FCC Passes Landmark Reform of 'Egregious' Prison Phone Charges (vice.com)

derekmead writes: The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to crack down on exorbitant prison phone rates, in a landmark victory for criminal justice reform advocates who have long criticized what they call abusive and predatory practices by phone companies. The new FCC rules cap the cost of prison phone calls at 11 cents a minute for debit or prepaid calls in state and federal prisons, and reduce the cost of most inmate calls from $2.96 to $1.65 for a 15-minute in-state call, and from $3.15 to $1.65 for a 15-minute long distance call. The new policy also cracks down on excessive service fees and so-called "flat-rate calling," in which inmates are charged a flat rate for a call up to 15 minutes regardless of the actual call duration.

Comments

11 cents a minute?

[rjstanford]

For a landline call? Still sounds pretty egregious to me. The prisoners already have to qualify for their calls, and from what I understand aren't allowed very many of them in the best cases. Why add another punishment on top of what they're already serving? There's no real reason to break out the phone calls and make them orders of magnitude more expensive to prisoners than they actually are.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Fire_Wraith]

Sure there is - profit! The corporations involved in this have every reason to jack those rates as high as they can go, because the prisoners are quite literally a 'captive audience'. Privately run prisons are the worst about this, but even publicly operated prisons often contract out to private companies for things like telecommunication services.

What, you mean there are things like morals, ethics, and limits on what should be reasonable? What are you, some kind of Communist?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because I work in the industry; remember all of these calls have to be archived (sometimes in perpetuity) and inmates are *really* hard on phones (repairs come out of the profit). Small jails will potentially not be worth bidding at 11 cents a minute as 1 dispatch will eat 6 months revenue.

This may eliminate commissions, however - something that many view as a Good Thing (TM).

Yes, I kept this super vague, even anon I'm not breaking any NDAs here

Re:11 cents a minute?

[quetwo]

In the business community, it's pretty common to still see rates of about $0.10/minute for long distance and $0.10/call for local calls. It's not a great rate, but it's not out of the ordinary. Business lines are still far from the unlimited/unlimited rates offered to consumers.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[tripleevenfall]

The prisons need to enable inmates to call only the numbers they've been authorized to call. Someone has to approve applications to enable telephone numbers. Someone needs to process the background information and telephone bills that are sent in to verify identities. Someone needs to manage the billing and payment aspects of all of this. Someone has to archive the recordings. etc etc. This operation is contracted out like anything else. The prison can't reasonably do this, nor should they be doing it.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[cdrudge]

Are the prison phone companies actually the ones doing all that though? I was under the impression that the phone companies involved were glorified calling cards that handled the finances of the phone call, but the security was up to the prison/jail/DOC still.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[vovin]

Doesn't the NSA already do most of this for free*?

* free in the sense that tax payers are forced to pay for something that has no public benefit whatsoever, so why not get something out of it?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[geekmux]

For a landline call? Still sounds pretty egregious to me. The prisoners already have to qualify for their calls, and from what I understand aren't allowed very many of them in the best cases. Why add another punishment on top of what they're already serving? There's no real reason to break out the phone calls and make them orders of magnitude more expensive to prisoners than they actually are.

You question greed and capitalism in the privatized prison system running in the United States of Incarceration?

That's rather silly.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

The prisons need to enable inmates to call only the numbers they've been authorized to call.

News to me. I've gotten calls before from inmates and none of them ever mentioned needing to pre-authorize the number.

Someone has to approve applications to enable telephone numbers.

Why?

Someone needs to process the background information and telephone bills that are sent in to verify identities. Someone needs to manage the billing and payment aspects of all of this. Someone has to archive the recordings. etc etc. This operation is contracted out like anything else. The prison can't reasonably do this, nor should they be doing it.

Yeah, you're suffering from a bad case of privatazation-itis there. There is absolutely no reason that administrative staff could not be trained to manage such a system as part of their responsibilities except that the profitability of the private sector would suffer thereby. Just like there is *absolutely* no reason that the private sector should be able to run a prison at less cost than the government can. (Except by compromising reasonable wages and safety by so doing.)

Re:11 cents a minute?

[rjstanford]

I'd imagine that that was true about lots of other things in prison that aren't charged on a per-minute basis though - or is it only telephones that prisoners are hard on?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[vovin]

I call BS.
We negotiated 1-800 rates at 2.5/min cents over 6 years ago.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Darinbob]

The cost came from the phone companies. The prisons went along because the phone companies kicked back some of the profits, so there was no shopping around for cheaper service. None of this had anything whatsoever to do with archivals or prison policies. The prices became exhorbitant before there was regular recording of all calls.

If the phones get broken, charge the cost of repair to the prisons instead of lumping it into cost of dialing. I know if I break my phone at home or the lines have problems that I have to pay for the repairs myself.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There is an argument for some additional cost(certain inmates are people who you have justifiable concerns about their communicating with confederates on the outside, so you probably need more oversight than a standard fully automated system).

Aside from that, though, there are reasons, just bad ones. You've got a captive audience, and you can bid to be the exclusive provider, so competition isn't a concern; and states looking to be tough on crime without paying for it are more than happy to treat prisoner phone calls, commisary purchases, etc. as a profit center.

It's horribly penny-wise, pound-foolish, of course because making it easier for inmates to maintain social bonds reduces recidivism at relatively low cost(obviously it isn't 100% effective; but landline minutes are hilariously cheap compared to even the most basic correctional staff, never mind any sort of specialists, so it's hard to argue with the value for money); but that isn't how the immediate incentives line up, so they do it anyway.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[xaxa]

Posting anon because I work in the industry; remember all of these calls have to be archived (sometimes in perpetuity) and inmates are *really* hard on phones (repairs come out of the profit). Small jails will potentially not be worth bidding at 11 cents a minute as 1 dispatch will eat 6 months revenue.

Regardless of the cost, it's not right to make the prisoners pay it. They don't pay for the guards, food, building, locks, why should they pay for a prison-grade telephone?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[LiENUS]

The prisons need to enable inmates to call only the numbers they've been authorized to call.

News to me. I've gotten calls before from inmates and none of them ever mentioned needing to pre-authorize the number.

Depends on the situation, I don't think the county/parish jail requires pre-authorized numbers, that way when you first get locked up you can call around to find a lawyer. But the big boy state prisons shouldn't be letting offenders just call you at random

Someone has to approve applications to enable telephone numbers.

Why?

Investigations checks out the number looking for things does this number belong to the offenders criminal contacts? Or the offenders victim/victims family? Those things get denied.

Someone needs to process the background information and telephone bills that are sent in to verify identities. Someone needs to manage the billing and payment aspects of all of this. Someone has to archive the recordings. etc etc. This operation is contracted out like anything else. The prison can't reasonably do this, nor should they be doing it.

Yeah, you're suffering from a bad case of privatazation-itis there. There is absolutely no reason that administrative staff could not be trained to manage such a system as part of their responsibilities except that the profitability of the private sector would suffer thereby. Just like there is *absolutely* no reason that the private sector should be able to run a prison at less cost than the government can. (Except by compromising reasonable wages and safety by so doing.)

Yeah all that stuff is handled by investigations in the prison I worked at. Storage may or may not have been onsite I couldn't say for sure as I didn't work in IT but they had a fairly substantial IT department and were miles away from the real world so I always assumed it was onsite.
The private prisons do in fact majorly reduce wages Captains at CCA prisons make less than Cadets in academy at the state prison I worked at make.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

put in DECT 6 bases in a secure area and have them sell the handsets to the inmates. Get handsets use standard "AA" batteries and make the base stations managed; No more repair issues. They break their own handset they have to get a new one from the commisary. You could set the power such that they can only connect from inside the room and then they'd still be run like current; have to get permission to go use the phone; go into the room with their handset.

Here you go new system patent free; just have to develop the management for the base and get someone like sony to make the handset purpose built. Have them do it without a dtmf keypad and you could really cut the cost increase the security.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[rjstanford]

To use a tied phrase, "This." From what I've seen you are entirely correct in your assumptions, at least in many cases.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Firethorn]

I remember reading an article on this. It's something of a mixed bag - some are indeed effectively calling card companies, leaving all admin up to the prison itself, but normally providing kickbacks to the prison.

In other cases, by contract they provide a 'complete service'. IE they own and are responsible for the 'complete' system. The prison officials are probably only in charge of authorizing phone numbers. IE signing that XYZ numbers are allowed for prisoner 123. The company provides(and maintains) the phones, phone lines, phone booths(for what privacy prisoners get), etc... If a phone breaks they're the ones responsible for fixing it.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[slashdice]

Have you ever been to the airport? Notice how a bottle of coke costs 3 or 4 bucks? That's like twice as much as at a gas station or vending machine. You could go to the grocery store and buy a 12-pack for that price. Not that the TSA would let you through with it.

Well, prison is kind of like an airport. Not just all the gay sex (ask Larry "Wide Stance" Craig for full details) but also economically.

Re: 11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're 'hard on' other prisoners.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[omnichad]

Might be time to reconsider VoIP as long as you're not with a congested Internet provider. You'll get that below 2 cents.

Re: 11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call "don't know what you're talking about." Different states, different rates. Never discount price fixing at state/county level.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anna Merikin]

There's no real reason to break out the phone calls and make them orders of magnitude more expensive to prisoners than they actually are.

No, but you don't account for the real costs, which primarily are monitoring (listening in on) the call.

For real, that's the other side's argument.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[ShanghaiBill]

The prisons need to enable inmates to call only the numbers they've been authorized to call.

Last time I was in jail, there were no restrictions on who I could call. I don't see any need to maintain a "whitelist". A "blacklist" of numbers not to be called would be easier. But even then, it doesn't have to be enforced through the phone system. It could just be rule-based: You call your ex-girlfriend (the one you are in jail for beating up) and you will lose your phone privileges. Phone policies vary widely between different states, and even different prisons within states.

Inmates have lower recidivism rates when they keep social contacts with the family and friends. Isolating these people from society by restricting phone calls arbitrarily, and charging extortionate tolls, is not sensible policy.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Brett Buck]

Why let them have calls at all? They're in prison, they have visiting days, why are we so concerned about their luxuries?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[ShanghaiBill]

You question greed and capitalism in the privatized prison system running in the United States of Incarceration?

In America, about 8% of inmates are incarcerated in privately operated prisons. This issue has very little to do with privatization.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked in a maximum security prison. None of what you are describing actually happens. Th prison administrations freely admit that over-charging for phone calls is a way of making up for shrinking budgets.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jail is not prison. State prisons (I was a CO) can and will restrict calls so you don't harass your accusers. All calls are recorded/screened.

Phone priv's were a pain in the ass... if an inmate got bad news or had an argument on the phone that means as a CO my stress level goes up.. will he start a fight? Attack the first person that sets them off??

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

remember all of these calls have to be archived (sometimes in perpetuity)

I'm not seeing that as a major cost. Hard drives (and even cloud storage) are DAMN CHEAP these days, and the typical 15 minute phone call sampled at 8KHz Mono, 8-bit depth is less than 7MB when saved in LINEAR PCM!! If you use a compression algorithm, even a nearly obsolete one like MP3, the file size drops to LESS THAN 1MB for a 15 minute phone call to be archived. No excuse, other than just being greedy bastards.

inmates are *really* hard on phones (repairs come out of the profit).

When you charge $15 to start a 15 minute call, drop it after 5 minutes, then charge another $15 to start a "new call", drop THAT after 3 or 4 minutes, then once again charge $15 to start another "New call"... then you have effectively charged the inmate $45 for an interrupted, less than 15 minute call, and you DESERVE to have your shit broken, you greedy bastards! Don't tell me this doesn't happen, or I will provide recordings that prove you are a damn liar, and a greedy bastard.

Small jails will potentially not be worth bidding at 11 cents a minute as 1 dispatch will eat 6 months revenue

Then you should just go out of business. Your "service" not needed, or wanted. Greedy bastards.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be fair, that 6 pack of coke from outside the airport is made with that damn exploding water. Everyone knows that if you want products made with the specially treated, guaranteed not to explode water you need to buy it inside the airport. It isn't like coke, pepsi, evian, and the like deliver the same bottles to the airport as they do to the grocery store now, right? Right?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people who maintain their family connections and other support frameworks while in prison have a better chance at rehabilitiation and not re-offending than those who don't. Spend 30 seconds googling this and find out.

If you're ideologically driven, yes by all means punish them even if it means higher crime rates in the future. If you're results driven, then allow them to maintain family connections. It's a pretty simple decision to make regardless of what you're driven by.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was deployed to Iraq phone alls via satellite were roughly 5 cents a minute. This was provided by private companies, there is no reason to charge 11 cents for a local call. Considering how local calls are pretty much free, they could charge two cents and still make a killing.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[CastrTroy]

I was going to say. I'm pretty sure that Bell Canada charges 10 cents a minute for long distance unless you sign up for a plan, in which case you'll end up spending $10-$20 extra every month for the privilege of getting lower per minute rates. This is part of the reason I switched to a VOIP provider. Bell was charging me $70 a month, and I still had to pay for long distance on top of that. Compare that to my VOIP provider who charges me $25 a month, including unlimited long distance to Canada and the US.

Re: 11 cents a minute?

[IBME]

This don't fix shit. The fact is most people do not have anything but a cell phone these days. Unless you have subscribed to, and payed up front, a collect call to a cell phone is impossible. In other words, the law stating you are allowed to call someone is never actually honored. Fuck jailers, the phone companies, and the prison (because that is all it is) system to begin with. The moment you step on ANY federal (horseshit) property, you have all rights taken away, including your ability to even make a call. The fact that you are also raped at the phonebooth accurately describes our so called (non)justice system.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Penguinisto]

Regardless of the cost, it's not right to make the prisoners pay it. They don't pay for the guards, food, building, locks, why should they pay for a prison-grade telephone?

Probably because the telephone is considered a privilege (excepting calls to them from their lawyers). Inmates have to earn the privilege, and that privilege is based on their behavior.

It's prison. They don't have to give you time on the telephone, at least outside of legal assistance from the lawyer who is supposed to represent you.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Prison is not jail. Repeat that to yourself until you understand.

A lot of people don't want to talk to prisoners and do so only under duress. Being cut off from contact is actually a blessing to them. It's those damn inconvenient truths!

Re:11 cents a minute?

[viperidaenz]

It doesn't happen.

Where are the recordings?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[viperidaenz]

Don't let facts get in the way of an internet argument

Re: 11 cents a minute?

[jonbryce]

That seems expensive. In the UK, it is generally 0p per minute for a call to anywhere in the country. I guess in terms of size, that is equivalent to a US state.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

The prison can't reasonably do this, nor should they be doing it. Nor do they need to the NSA are already doing it and if they aint then the phone company is doing it on their behalf.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

"shrinking budgets" are not a thing in regard to the american prison system. 1 in every 100 people in the USA is IN PRISON. It is a highly lucrative business, and budgets only get cut when the man in charge stands to make some extra skrilla out of it. So why not charge more per phone call if it means you're one step closer to buying your third Rolls Royce?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats! With your amazing "give them portable electronics" idea You've just given the craftier inmates several ways to create all kinds of havoc! Hooray!!

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourselfyou authoritarian shit bag.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only call numbers they've been authorized to call? Why? The prisons here don't do that; when a prisoner calls you there's a welcome message that states the call is from a prisoner, states the prison name, and then plays a recording of the person (they're supposed to say their name, but its just a short recording). You can then decide to accept, reject, or block (if you block, it won't let them call your number in the future).

Before anyone asks, I have a sister-in-law that hasn't made the best decisions about who she associates with and accordingly for a couple years I had a child in my house whose father was in prison.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

alternet pushes for more authoritarian all the time; just that it's their flavor and their people given power.
it's as dumb as the so called "anarchists" that want to make bob avakian supreme ruler.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

it depends on the desired result, I'm sure many private prison operators want repeat business

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Fwipp]

Private prisons are paid to lock people up.

Increasing recidivism is *good* for their bottom line.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inmates have lower recidivism rates when they keep social contacts with the family and friends

What about "family" or "friends"? You know? Your super-best friends club that are so close, they always wear the same colors and swear that they would die for each other through blood contracts! It would be a shame if the head of such a family couldn't call them up and let them know if there's any business he forgot to take care of before he went to prison.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[fafalone]

Phone policy varies wildly. In some jails, there's even phones right in the cells (4-6 inmates). They were turned on from 7am-11pm; you could talk your way through $60/day easily; and there was no "qualifying"... you could lose the privilege from abuse; but no approvals, no white lists reviewed by staff, no restriction on calling mobile numbers, etc. Could even have conference calls (against the phone companies policy, but unenforced).
Other places; 4 phones for 64 inmates with all sorts of restrictions on time of use (not during meals, lockdowns, searches, commissary, after lights out, etc). So after a call, back of the line, and good luck getting another one in before the next shut down. Every time the doors buzzed, everyone charged the phones like the bulls of Pamplona.
And god forbid you're in confinement (not just discipline... "protective custody", sex charges, medical, psych/suicide watch, juvenile, high profile case, etc, all can get you 23+ hrs/day solitary). MAYBE once per day you could talk an officer into wheeling the phone to the door so you can make a call through the slot... the cord too short to sit or stand, so you'd have to kneel on the concrete the whole time.

And all 3 of those scenarios was in just one jail... the only constant? The obscene expense. Broke inmates constantly begged and traded meals to get people with money in their phone account to dial children and wives.
Although the phone company did do one cool thing... video visitation over the internet with anyone, anywhere in the world for like $10 for a 1 hour visit (forget exact amount; but cheap compared to regular calls).

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incorrect. All the prison does is provide a couple of phone lines that have no local or long distance calling capabilities, only 800 #s. So the prison doesn't have to worry about any of the billing since all the prisoner does is call the 800 #, enter their 16 digit "account number" that's printed on the card, and enter the number they want to call. Prisoners can call whoever they want but since the prison records ALL the calls and some even know who is using phone at which time, it's not difficult to track who's calling who.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jail is not Prison"
Really? Your right. It's worse in a lot of cases.
Wait until you have been there for three months and are willing to kill another person because they are trying to take the tray of "food" you are "served" two to three times a day that you would not feed to a stray dog before you were forced to goto jail.
I call that prison. Actually, its know as torture.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Opportunist]

So there's another reason to make sure they don't call too often. An empty cell is a cell that doesn't make money.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Technician]

It is pretty bad when many VOIP services are under $20/mo including all of the US and Canada. Other than a captive user group, there is no reason for this to exist. One or two VOIP lines on the Internet should not be a burden.

A Google Voice line is free in the US and maybe elsewhere. No need to keep funds in the account unless you want overseas calls.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is plenty of privatization in the public prisons.

Take a look at some of the contracts that are awarded for the Federal Pen (I know, my brother is there and I've seen it).

There is a whole lotta graft going on there, from food that clearly says on boxes 'not for human consumption' to a medium security facility that has more fencing and barbed wire than some maximum security facilities and who's wardens brother just happens to own a fencing business.

The 50 flat screen TVs that disappeared was rather amusing. They tossed all of the their bunks (which are only about an inch thick shit pad) and put them all on lock-down while they 'searched' for them. Where the hell they going to hide 50 TVs? You would think if a prisoner could get them out he could get himself out.

Of course, the TV thing had happened before. It's a fucking Mystery Scooby.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[jbgroup1]

I believe this was a reference to the word terms. A jail is a place that one goes for a short period of time usually under a year. Jails have more relaxed rules. A prison is for longer term holding and the rules are much stricter.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[wbr1]

As an ex prisoner you are right and wrong. While a majority of prisons are public, many services are privatized. Commissary, heath care, phones, industry, etc.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[mattack2]

For a landline call? Still sounds pretty egregious to me.

HUH? That sounds CHEAP to me. But I admit I'm comparing it to phone calls a few _decades_ ago to BBSes. Even in the same area code, or one code over.

Based on a bit of searching, the local "zones" still exist, but I can't find pricing info.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the US that has 4% of the worlds population yet 22% of the worlds prison population? Private or public, that's fucked up!

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boo fucking hoo, those poor criminals. Maybe don't steal shit and kill people next time.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[ShanghaiBill]

they are trying to take the tray of "food" you are "served" two to three times a day that you would not feed to a stray dog

When I was in jail, the food was fine. I am a vegetarian, but there were always people willing to trade my baloney for a packet of peanut butter. There was very little conflict. Mostly everyone cooperated, and did their cleaning chores, etc. It was a great opportunity to improve my conversational Spanish, and make a few friends outside my normal social network. I look back on it as an overall positive experience. This was the jail in Santa Clara County, California, so it is probably better than most.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, "the prison can't reasonably do this, nor should they be doing it"? If those are prison regulations, then there are only two possibilities: either the prison does them directly, or it contracts them to a third party.

If it does them directly, then it'll be inefficient, but they will keep direct control over it. If they contract it out, then it may cost less, but it'll also be less transparent and create more opportunities for corruption. But hey, that's OK, because no-one involved in the prison system would ever act dishonestly, right?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most calls are just running crime on the streets in code.
No calls should be allowed to a single one of them.
Except that first one to a lawyer.

How many prisoners guards hurt over phones.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[dryeo]

Telus still charges 27 cents a minute, with discounts after 5PM or on weekends and $5 a month for access to long distance, $8.95 a month for call display, and $35.95 a month for dial-up. All the plans include high speed internet so if you live somewhere with no choice but dial-up, no plans. Also no VOIP.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jails do not always have more-relaxed rules. A lot of them in Georgia are very, VERY strict compared to the state prisons. You can't even have bars of soap in some Georgia county jails. They're worried about people beating each other up with soap inside socks . . .

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. Tell you what, try going into a Georgia state prison.

If you want to call someone with the "blue phones" which are probably still managed by Global TelLink, you have to:

1). Convince the prison administration that you deserve phone usage
2). Provide them with a small list of landline phones (no cell phones!) that you wish to call
3). Convince your people on the other end to open accounts with Global TelLink into which they may deposit funds to pay for calls as they receive them

Then you plug in your GDC number and provide a recording of your voice (the first time). If the recipient accepts the call (yes, the system gives the person on the other end with a fully-funded account the option to block your call), you get connected for up to 15 minutes depending on whether or not the call is dropped. Sometimes the account gets pro-rated refunds for early hangups/dropped calls. Sometimes not.

Phone cards? You can get those in some county jails, but not the chain gang . . .

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the cell phone epidemic in some prisons. Green dots are so much cheaper.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[nbauman]

Oh boo fucking hoo, those poor criminals. Maybe don't steal shit and kill people next time.

Maybe don't be driving while black.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[mvdwege]

Because they are still human?

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, even Santa Rita isn't that bad. So long as you don't cause trouble, everyone will leave you alone.

Re:11 cents a minute?

[Agripa]

Inmates have lower recidivism rates when they keep social contacts with the family and friends. Isolating these people from society by restricting phone calls arbitrarily, and charging extortionate tolls, is not sensible policy.

It is if your job depends on having more criminals.

Good

[Zak3056]

The costs associated with jail/prison phone calls are ridiculous, and NO ONE has had any incentive to change that. The institutions get a cut, politicians don't want to me "soft on crime" and the net result is that a literally captive market, which has minimal to no resources, gets screwed into the ground.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of the FCC, but good job on their part.

Re:Good

[riskkeyesq]

I haven't yet seen anything addressing the egregious kick-back schemes provided to most sheriff offices. Perhaps I missed it. That practise needs to stop.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The costs associated with jail/prison phone calls are ridiculous, and NO ONE has had any incentive to change that. The institutions get a cut, politicians don't want to me "soft on crime" and the net result is that a literally captive market, which has minimal to no resources, gets screwed into the ground.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of the FCC, but good job on their part.

The local jail is like this, extorting money from the people who can least afford it. Spending time is custody is supposed to be the punishment, not the brutalization that is allowed to occur inside.

Re:Good

[gstoddart]

As long as people continue to believe this stuff should be ran as profit centers, this is what will happen. The Sheriff gets kickbacks, the companies who run the prisons get kickbacks.

It has nothing to do with punishment or rehabilitation, but ensuring you have as many people in prison as possible to maximize profits.

America has 20% of the world prisoner population, because America has made it profitable to keep people in prison; it's an industry worth tens of billions of dollars, and which uses prisoners as cheap labor.

It's far too profitable to stop. And it has nothing at all to do with the reason for prisons in the first place.

Essentially it's a giant tax-payer funded industry which doesn't offer much benefits to the tax-payer, and doesn't solve any problems.

But states look at them as revenue sources, and keep doing it.

This has been true for a very long time.

Re:Good

[SydShamino]

Asset seizure without due process has been in the spotlight recently, and many organizations including sheriff offices cannot simply take your stuff any more when they stop you. This is mostly due to local policy changes due to pressure from the media and activists IIRC, not any court action, so it's not ideal, but at least one blatantly unconstitutional process* is winding down.

* what SCOTUS said about it is irrelevant because they were wrong

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Had a friend tell me this one. Burkburnett Texas. A friend of his was driving a truck and had no fucking plates. Got pulled over. Both got thrown in jail overnight. In the morning the "Sheriff" came in, set the fine at I think it was $150. No idea how that came about. My friend paid that, in cash, to the Burkburnett sheriff, and off they went. No ticket. No anything. It was a long time ago. 1980 I think.

Re:Good

[Darinbob]

This is the problem. There should not be a prison "industry".

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's slavery for the modern age.

Need lots of cheap labor for your assembly line? Easy. Just find a bunch of people with limited incomes. ...now don't HIRE them...god no.

Instead find something innocuous that they do and have it classified as a crime - like, say, smoking a blunt. Now throw them all in jail.
Now you can "hire" them as inmates and the government will pay them even less than minimum wage! ...woo! ...profit!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

what SCOTUS said about it is irrelevant because they were wrong

Actually, they've change a lot in recent rulings. Why? Because some of their 1% buddies started facing civil asset seizure. Suddenly they saw the risks they didn't see before when it was blue collar criminals. What a bunch of biased hypocrites.

Re:Good

[Ichijo]

As long as people continue to believe this stuff should be ran as profit centers, this is what will happen.

Unless, of course, prisons were motivated to rehabilitate prisoners rather than keep them locked up. When prisons start doing all they can to rehabilitate prisoners in order to make their profits, they might realize that charging for phone calls is counterproductive to their bottom line, and so the profit motive will make this kind of thing actually stop.

So the profit motive isn't the problem. It's the incentives. As any economist will tell you, "incentives matter."

Re:Good

[gstoddart]

Unless, of course, prisons were motivated to rehabilitate prisoners rather than keep them locked up

They haven't been asked to do that. That's not how they've been directed.

Prison in the US is essentially puritan dictated punishment and suffering, and there is no mandate to change anything.

The for-profit prison industry isn't going to counteract a parent society which says "lock 'em up, make 'em suffer, too fucking bad what happens after they get out".

This is why there is no rehabilitation. Because the people who want mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes don't give a crap about such things.

You can't give them incentives when you have a significant portion of social conservatives who believe the entire point of incarceration is punishment and not rehabilitation.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you say this is all a taxpayer-funded shell game, but I'd be reluctant to use the word 'profitable' to describe any aspect of it. It's a form of broken window fallacy. Corruption and kickbacks means a few get rich, but it's still a massive loss to the state.

Re:Good

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Our current prison system is pretty much an updated version of the slave system. With the prison population at around double the population percentage for blacks (38% of prisoners vs 13% of the overall population)...they might not be in the fields picking cotton, but working real jobs for .$.30 an hour is about as close to slavery as you can legally get in the US.

Long Distance? Seriously?

[Jake73]

I haven't paid a "long distance" rate for over 20 years. Prisons should just drop phone companies altogether and go with someone like Vonage for dramatically cheaper domestic calling.

so....15 minute calls

[zlives]

15 minute calls are now 1.65 where as before they were 1.65?

Re:so....15 minute calls

[Darinbob]

No, they used to be $14 a minute.

Re:so....15 minute calls

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

And many times these companies will charge the people their calling, ESPECIALLY if it's a cell phone. When I worked at AT&T as a CSR, I had many calls with repeated $15-$20 charges that came from various "prison call services" from the jailed persons family who suddenly had a $300 cell phone bill from talking to their incarcerated loved one for a few minutes.

not enough

[BradMajors]

A simpler and fairer solution could have been the requirement that the price charged for inmate calls must equal the price charged for prison staff calls.

Re:not enough

[cdrudge]

So you want prisoners to continued to be screwed over, while also screwing over the prison staff as well?

Re:not enough

[loonycyborg]

Why are inmates charged in the first place? Their calls are already limited by prison rules, it would make sense for prison to pay for the calls just like the prison covers their other necessities. The prison itself is in a far better bargaining position and would be able to get fair rates from phone companies, thus fixing this market failure and resulting in greater economic efficiency.

Re:not enough

[viperidaenz]

prison staff have cell phones, and why are they making personal calls on the work phone?

Prisoners need a Call

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to answer that call from AT&T about 10 cents a minute plans . . .

It will be less profitable for the Republican's...

[Anonymous Coward]

thugs in blue to constantly put us in jail. Put us in jail. Think this will slow down their constant picking of people at random to put in jail? Put in jail? That is what they do. They make profit by picking people at random to put in jail.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

While a great move forward, this does nothing for county prisons which do the same nonsense.

I'll never forget making a call for another inmate because he couldn't afford it and having to tell him that his 4 year
old daughter was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis.

The analysis surrounding "in-state" calls versus not is extremely misleading because it isn't how that works. Locality of call isn't decided by being "in the state" so much as being very area code and region specific. You may live in county X, your area code is county X, but lo- and behold- you aren't "technically local" according to the phone company. Yep, 10 minute call later $20+.

I've always wanted to thank GoogleVoice for making inmates lives' a better place as a result of being able to pick arbitrarily local numbers and saving inmates hundreds of dollars.

Good I guess

[MBGMorden]

The story mentions prisons - I'm not sure if short-term jails are included in this but I hope so.

While I've never personally had to make any calls, my sister was arrested (DUI) once, and being a nervous wreck was calling me - nearly hourly- until we got bail posted. The collect calls - often lasting no more than 2-3 minutes, were charged at a flat rate of $15 per call. A one night stay ended up costing me over $200 just in collect phone call charges before I eventually just had to tell her that I wouldn't accept any more calls.

Re:Good I guess

[MalleusEBHC]

I was arrested for contempt of cop once, and I had a similar experience. When I tried to call my family, they all told me that they got an automated recording with instructions to create an account and pay for the collect call to a cell phone. While they were trying to navigate this onerous system for the opportunity to pay exorbitant amounts of money to talk to me, I'm sitting in a jail cell wondering if I'm ever going to get a hold of them.

Getting arrested is traumatic enough already, and the assholes trying to wring dollars out of a captive audience make it that much worse. Kudos to the FCC for taking a significant step to remedy the problem.

Re:Good I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

I was arrested for contempt of cop once, and I had a similar experience. When I tried to call my family, they all told me that they got an automated recording with instructions to create an account and pay for the collect call to a cell phone. While they were trying to navigate this onerous system for the opportunity to pay exorbitant amounts of money to talk to me, I'm sitting in a jail cell wondering if I'm ever going to get a hold of them.

Getting arrested is traumatic enough already, and the assholes trying to wring dollars out of a captive audience make it that much worse. Kudos to the FCC for taking a significant step to remedy the problem.

This. Since we're talking about jails and prisons (not just prisons), you have to realize that city and county jails throughout the USA contain arrestees who are, in fact, innocent of any crime and may never actually be charged with one.

Re:It will be less profitable for the Republican's

[Anonymous Coward]

If the police are the thugs of the Republicans, how come they act most thuggish in cities run by Democrats?

I pay more

[AndyKron]

That's less than my pre-paid phone.

Re:I pay more

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider it a stupid tax.

If you are paying more than 11 cents a minute on a pre-paid phone, you are an epic moron.

Re: It will be less profitable for the Republican'

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are no real Demicrats in the US. There are just various levels of corporate fascists.

20 centers per minute? Shock and Horror.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked at some MVNOs and the prices vary. Some do ten cents a minute (I've seen higher). Others 5 cents. The Sprint and T-Mobile ones can go very low.

My point is, 20 cents per minute isn't that much.

Now the FCC just needs to...

[surfdaddy]

Now the FCC just needs to address egregious cell phone charges and egregious internet/ISP charges and TV/Cable company charges. Why should we have to pay extra for HD? Or for a cable box when we're already paying for cable? Why is the internet cost without TV from my cable provider like 80% of the cost of basic cable alone? And what about all those junk taxes, fees, charges, recovery fees, etc.? It's a huge set of scams.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the internet cost without TV from my cable provider like 80% of the cost of basic cable alone?

I'm sure that some of it is price gouging because they can, as you are implying.

But also consider that there's a fixed cost in maintaining the line into your house. Then the cost of each service on top of that. So if you want just Internet service, you pay the base maintenance fee + Internet fee. If you want TV and Internet service, you pay the base maintenance fee + TV + Internet fee. And so on and so forth.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

Or for a cable box when we're already paying for cable?

Or allowing every cable company an exemption to the CableCARD requirement. What's the point of mandating something when everyone gets an exemption like free candy?

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[Anonymous Coward]

or making us rent the boxes and cable cards in the first place. once upon a time you subscribed to basic or expanded basic, or even some premium pay-per-channels, and you simply used your catv-ready television or vcr or tivo.. no problem.....

catv-ready exists in the digitial world, it's called clearqam, and cable companies could use the same fucking tech, in-line frequency traps, just like they did in the olden-days to restrict who got what. we have 2 vcr, 3 pc tuner, and a tivo that are obsolete now.. instead of giving-in to cable company and paying 20-40+ a month for dvr or cable cards (plus hardware in that case)... we just dont watch as much, or we limit ourselves to what's on the on demand menu (sorry cw.. no more arrow or flash.. since you fuckers dont do on demand on all systems like every other broadcast network does)

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[mrchaotica]

What I want to know is, WTF happened to "any lawful device?!" (Other than the obvious answer -- FCC corruption -- that is.) There's no reason the Carterphone decision shouldn't apply to cable networks just as well as it does to phone networks.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

Any lawful device is essentially what Cablecard was supposed to solve. The card handling the DRM that prevented non-subscribers from accessing channels they're not subscribed to. Instead of updating the standard to handle switched video properly, every cable company immediately wanted this as an excuse to drop CableCARD.

At this point, though, we don't even have "bring any device" with cell phones. The carrier has to approve every device model, not just the FCC.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[mrchaotica]

On the contrary; any lawful device is what ClearQAM solved! CableCard was the cable cartel's trojan horse to defeat it.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

ClearQAM is fine for local channels - though even that is rarely unencrypted (but I'm an Internet-only subscriber, so I shouldn't have access anyway). It requires a lot more hardware functionality if you're a subscriber but don't have access to all channels. Rather than the old RF notch filter, you don't have to worry about any signal loss with encryption. Just give everyone all the signal and leave it up to the access control device.

How do you keep an Internet-only cable subscriber from getting free HBO without degrading your service?

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[mrchaotica]

How do you keep an Internet-only cable subscriber from getting free HBO without degrading your service?

Don't know; don't care; not my problem. Maybe the answer is, "you don't!"

The issue is that DRMing everything and effectively overturning Carterphone should not be an allowable "solution." If your business model conflicts with a good law, then it's your business model, not the law, that needs to change!

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

It's not business model or the law. It's hardware/technology.

I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but using it doesn't overturn Carterfone if CableCARD or equivalent is available. You don't complain about having to stick a SIM card in your cell phone. This is essentially the same thing.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[mrchaotica]

It's not business model or the law. It's hardware/technology.

Bull. Non-DRM'd cable TV worked just fine in the analog era. If switching to digital makes that use-case stop working, it just means that whoever designed the digital system fucked up. This is by no means something that "couldn't" be done -- that much is proven by the fact that it was done with analog -- it's just that the cable cartel chose not to do it because they don't give a shit about consumer rights, and the regulatory-captured FCC let them get away with it.

I'm not a huge fan of DRM, but using it doesn't overturn Carterfone if CableCARD or equivalent is available.

Again, bull. The entire point of CableCARD (form the cable cartel's perspective) is that it allowed them to pay lip service to third-party devices while making it as difficult as possible to actually use them. Remember, the cable cartel ran the certification process for hardware whose makers wanted it to be compatible with CableCARD -- which is why there are only very few CableCARD computer TV capture devices on the market, and (IIRC) all but one (the exception being the HDHomeRun) only allow the stream to be captured to Windows Media Center's DRM'd media format. Constructing a Free Software DVR (e.g. MythTV) that works with CableCARD is many orders of magnitude harder than it ought to be.

The way it should work is that DRM should simply be illegal in the first place, so the cable company would not be in a position to be gatekeepers at all.

You don't complain about having to stick a SIM card in your cell phone. This is essentially the same thing.

Of course I complain about that! Carriers should absolutely not be allowed to pick and choose what devices get used on their network (other than blocking devices without a valid and paid account or which are attacking the network, obviously).

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

First of all, people didn't have cable TV lines hooked up to their house in the analog era. Second, premium channels were locked out with analog equivalent of DRM.

It's true that CableCARD went too far by most cable providers not allowing recording by default on any channels - even when the content companies didn't ask them to. It was totally possible for an HDHomerun CableCARD device to record as long as the record/copy flags were set to allow. The fact that they had this capability as part of the standard is the one part that is absolutely wrong.

Of course I complain about that! Carriers should absolutely not be allowed to pick and choose what devices get used on their network (other than blocking devices without a valid and paid account or which are attacking the network, obviously).

And what about one device impersonating another device? The SIM card does that. In very much the same way that CableCARD does what it does.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

First of all, people didn't have cable TV lines hooked up to their house in the analog era

That is, if they weren't subscribers to cable TV.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[mrchaotica]

First of all, people didn't have cable TV lines hooked up to their house in the analog era.

Of course they did! How do you think cable TV worked in the '80s, '90s and early 2000s? Haven't you ever heard of an (analog) "cable-ready" TV?

It's true that CableCARD went too far by most cable providers not allowing recording by default on any channels - even when the content companies didn't ask them to. It was totally possible for an HDHomerun CableCARD device to record as long as the record/copy flags were set to allow. The fact that they had this capability as part of the standard is the one part that is absolutely wrong.

No, CableCARD went too far by allowing the flag disabling recording to exist. Being on by default is beside the point.

And what about one device impersonating another device? The SIM card does that. In very much the same way that CableCARD does what it does.

Nobody's complaining about a hardware authentication token, but both SIM cards and CableCARDs go way, way beyond that. There's no reason for either of those things to even know the model number of the device they're plugged into! Literally, the only thing they should actually "need" to do is give the appropriate response to the authentication request.

Re:Now the FCC just needs to...

[omnichad]

Of course they did! How do you think cable TV worked in the '80s, '90s and early 2000s?

I left out a few words. Did you see my follow-up comment? They didn't have lines hooked up if they weren't subscribers to TV. Now that's more commonplace (Internet-only subscribers).

No, CableCARD went too far by allowing the flag disabling recording to exist. Being on by default is beside the point.

Right, but the rest of the DRM on CableCARD is perfectly agreeable to me. And many markets did allow recording.

good thing

[DNS-and-BIND]

A lot of people like prison calls to be blocked. The prisoners call frequently and have nothing to say. The calls add up and the girlfriend/wife doesn't want to talk to him. They were grateful when I contacted them and informed them prison calls would be blocked due to nonpayment. Just a little inconvenient truth to disrupt the "TEH CORPORASHUNS" comments that are infesting the thread.

Re:good thing

[Cederic]

Yeah. Damn those lonely prisoners desperate for human contact and interested in their families and friends, trying to maintain relationships and prepare for life once released.

How about the girlfriend/wife just be honest about it, say "stop calling me" or arrange a time when it wont inconvenience their life of luxurious freedom.

If you want calls blocked, just block them. Excessive abusive pricing is not needed for this, so your entire entire point is moot.

Cue the complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCCis interfering in a free market! This government overreach will go out of control and ruin the lives of prisoners across the country!

Let's go after addiction treatment centers next

[Anonymous Coward]

$8.00 in quarters for a 4 minute phone call once per week, when the facility was already bilking my insurance more than $500/day for me to be there. Absolute nonsense, worse than the prisons in the article were charging. I wish I'd been able to take a picture of that payphone and its rate card to be featured on the back of 2600.

When you're down and out in America, that's when they'll fuck you the most.

Re:Let's go after addiction treatment centers next

[Anonymous Coward]

> When you're down and out in America, that's when they'll fuck you the most.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves about America. The social structure and care about each other is horrific.

Re:20 centers per minute? Shock and Horror.

[rjstanford]

That's $12/hour for a f'n landline, not a no-credit-check mobile. Our commercial POTS lines with unlimited long distance and all the other features run about $35/mo for comparison.

Its also extorting money from our most vulnerable, making it harder for them to stay in touch with the outside world which in turn makes it more likely that they will reoffend (and cost the state far more money later, if that's the only way to measure these things).

Its almost as if people making these policies have some kind of incentive to keep people coming back to jail. Weird...

What about the military?

[dhawton]

Having recently served a just over 3 year stint on an Aircraft Carrier, AT&T was charging us 50 cents per minute for a call and would only accept phone cards. Even toll free numbers were 50 cents a minute. Felt like highway robbery to try and call home.

Re:Long Distance? Seriously?

[Darinbob]

Well, they "should" do that. But almost all prisons used one of two different services. Those services jacked up the rates, then kicked back a share of the profits to the prisons to ensure that they continued to have the business. The prisons were not the ones paying any per-minute fees. They don't care how much the prisoners end up paying, and they're unlikely to shop around for better service out of the goodness of their hearts.

Back in the day.... Hotels

[essbase_nerd]

Remember the 1990s, before everyone had a cell phone, and hotels charged around $2.00 for a local call, and $2.00 + $2.00/minute for domestic long distance?

I do, I was a hotel general manager at the time, and it was common to see a $25, $50, even $100 dollars in long distance calls on a guest room folio. If the guest complained, we'd give them a 50% discount, and still make out like bandits. I say bandits, because we were practically robbing the guests. I hated it, but had no control over the company-wide phone contracts and required fees.

Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

If justice was applied equally in the US to all members of our society then I would say throw the book at 'em, but since no executives are in prison for nearly destroying our economy in 2008, for repeatedly gaming the financial system, for polluting our environment, and for generally acting with impunity we should be sensitive to the people in prison even if we ourselves don't commit any crimes.

The prison system is a trap for the poor and the mentally ill. Once people have a non-expungeable felony record, they can't get good work anymore so the penalty for committing a felony for poor people is essentially a life sentence. That's why people re-offend. Wealthy people can commit as many felonies as they want, and as we all know from OJ Simpson they can even get away with murder. It's a huge news story when a rich person actually has to pay for his or her misdeeds. Even when they do, Martha Stewart won't have any trouble getting work with her felony record! Poor people can't steal a sack of potatoes when they're hungry without getting arrested and adding to their rap sheet.

they're fucking criminals, already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is anyone wasting time on the rights of criminals?

There are lots of things that need righting in the tax-paying, non-criminal world to be wasting time on people who have committed crimes.

Once the world of the good guy, tax-paying non-criminals is in balance, *then* you can investigate the world of the criminals.

Besides, a little bit of crime against criminals, even if it is just egregious phone rates sounds pretty fair to me.

Re:they're fucking criminals, already!

[Cederic]

You're not a nice person. You're also using very juvenile logic that disregards real world complexities, social nuances, impacts on the people being called (who aren't criminals), longer term implications and other factors.

Are you twelve?

Why do they get calls anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are convicted criminals. Other than to contact their attorney, why let them call at all? Next you will tell me they get free cable TV and A/C.

They chose to be there due to decisions they made, it should not be fun and games.

Re:Why do they get calls anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are convicted criminals. Other than to contact their attorney, why let them call at all? Next you will tell me they get free cable TV and A/C.

They chose to be there due to decisions they made, it should not be fun and games.

Agree! I notice the FCC news release definitely includes "jails". Good thing there are absolutely no innocent people awaiting trial or bailing out in any city or county jails in the entire USA.

Re: Why do they get calls anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be white.

The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

The call costs are proportional to staffing. This, in turn, is proportional to the number of phones available for prisoner use.

I have family members who are on the corrections side of things, rather than the prisoner side of things.

1. All calls must be monitored by a human.
2. All calls involve a human operator asking the target of the call if they will accept the call.
3. As the number of phones goes up, the number of humans you have to hire to do this simultaneously goes up.

So the immediate consequence of this will be a reduction in staffing, a reduction in the number of available phones for prisoners to use, and a reduction in the time windows during which the phones are allowed to be used by the prisoners. This will down-limit the overhead to the point that the 11 cents rate can cover those costs. I have a second cousin who's probably going to lose her job over it.

This does not seem to be a worthwhile decision, on behalf of the prisoners. It sounds more like a decision based on a false understanding of the circumstances involved in prison phone calls.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[PopeRatzo]

1. All calls must be monitored by a human.

Why? The guy is already in fucking prison.

2. All calls involve a human operator asking the target of the call if they will accept the call.

You haven't made a collect call in a while, have you. "If you accept the charges, press 1" No human is needed.

3. As the number of phones goes up, the number of humans you have to hire to do this simultaneously goes up.

See 1 and 2.

And let's not forget that the prisons get kickback from the telcos when prisoners are overcharged for calls. And not just to "cover costs", either. They get a nice bowl of gravy from the 2 or 3 companies that provide phones for prisoners.

Finally, this might be a worthwhile time to ask, "Why the FUCK are there so many people in prison in the US?" We have about 4% of the world's population and about 22% of the world's prisoners. Are Americans just a lot more likely to be prisoners? Are we prone to crime because we watched The Untouchables reruns on TV? Do we have a higher percentage of violent sociopaths or is it because keeping people locked up takes away their right to vote, and the people who are in power cannot stay in power if lots of people vote?

I have a second cousin who's probably going to lose her job over it.

Maybe help your second cousin wean herself off getting a government check and find a job in a productive part of the economy.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

1. All calls must be monitored by a human.

Why? The guy is already in fucking prison.

To prevent someone from continuing to operate a criminal enterprise from behind bars. To prevent them from arranging smuggling of contraband. To prevent them from arranging completion of the criminal activities that landed them in prison by third parties. To prevent them ordering hits. To prevent them from communicating to other suspects in an ongoing investigation that it's still ongoing. To prevent communication of attempts by law enforcement to obtain information regarding other criminals still at large.

In short, because bad guys are bad guys.

2. All calls involve a human operator asking the target of the call if they will accept the call.

You haven't made a collect call in a while, have you. "If you accept the charges, press 1" No human is needed.

I've had a non-collect call from a prisoner before. There was still an operator telling me who was calling, where they were calling from, and asking if I wanted to accept the call. I declined (it was a wrong number).

However, even if it's a right number, you may not want to take the call. It could be for the purposes of ongoing harassment of a victim, of the type that landed the person in prison in the first place. It could be for the purposes of witness intimidation. It could be for the purpose of jury tampering in an ongoing criminal case. In most instances, when asked this question, you have the option of telling the operator that you do not want to receive such calls from this prisoner in the future -- or to blacklist your number for any prisoner from that facility.

3. As the number of phones goes up, the number of humans you have to hire to do this simultaneously goes up.

See 1 and 2.

And let's not forget that the prisons get kickback from the telcos when prisoners are overcharged for calls. And not just to "cover costs", either. They get a nice bowl of gravy from the 2 or 3 companies that provide phones for prisoners.

I can't speak to the kickbacks (never having observed the practice). Your complaints against my points #1 and #2 do nothing to impeach my point #3.

Finally, this might be a worthwhile time to ask, "Why the FUCK are there so many people in prison in the US?" We have about 4% of the world's population and about 22% of the world's prisoners. Are Americans just a lot more likely to be prisoners? Are we prone to crime because we watched The Untouchables reruns on TV? Do we have a higher percentage of violent sociopaths or is it because keeping people locked up takes away their right to vote, and the people who are in power cannot stay in power if lots of people vote?

Many states allow prisoners to vote absentee. IMO, it shouldn't be allowed, but felony disenfranchisement is permitted under two of the amendments (the 5th and 14th, via the "due process" clauses in each of them), and it's more or less a states rights issue when enforcing state law as to what constitutes a disenfranchisable offense, under the law, for which a due process application can be made to the prisoner's voting rights.

As to why there are so many prisoners: they were convicted under the law by a jury of their peers. If you don't like this, work to change the law. Yes, a lot of them are drug related offenses which would not merit prison time in other countries. Just as abortion in the U.S. does not merit prison time, as it does in parts of Europe.

The U.S. is also significantly more multicultural than Europe, being an almost entirely immigrant nation, and the recent (historically speaking) emphasis on multiculturalism and political correctness have led to a lot of cultural conflict that wasn't there before.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[PopeRatzo]

To prevent someone from continuing to operate a criminal enterprise from behind bars. To prevent them from arranging smuggling of contraband.

What kind of "continuing criminal enterprise" is a guy who's been convicted of a DUI going to operate? The justice system has already identified the criminal bosses, but they're monitoring the calls of everyone who is incarcerated.

I've had a non-collect call from a prisoner before. There was still an operator telling me who was calling, where they were calling from, and asking if I wanted to accept the call. I declined (it was a wrong number).

That's because the prisons are fiefdoms to hand out jobs to friends and family.

The U.S. is also significantly more multicultural than Europe, being an almost entirely immigrant nation, and the recent (historically speaking) emphasis on multiculturalism and political correctness have led to a lot of cultural conflict that wasn't there before.

Fifty percent of the people in prison are there for drug violations, not because of "cultural conflict". In fact, the number of people in prison for "cultural conflict" is probably vanishingly small. But good try.

Perhaps she can go back to work at the IRS or as a 911 dispatcher. But I guess, as government jobs, those are unproductive parts of the economy as well, by your lights?

At least IRS workers and 911 dispatchers contribute something to society. Warehousing the poor does not contribute to society. And are government jobs the only choice for your second cousin?

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

To prevent someone from continuing to operate a criminal enterprise from behind bars. To prevent them from arranging smuggling of contraband.

What kind of "continuing criminal enterprise" is a guy who's been convicted of a DUI going to operate?

Depends. Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion. Are you saying his calls should or should not have been more closely monitored than any other tax evader?

The justice system has already identified the criminal bosses, but they're monitoring the calls of everyone who is incarcerated.

Yes. They are. The prisoners lost the right to private phone calls through due process of law. It doesn't matter what they are convicted of. It also guards against one prisoner using another prisoner to pass messages on their behalf.

I've had a non-collect call from a prisoner before. There was still an operator telling me who was calling, where they were calling from, and asking if I wanted to accept the call. I declined (it was a wrong number).

That's because the prisons are fiefdoms to hand out jobs to friends and family.

I pretty much have no idea in heck how what you just said relates to the statement to which you are replying. Are you claiming that, because the last kitchen worker hired at Lompoc was, say the nephew of the assistant warden's golf buddy, that the call I received was pre-screened by an operator who was totally unrelated, and whose job it was to prescreen calls?

The U.S. is also significantly more multicultural than Europe, being an almost entirely immigrant nation, and the recent (historically speaking) emphasis on multiculturalism and political correctness have led to a lot of cultural conflict that wasn't there before.

Fifty percent of the people in prison are there for drug violations, not because of "cultural conflict". In fact, the number of people in prison for "cultural conflict" is probably vanishingly small. But good try.

I'm ignoring the other 50%, as you did.

They were convicted of a criminal act, defined as breaking a legally enacted law, and being convicted by a jury of their peers of having broken that law, and then sentenced in accordance to (sometimes legally mandatory) sentencing guidelines.

As I said before: either work to change the law, or don't engage in the illegal activity, or don't get caught doing it.

Culture conflict is the basis of a lot of violence, and a lot of crime against persons. Almost every hate crime has its basis in a culture conflict, whether recent, or ongoing over hundreds of years. To the extent that you agree that there is such a thing as a "drug culture", then drug crimes are crimes due to culture conflict.

Warehousing the poor does not contribute to society. And are government jobs the only choice for your second cousin?

I agree that warehousing the poor does not contribute to society. However, you have completely failed to establish that prisons exist to warehouse the poor, or that laws are enacted to criminalize being poor. I'll agree to some correlation between being an addict and being poor, but I won't agree that there is a causation in one direction or the other (i.e. are they poor because they spend all their money on addictive drugs?, etc.).

And it doesn't *matter* what her job choices are, since you are basing your value judgement of her on your prejudices, and have not demonstrated that criminals do not need to be monitored, regardless of their crimes.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[PopeRatzo]

Depends. Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion. Are you saying his calls should or should not have been more closely monitored than any other tax evader?

This may shock you, but when the Feds put Al Capone away for tax evasion, they had a pretty good idea that he was the head of a large criminal enterprise. Maybe you're too young to have seen "The Untouchables".

And it doesn't *matter* what her job choices are, since you are basing your value judgement of her on your prejudices, and have not demonstrated that criminals do not need to be monitored, regardless of their crimes.

1: What is the purpose of monitoring the phone calls of someone who has been convicted of selling five ounces of weed? Or someone who has been convicted of a DUI? Do you think he might be operating an ongoing criminal enterprise of drunk drivers?

2: I'm surprised that you're not more ashamed of promoting government's failed policies just so a family member can keep a government job.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

Depends. Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion. Are you saying his calls should or should not have been more closely monitored than any other tax evader?

This may shock you, but when the Feds put Al Capone away for tax evasion, they had a pretty good idea that he was the head of a large criminal enterprise. Maybe you're too young to have seen "The Untouchables".

It doesn't surprise me at all.

You have once again failed to answer my question. So I will rephrase it.

(1) Should the feds have placed the same scrutiny on Al Capones phone calls, based on his conviction for tax evasion, as they would for any other tax evader, OR
(2) Should the feds have placed *more* scrutiny on Al Capone alone, thus violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment

Pick one.

1: What is the purpose of monitoring the phone calls of someone who has been convicted of selling five ounces of weed?

It prevents someone in the same cell block from using them as a covert channel in order to avoid monitoring their own communications. In other words, their unmonitored communications can not be utilized to avoid the monitoring of other people whose communications *MUST* be monitored, due to the heinousness of their crimes.

Or someone who has been convicted of a DUI?

It prevents someone in the same cell block from using them as a covert channel in order to avoid monitoring their own communications. In other words, their unmonitored communications can not be utilized to avoid the monitoring of other people whose communications *MUST* be monitored, due to the heinousness of their crimes.

They may have also been convicted of the DUI, while the authorities had a pretty good idea that they were the head of a large criminal enterprise. In order to avoid a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, they must monitor everyone not specifically convicted equally.

Do you think he might be operating an ongoing criminal enterprise of drunk drivers?

It's a low probability scenario.

In addition to the reasons already cited, he might have a better lawyer purchased for him by someone operating an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in human trafficking (as an example) in exchange for his services in passing messages in order to enable *them* to continue to operate a criminal enterprise.

Just because P1 (prisoner one) can't talk directly to C1 (Criminal organization one), doesn't mean that they would not be able to tale to P2 and have them talk to C1 on their behalf. If we only monitored P1's communication, you are suggesting that:

P1 -> C1 : NOT ALLOWED!
P1 -> P2 -> C1 : ALLOWED! HAPPY CRIMINALS!

That's just stupid, since you can't monitor communications between prisoners... you can't wire-tap people (yet).

2: I'm surprised that you're not more ashamed of promoting government's failed policies just so a family member can keep a government job.

YOU are the government. You don't seem to be getting this part of how it works. If you want to stop continuation of failed governmental policies, then damn well vote in people who will discontinue them, and quit bitching about the status quo. Bitching will not change the status quo. Putting different people in charge *will*.

I'm not *promoting* their policies for any reason, particularly not to protect a job.

I'm saying that the idea that laws derived from governmental policy -- as all laws are -- should be equally enforced.

This is *entirely* disjoint from the discussion on the methods of enforcement.

I would, for example, be willing to state that monitoring *only* the communications of convicted leaders of criminal enterprises, if *you* were willing to have it made impossible for them to communicate with any other prisoners.

Personally, I do not think placing all prisoners in solitary confinement is a workable strategy.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice you attempt to cite "the law" quite a bit in your post demanding we ignore every americans constitutional right to speak with their lawyer.

Can you elaborate why you believe the constitution is wrong and we should ignore the right of people to speak with their lawyers?

What about the plausible situation of YOU being put in jail for not committing a crime (perfectly legal to do) and being denied your constitutional right to speak with a lawyer or anyone else (something you claim should be legal)?

I have a suspicion if you were simply kidnapped and your family and legal council was not allowed to know where you are, while the government claims you must have committed suicide (thus charging your family all of the costs of your "crime" of killing yourself) all the while you are rotting away in prison with no court case, charges against you, or legal council to defend yourself with, you would be bitching up a storm.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

I notice you attempt to cite "the law" quite a bit in your post demanding we ignore every americans constitutional right to speak with their lawyer.

Can you elaborate why you believe the constitution is wrong and we should ignore the right of people to speak with their lawyers?

You need to quote where you believe I stated that. I did not.

This is not my position. In general, there are private conference rooms in which prisoners are allowed to confer with their lawyers, either in person, or via telephone. This is totally separate from going to the phone on the wall after standing in line, and conversing in front of the other prisoners.

Personally, I wouldn't trust a conversation with the lawyer over the telephone, even one set aside for that purpose in a conference room; I would also state that if your lawyer is worth having at all, i.e. not just screwing you out of fees, they are going to show up in person.

What about the plausible situation of YOU being put in jail for not committing a crime (perfectly legal to do) and being denied your constitutional right to speak with a lawyer or anyone else (something you claim should be legal)?

Please quote where you believe I stated that, since I never did.

For the record, I believe that this would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, specifically it would be a violation of habeas corpus. While this *does* happen, it's as a result of a (mis)application of the Patriot Act, and the government has backed down in every instance where it looked to be tested in court, since were it tested in court, they could no longer do it and hide behind any screen of individual plausible deniability.

I have a suspicion if you were simply kidnapped and your family and legal council was not allowed to know where you are, while the government claims you must have committed suicide (thus charging your family all of the costs of your "crime" of killing yourself) all the while you are rotting away in prison with no court case, charges against you, or legal council to defend yourself with, you would be bitching up a storm.

Yeah. I would. However, as a suspected terrorist with no access to the Internet, I probably would not be doing so by posting as an AC on Slashdot.

BTW: if you have ever been denied access to a lawyer... that's unconstitutional. You should definitely speak to a lawyer about being denied access to a lawyer, since you've probably got a pretty good basis for a lawsuit.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[PopeRatzo]

(2) Should the feds have placed *more* scrutiny on Al Capone alone, thus violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment

You better go back and re-read the 14th Amendment. If it required all prisoners to be treated exactly the same, there'd be no such thing as solitary confinement.

Re:The call costs are proportional to staffing.

[tlambert]

(2) Should the feds have placed *more* scrutiny on Al Capone alone, thus violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment

You better go back and re-read the 14th Amendment. If it required all prisoners to be treated exactly the same, there'd be no such thing as solitary confinement.

You are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum argument.

He was entitled to equal protection under the law, and therefore equal treatment, under the law.

Yes, if he had chewed another prisoners face off, he would have been put in solitary -- just as any other prisoner who had chewed someone's face off would have been placed in solitary.

Equality of treatment is why there are sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimums and mandatory maximums "... to serve a sentence of not less than five year, nor more than 15 years ..." written into laws.

But yes, if you attack a guard, you will be beaten with a tonfa ("night stick") by multiple guards, while the other prisoners who did not attack the guard are not being "treated the same".

Everything "law" related is egregious

[WaffleMonster]

Lawyers, monitoring/ankle bracelets, ignition interlocks, "bail bonds", calling. I talked to someone a few months ago running a prison phone system. The basic gist many jails farm management out to one of a few providers who charge obscene rates and get away with it because those running the prisons don't care and don't want to deal with it. The very same story constantly repeats itself in government purchasing and health care. When its not your money you unsurprisingly tend not to care.

What is more egregious are stories I've heard first hand about ankle bracelets and how companies are able to get judges to basically demand a specific provider be used who unsurprisingly charge insane rates. Buy this or jail == $$$$$$$ profit $$$$$$$$

Re:Everything "law" related is egregious

[Anonymous Coward]

'Merica! Land of the awesome profit! (at the expense of everything else)

Sure it does

[rsilvergun]

It's totally sensible policy. Higher recidivism means higher profits for private prisons and the industry around them. You gotta keep those non-violent offenders coming back. You can't make good money off just the violent psychos, too expensive to house and you'll never get your fees out of 'em since they're crazy.

Not really

[rsilvergun]

Prison staff would just use their cell phone or (worst case) wait till their shift is over since, well, it's not like they're prisoners or anything. You're also assuming the wage slaves working for $15/hr at a prison have any pull, which is just silly.

This is why I hate 'simple' solutions. The sound good but are almost always unworkable. Yours was a little easier to point out the problems with, try doing the same with something like Supply Side Economics...

Re: Not really

[jonbryce]

How much does the prison itself pay for staff to make business calls, like for example to a supplier to order some stuff?

This is kind of a big deal

[rsilvergun]

It's the first time in a long time I've heard us doing something that has a net positive outcome for prisoners. Americans just love to hurt and punish people that aren't their own, especially the lower castes. This sort of thing used to be politically unthinkable. I know Obama is done, but this sort of thing would normally sink the next Democrat's election campaign. Everyone's terrified of suffering the same fate as Dukakis. E.g. losing to someone who had no business winning because you were 'soft on crime'...

needs to be like airlines pricing law also hotels

[Joe_Dragon]

needs to be like airlines pricing law also hotels where the base rate must have all taxes and forced fees as part of it.

Some ISP force you to rent there gateway it it's not part of the base rate.

collect calls as well?

[Joe_Dragon]

Some bail bonds places take therm and they can only change the the max rate % of the bond.

Re:It will be less profitable for the Republican's

[Anonymous Coward]

The police still remain Republican, and resent the people who run the city, so they act out.

Prison or Mental Institution?

[trout007]

From what I have read the reason the US has such a large prison population is because of the civil liberties granted to the mentally Ill starting in the 1970's. Our policy now is nobody can be involuntary committed unless they commit a crime. So in all other countries they take people who are mentally ill and put them in an asylum which is basically a prison anyway. In the US you are free unless you are convicted of a crime. Then you go to prison.

Re:Prison or Mental Institution?

[mrchaotica]

For that to be true, you need to cite statistics showing that other countries have a similarly gigantic proportion of their population institutionalized in asylums.

Re:Prison or Mental Institution?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I have read the reason the US has such a large prison population is because of the civil liberties granted to the mentally Ill starting in the 1970's.

Close. But it's not giving civil liberties to the ill that is the problem. In other countries they have welfare systems that go some way to treating mental illness so sufferers don't have to be locked away from the community at all.

Re:Prison or Mental Institution?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need to be locked in asylums, they just need treatment. But when the raving homeless guy on the corner refuses to take his medicines and becomes violent, in the US it is illegal to make him take the pills that keep him sane and calm.

But it is perfectly alright to lock him up in prison. Go liberal 'justice'?

Re:Prison or Mental Institution?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Much of the current population stems from the Reagen / CIA produced crack cocaine epidemic in the 80's. The Feds basically created their own monster. And, here's a source!, there are many more out there. "Freeway: Crack in the System" is on netflix even.

Re:Prison or Mental Institution?

[trout007]

In the US you can't force treatment on people.

Re:Won't someone please think of the criminals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron

If you want a revolving door at the prison, keep the prisoners from being able to stay in contact with family.

Nothing

[rsilvergun]

They're employees. They get paid to work there. Business expenses don't come out of their pay. Their pay is the lowest amount the owners can pay and still get employees. You think private prisons are mom and pop shops or something?

Re:Nothing

[jonbryce]

I'm not suggesting that employees do pay for business expenses. I'm suggesting that the company will seek the best deal for the communications services that it obtains for its own use, and should get the same deal for inmates' phones and recharge that price.

Tough on crime.

[TapeCutter]

The US telco industry is proof that monopolies are inefficient, likewise 6 out of every 7 US prisons should also go out of business. I dare say that lowering the US prison population by 80-90% (to be in line with EU, China, AU, etc) would save the US taxpayer a hell of lot more money than overcharging prisoners for phone calls. However, the US prison system is not just inefficient and greedy, it's sociopathic and unnecessarily destructive.

Whoops, misread your post

[rsilvergun]

as "prison staff" instead of just "prison". So let me answer your point again:

Still nothing. Private prisons are profit centers driven by graft and corruption, mostly by Dick Cheney (seriously, look it up, he's heavily invested in them and a substantial amount of his fortune is derived from them). The costs are just passed onto the tax payer. Worse, the entire _point_ of the system _is_ the costs. It's all there to raise more money for everyone dipping their beaks in. Want to raise the fees? Go right ahead. We'll raise taxes higher and borrow as much money needed to be 'tough on crime'. Meanwhile the people you're 'punishing' will be laughing all the way to the bank while they pocket the money from the fees one way or another. Either by investing in private prisons or the phone companies that service them or both.

The necessary corollary...

[tlambert]

The necessary corollary... is the analogy between monitoring all public communications vs. monitoring all prisoner communications.

In this scenario, the case can only be made that it is reasonable to monitor *everyones* communications in order to monitor *terrorist* communications is based on three false premises:

(1) The terrorists have been convicted
(2) The public are prisoners of the government
(3) The U.S. is a police state

Since none of these are true, the analogy does not hold. So if that's what you were working toward, you might as well give up now.

The usual 3-2 vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything useful that the FCC has done recently has been by 3 votes from Democratic appointees vs. 2 votes from Republican appointees.

Re:Won't someone please think of the criminals?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words you want prisoners to be rewarded for breaking the fucking law? Bravo, you win asshat of the year award. Then you bleeding heart lieberal dumbocrats wonder why the prison population is ever increasing. Oh wait, it's those "evil racists" that are behind it.

Does not just effect prisoners

[pebear]

My sister was committed to a mental hospital in MA and she called me collect and we talked a couple minutes because I can't stand talking any longer. I got like a 35 dollar bill for that call. I live in CT and that was MA and it's crazy. My buddy keeps calling me from the joint but I don't want another 35 dollar charge. So this will be better, but I'm no longer on regular phone service, I'm on the Majickjack so I don't know how that will work unless I give him my cell number.

Informative

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the great post. Posts like this have kept me coming back to slashdot for over a decade.