legislative Initiatives
S5299-a - AN ACT to amend the correction law, in relation to inmate telephone services
A7231-C - AN ACT to amend the correction law, in relation to inmate telephone services
Memo on A7231-C
eTc Campaign Update (Equitable Telephone Charge) 3-03
eTc Campaign Update (Equitable Telephone Charge) - 7-02
When is a Collect Call Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Georgia Testimony - 6-17-02
NASUCA Prison Inmate Phone Issue Summary - 6-17-02
|
