Advocates, Providers Welcome Draft ICS Order, FNPRM

Among the draft’s proposals is to require facilities with an average daily population of at least 50 incarcerated individuals to provide all forms of telecom relay services. Advocacy organizations for deaf and hard of hearing individuals sought some revisions to the proposal. There's "essentially no justification in the record for excluding small jurisdictions," said a coalition including Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf, National Association of the Deaf, National Disability Rights Network, and Communication Service for the Deaf told Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and Wireline Bureau staff in an ex parte in docket 12-375.

NCIC Inmate Communications raised concerns about the draft order's "significant new obligations on ICS providers without an apparent funding mechanism." It said providers would need to buy video equipment to support American Sign Language, and just two video relay service providers have services that "may be used in the corrections environment." NCIC said it also plans to suggest in its comments on the final FNPRM that the FCC establish a "much lower transaction fee cap" for single-call services because the current cap is "still too high."

A coalition of consumer advocacy organizations, including the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, National Consumer Law Center, Public Knowledge, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, and Worth Rises, asked the FCC to not “deprive incarcerated people with disabilities in small jurisdictions ... of point-to-point video in facilities that have broadband service.” The groups said smaller jurisdictions wouldn’t face cost burdens because relay providers “generally deliver equipment at no cost, the TRS funds cover the service costs, and the law makes no distinction on size of facility.” The groups met with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Geoffrey Starks to discuss their recommendations.

Providers shouldn't be allowed to charge for the voice components of captioned telephone services and IP CTS, said the Wright Petitioners and Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in separate meetings with aides to Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington. Cost recovery for VRS is also "inconsistent with Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act," the groups said.

Several ICS providers "engage in an unfair practice of charging multiple ancillary fees for a single payment transaction," said the Prison Policy Initiative in a letter. The group accused certain providers of “double dipping” by “layering a percentage fee” on top of the FCC's $3 cap on automated payment fees. PPI asked the FCC to either ban the practice "on an interim basis" or cap third-party fees for transactions subject to automated-payment fees at 40 cents.

Some ICS providers sought revisions to the draft's language on unused funds and inactive accounts. Global Tel*Link's ViaPath noted in a letter that "neither ICS providers nor the commission may supplant the applicable laws of that state" if a state hasn't adopted a version of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. It asked that final rules also reflect that "reasonable efforts" to issue a refund "must occur prior to the expiration of the 180-day period."

Securus told Wireline Bureau, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and Office of General Counsel staff, plus aides to all commissioners, in separate meetings that it was "generally supportive" of the draft but had some concerns about implementation. The proposed refund requirement, which would take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication, "is an insufficient period of time to implement all of the modifications," Securus said, asking for 90 days. Securus also disagreed with PPI's proposal to "prohibit the assessment of two different ancillary service fees on the same transaction." PPI "seeks to jump the gun" and the FCC "made it clear that its ancillary service charges were grounded in reported costs," Securus said.