Disagreement Persists on Incarcerated People's Communications Service
Incarcerated people's communications service (IPCS) providers and advocates continued to disagree on how the FCC should implement the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, in reply comments posted Thursday in docket 23-62 (see 2305090066). The issue remained whether the commission should allow for safety measures or site commissions in the final rate caps.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The Martha Wright-Reed Act gives the FCC "express authority to utilize the industry-wide averaging methodology" it adopted in 2021, said Securus. It backed preempting different state rates "whether higher or lower" than the commission's. Securus also urged the FCC to "reject requests to regulate the practices of advanced services such as VoIP and video communications," saying neither service is subject to the commission's Title II authority.
A coalition of advocacy organizations -- the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Consumer Law Center, Prison Policy Initiative and Public Knowledge -- argued that Congress "expanded the commission’s authority to broadly reform all video and audio IPCS rates and charges." The FCC should "prohibit site commissions and preempt state and local laws that require them," the coalition said, adding it would be the "simplest and most wide-reaching method to ensure that IPCS rates are just and reasonable and fairly compensate providers." Organizations including American Civil Liberties Union, Communications Workers of America, MediaJustice, National Consumer Law Center and United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, agreed. "Congress directed the commission to preempt state and local law to achieve just and reasonable rates," the groups said.
The law "limits the commission’s authority to communications between incarcerated persons and persons not physically located on the correctional institution’s premises," said the National Sheriffs' Association. The sheriffs said recovering the costs of safety and security measures must also be allowed: "The record shows that these costs are a real and necessary part of allowing IPCS in correctional institutions." Worth Rises disagreed and urged the FCC to apply the "used and useful standard to determine that safety and security measures are not recoverable" through IPCS rates. "The commission’s duty is to protect IPCS ratepayers and ensure reasonable compensation for providers, not to protect the interests and demands of non-ratepaying stakeholders," Worth Rises said.
NCIC Inmate Communications warned against reducing or eliminating site commissions, saying it would be "premature and harmful" to state and local governments. The company said any efforts to do so should be done at the state or local level, while also giving correctional agencies "sufficient time to complete budget analyses and identify and secure additional funding sources to close the gap caused by the loss of that revenue."
The record shows support for the "adoption of the commission’s existing rate caps as permanent rate caps for voice IPCS with necessary adjustments for market changes," said ViaPath. The IPCS provider backed setting different rates for video services, saying it "employs different cost structures, uses different technologies, and is offered in a manner different from voice IPCS." It asked the FCC to preempt "any and all attempts" to regulate video IPCS at the state level. "Preemption of state regulation over video IPCS is particularly strong given states have no history or experience regulating video communications," ViaPath said.