FCC Can't Cap the Cost of Cross-State Prison Phone Calls, Court Rules (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to cap the cost of prison and jail phone calls within states, an appeals court ruled in a decision today, dealing a massive blow to inmates and their advocates who have spent years litigating caps on the cost of such calls. Over several years, the FCC, under Democratic leadership, moved to cap the cost of calls for inmates. Activists argued that prisoners were effectively being extorted by private companies charging exorbitant rates -- a move that benefited private prisons and the states that got cuts of the revenue. Some of those states joined with companies in appealing the FCC's rules. The agency first moved to cap rates across state lines, and then, later, within states. Today, the court ruled that the FCC had overstepped when it attempted to regulate the price of calls within states. In the majority opinion, the court left little wiggle room for advocates of price-capping, with the possible exception of the cross-state caps, which are a minority of calls made by inmates. The opinion vacated not only the agency's proposed caps for in-state calls, but said the agency also lacked justification to require reports on video calling services. It also vacated a provision that would ban site commission payments.

Comments

Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Solandri]

In the majority opinion, the court left little wiggle room for advocates of price-capping, with the possible exception of the cross-state caps, which are a minority of calls made by inmates.

So any lawyer working with inmates in a certain state just needs to get a virtual phone number in another state, and have it forward to his regular phone number.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[mellon]

Beat me to it. Yup. :)

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[BankRobberMBA]

It's not the lawyers, it's the families. Many of them struggle with technical issues, and almost all of them struggle with cost issues. Many inmates rely on their families to send them the money to make calls to maintain family ties. This makes that much harder.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[ShanghaiBill]

This isn't about calling lawyers. This is about inmates keeping in touch with their families. Many states, including California, ship inmates to out of state prisons, where it hard for their families to visit. Putting even more barriers between these inmates and their families is idiotic, since there is plenty of evidence that family bonds reduce recidivism.

Flippant statements like "just get a virtual phone number" are not constructive. If these people had the wherewithal to do that, they wouldn't be in prison in the first place. These are dysfunctional people on the bottom rung of society. We shouldn't be trying to kick them even lower.

The people running the prisons know damn well what they are doing. They profit from squeezing money from desperate families, and they profit even more from the high recidivism rates that keep their facilities occupied.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Archangel Michael]

Many of them struggle with technical issues

How hard is it to set up a Google Voice again?

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[jm007]

I also replied but I think you said it better.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[BankRobberMBA]

It's not hard for you. it's not hard for me, either. So, let's agree that we're not talking about you or me (although I was in Federal Prison for 9 years).

Many of these people have never used a computer before. Some have only used public access computers (like those in a library), often only for things like YouTube and maybe email. Many of these people are elderly. Some of these people have learning disabilities.

I was locked up with Walter Forbes and John and Tim Rigas. We're not talking about those guys' families. We're talking about the families of guys who dropped out of high school, don't have GEDs, and wound up in prison because they were trying to make money illegally and got caught.

Many of them struggle with technical issues.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Sparowl]

For someone who doesn't know it exists? Pretty difficult.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[BankRobberMBA]

Thank you.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Ichijo]

This is why prisons should be penalized for each ex-inmate who recividates. Let's put the profit motive to work for the benefit of everyone and not just the prisons themselves.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[gtall]

Prisons were never set up for rehabilitating prisoners. You are barking up the wrong tree. What needs to happen are changes in sentencing laws and more dough ploughed into programs outside prison. Well, that was starting until Sessions decided to stick in his tiny wee-wee at the federal level.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Archangel Michael]

My mother could do it. She is a technological idiot. Point to "voice.google.com" and she did it all on her own. Not knowing about GoogleVoice ... that something different.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Archangel Michael]

Two things. One, I am pretty sure that someone somewhere has figured this out before. People in prison aren't usually stupid. Dumb maybe, but not Stupid. Two, once something is known in Prison, it is usually passed around like a cheap hooker at a bachelor party.

In fact, I bet that cheap hooker knows all about Google Voice! ;)

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Shadowmist]

Many of them struggle with technical issues

How hard is it to set up a Google Voice again?

Very hard since one of the things you can't count on having in prison is your own private internet connection.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[sunderland56]

If these people had the wherewithal to do that, they wouldn't be in prison in the first place.

So what the hell *are* they doing with that laptop they stole?

Besides, you don't need a virtual phone number. Just use a calling card: https://www.virtualprepaidminu...

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[rmdingler]

It's not the lawyers, it's the families. Many of them struggle with technical issues, and almost all of them struggle with cost issues. Many inmates rely on their families to send them the money to make calls to maintain family ties. This makes that much harder.

At a minimum, the people in jail for pretrial detention deserve access to their families and support system at a better rate than $3.75 for a 15 minute local call.

Post-conviction, you maybe have an argument for gouging. Maay-be.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about calling lawyers. This is about inmates keeping in touch with their families.

It's about both, however when putting forth the argument it is wise to use calling lawyers as a primary reason.

There is an entire demographic of people that have an active desire to torture anyone that gets caught up in the prison system, no matter what the circumstances.
If you ask them, those people would say with all honesty behind it that all prisoners should be put to death if not worse.

Any claim that we should lessen the mental abuse of being removed completely from their families and support circles will be met with laughter as they counter with multi-year solitary confinement and daily beatings of the inmates.

Now granted, these same people would prefer not to provide inmates with access to lawyers either, but most of them at least realize saying that desire out loud makes it painfully obvious to everyone they are against American ideals and against the constitution of the united states.

Most aren't willing to go that far as they spent their time propping up their fucked up ideals on the stance of "America, Freedom!" which such a statement would clearly show they are actually against.

Having access to a lawyer is enshrined up there along with saying whatever you want and owning as many guns as you want.
They may not like that fact, but they certainly won't point out their hatred of actual American ideals enough to admit it out loud, so wording the problem as access to their legal counsel gets less opposition.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Nutria]

At a minimum, the people in jail for pretrial detention deserve access to their families and support system at a better rate than $3.75 for a 15 minute local call.

You're absolutely right. But it's not within the FCC's purview to regulate intra-state commerce.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[ma1wrbu5tr]

This is a very valid point. There is a significant portion of a America that has family or knows someone currently or formerly incarcerated. This is dark ages "Ma Bell" antitrust behavior by these companies and I can't help but think Jeff Sessions is the Prison Industrial Complex puppet that is helping to move this along.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[currently_awake]

So someone needs to make a pre-configured computer with a phone handset and a plug for your internet. Something like a voip phone.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[omnichad]

Flippant statements like "just get a virtual phone number" are not constructive.

It doesn't even help. I have a friend in a federal prison. I got a phone number in the same prefix (same first six digits) and they still treat it as the long distance higher rate, despite claiming to have a lower rate for local calls. Local must only mean within their facility.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[rmdingler]

I like the idea that the State's have some independence from federal rule, and I am also fond of the notion that the Federales have the power to intervene in some cases where the States' have their heads up their arse.

The more checks and balances there are, the greater the probability all solutions to the proffered problem will be considered; and if we're lucky, the most extreme will be discarded.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[BankRobberMBA]

In the Feds at least, inmates cannot call 1-800 numbers. They can only call numbers on a pre-approved list, each assigned to a particular person. Numbers that can go to multiple people introduces the risk of what they call third-party communication. That's a non-starter.

Also, they cannot use calling cards of any type. All phone traffic for inmates is carried by the approved vendor and is charged at their rates.

Finally, the dial pad no longer works on (at least some) inmate phones once the call is connected. Attempting to dial additional digits can result in your call being disconnected, although I think this is not standard at all prisons.

State prisons and county jails each have their own arrangements, but many are similar to the Feds'.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Nutria]

I am also fond of the notion that the Federales have the power to intervene in some cases where the States' have their heads up their arse.

There's always the 8th Amendment, arguing that such expensive phone calls are "excessive fines".

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Khyber]

"Many states, including California, ship inmates to out of state prisons, where it hard for their families to visit"

A bunch of inmates from either Michigan or Wisconsin sued for that exact practice and won claiming unlawful estrangement.

I bet such a thing could be tried against the prison phone companies.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[hey!]

I assume your tech-idiot mother is functionally literate. Now take that away from her and see if she can manage on her own.

The usual standard for "functional literacy" -- being sufficiently capable at reading and writing to be a competent adult -- is eighth grade level proficiency. 21% of Americans read at a fourth grade level or lower. And when you look at prisoners, the number of read at below the fifth grade level is a staggering 70%.

Add to that that illiteracy tends to run in families, and yes, I'd say that going on the web and following the directions for setting up a google voice number is a challenge for many of these people -- much less reading the terms of service.

Re: Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting even more barriers between these inmates and their families is idiotic, since there is plenty of evidence that family bonds reduce recidivism

We have a large number of private, for profit prisons. What you generously describe as bug is in fact a feature. I know one shouldn't assume malice when incompetence will suffice, but I think we hit the limits of that law several lobbyist sessions ago.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[chihowa]

At a minimum, the people in jail for pretrial detention deserve access to their families and support system at a better rate than $3.75 for a 15 minute local call.

You're absolutely right. But it's not within the FCC's purview to regulate intra-state commerce.

So that's where they draw the line? Can't they just use the Wickard v. Filburn argument that is the basis for the entire drug prohibition framework and say that all commerce (and even the lack of commerce) affects interstate commerce, so everything is within the federal purview?

Re: Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of bullshit autism are you people suffering from? This isn't about clever cheats that nobody is going to do. It's about the depravity of doing this to people in the first place.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

... there is plenty of evidence that family bonds reduce recidivism.

The problem is when you privatize prisons, they only have incentive to care about their bottom line. And recidivism helps that.

Prisons, like hospitals and schools, should be run by the government. The decisions made in their running present costs to overall society, and sorry America, but the government is the only organization we have that can properly balance these sorts of cost factors.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Nutria]

Very good point. But you'll have to ask the lawyers who argued the case for the convicts.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[ShanghaiBill]

State prisons and county jails each have their own arrangements, but many are similar to the Feds'.

Anecdote: When I was in the Santa Clara County Jail, there was no restrictions on who I could call, although toll calls had to be collect.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[dougmc]

That sounds good in theory.

In practice, based on my experiences with my nephew in prison ... that may not work. At least in my nephew's case, any number he can call has to be on a very short list, and every number on that list has been vetted. They don't seem to be fond of the prisoners calling cell phones, though my wife was able to get them to allow calling hers somehow. That said, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have allowed it if it was a on a pay as you go plan. But virtual numbers like Google Voice? She wasn't able to get them to enable our home phone, which is done via Google Voice.

I do believe these specific restrictions are due to security rather than revenue (though they do extract revenue from their prisoners every chance they get!), but either way ... they would stop this plan regarding virtual phone numbers.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, they all stole laptops.

and yep, they all got to bring those stolen laptops with them to prison.

and yep, a calling card will work fine on the prison PSTN network.

christ, you're thick.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jail and prison are two vastly different things.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

But is it a fine when it's a private corporation collecting fees for its own profit? It's not like the corporations' guards are holding guns to any prisoners' heads and forcing them to keep in touch with their families and lawyers, right?

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[jandersen]

Prisons were never set up for rehabilitating prisoners.

And that is deeply shameful. It is only a minority of prisoners that cannot be rehabilitated under any circumstances, but what you are saying here is that prisons are not even trying; the idea never occurred. Punishment without purpose only breaks a person down and makes him (or her) less fit to come back into society.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[thegarbz]

My mother could do it. She is a technological idiot.

That's a horrible way to talk about your mother who is clearly technologically far ahead of most others. Don't hold mother's to your standards or you will insult them to their grave (or yours depending on how bad the insult is).

Re: Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Entrope]

That's essentially what Angel Raich argued, but the US Supreme Court said disagreed.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Nutria]

But is it a fine when it's a private corporation collecting fees for its own profit?

Are you asking me, or accusing me?

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[gnick]

People in prison aren't usually stupid. Dumb maybe, but not Stupid.

I'm confused. Are you meaning "dumb" in the sense that they can't speak? Otherwise your statement makes even less sense. Calling criminals "stupid" is entirely up in the air, but the fact that the majority of prison inmates are functionally illiterate isn't. Prison isn't where we keep our intellectual elite.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[parkinglot777]

And that is deeply shameful. It is only a minority of prisoners that cannot be rehabilitated under any circumstances, but what you are saying here is that prisons are not even trying; the idea never occurred. Punishment without purpose only breaks a person down and makes him (or her) less fit to come back into society.

The major reason that convicts couldn't come back into society, I believe, is not being broken in the prison but the society itself that does not embrace/accept them back. What do you think how people would react when they know that a person who just comes back into their social was a convict? How about employers reaction when they recruit a candidate and found out that the person was a convict?

gtall post is reasonable that the dough should be focusing on the programs outside prison, not inside.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough shit.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Archangel Michael]

Can you explain why our prisons are filled with functionally illiterate people, when we have free education for everyone between ages of 5 and 18, and often before and after even that?

I realize that they exist, but there is absolutely no reason they should exist. There are special programs and extra special programs and programs beyond even that for just about every kind of "need" out there. We spend Trillions of dollars trying to make sure our populace is not illiterate, and yet, you're saying we are failing in our execution. Can you explain why?

I know I can, but my explanation is politically incorrect. I have high expectations of people, which is politically incorrect (and politically inconvenient)

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[gnick]

Your opinion on what the situation should be has no effect on what the situation is. The situation is that most prison inmates are functionally illiterate, regardless of what opportunities they might have missed.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain why our prisons are filled with functionally illiterate people, when we have free education for everyone between ages of 5 and 18, and often before and after even that?

That's pretty easy, the education system isn't properly overseen, and in fact, there are allegations that it is underfunded in no less than 6 states, where school districts are suing their own state legislatures for underfunding the public education system.

I realize that they exist, but there is absolutely no reason they should exist. There are special programs and extra special programs and programs beyond even that for just about every kind of "need" out there.

You seem to be confusing existence, with effectiveness or sufficiency.

We spend Trillions of dollars trying to make sure our populace is not illiterate, and yet, you're saying we are failing in our execution. Can you explain why?

Spend trillions of dollars? No, we don't. In fact, total public expenditures for education spending is less than a trillion dollars a year, not all of which is dedicated to literacy education. Therefore, I would say the problem is, you are mistaken in your premises.

If you want to discuss the failings of the education system, there are many concerns, ranging from wasting money on matters that have poor results in education, insufficient spending overall, and an excessive focus on serving the Christian Dominionist agenda.

I know I can, but my explanation is politically incorrect. I have high expectations of people, which is politically incorrect (and politically inconvenient)

Yes, it is quite easy to know you want to make a racist bullshit explanation, and then feel indignant about it when people point out the fallacies of your fallacious assertions. It's pretty common from you. You are predictable.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Talderas]

If you got a number that's for the same central office and you're getting charged long distance rates then my guess is that you got that number by using a cell phone or a trunk number. I imagine that local for a prison means calls to land lines within limited set of central offices based on proximity and I would expect a trunk number to only work if it's dialing over to a number that is within the "local" list.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[painandgreed]

...I think this is not standard at all prisons.

I've never been in prison but I used to do music fanzines that got a lot of correspondence from such, and in my experience, their is no standard prison set up for anything. They all seem to have their own rules. Some would not allow personal correspondence, only printed material. Some would not allow printed material, only personal correspondence. Some you could not send money to, only stamps. Some you could not send stamps, only money. Some you couldn't send either but you could give the prison money to put into their PX account, which may or may not carry stamps.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[ai4px]

Don't commit a crime????

Re: Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Nutria]

The SCOTUS unanimously disagreed in Wickard v. Filburn (the stare decisis of Gonzales v. Raich), and all but one of the Justices who voted in that case were appointed by FDR, who's law it was that Filburn broke.

So... blame the Democrats for Gonzales v. Raich.

Re:Doesn't that present an obvious solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can answer your questions, parkinglot777

I am an "ex"-felon. (You are NEVER allowed to forget.)

Out of my 40 plus years on this earth I spent three days on the crime that I was convicted for. Those three days mean everything and nothing else means anything. I get to exist in those three days until I die.

I never lied about my past but I never offered it up unless I was asked directly about it. It was not work related. Still, the aftermath looks something like this:

As a new-hire at a multinational company I tried something that had nothing to do with the team I had been hired into. It was a ripple in the pond to show the company that they had an unrealized opportunity in front of them. It was a project which lead to a savings of over a million a year and it only took three people (of which I was one) less than three years to do it.

In the third and final year of the project my supervisor learned of my past - I don't know how. I was tasked with a project to show I still had value to the company. I completed it, on time and slightly under budget. It was a test, I was mirrored. We both reported on our findings - from the same original set of call center data, the goal of the assignment was to find the hidden gems in the data. My mirror found that we had problems with a few devices related to two product lines. People were always finding these kinds of issues - it was the low hanging fruit.

I found a significant number of our customers were gaming a call center to get various replacement parts, at no cost, and then selling them online, in some cases these "customers" appeared to be groups of people working together (or one person acting as several). I identified an "Online storefront" selling the items. No report on the data, before mine, captured this issue. When my mirror heard my finding he congratulated me on the insight.

I was let go for possessing a skill set which was no longer needed because my report did not match my mirror's report.

=====

I worked at a company where I was "The IT". There was a program, the company depended on it. It created reports previously created by hand, it took forever. You could go to lunch and come back, an hour later, and it was still chewing on the same 500 or so rows of data.

I rewrote the program. It could chew through the same set of data in under a minute. It checked for common errors, when the report was free of the types of errors it was designed to catch it automated passing the information on to other departments, as needed, in the form desired - and there was much more. This solution did not save the company millions but it did save the company more than four times my salary every year going forward.

I was working on the next version of the program, adding in tools that no one had considered incorporating before - the expected savings were going to be immense.

A peer looked my name up, on the internet, along with several other employee's names, "for fun" and saw I had a past I was not asked about when hired.

I was fired the next day.

My manager said that, in spite of all I did for the company, he would not have hired me if he knew. He had enough integrity to blame himself for never asking.

=====

I decided this was not working so I would try to go 1099. I made good money this time. When I started I was one of several subcontractors who were not meeting metrics. In six months I became the only guy doing the job and I was meeting or exceeding the original metrics.

One of the companies involved in the contract researched me for a possible hiring opportunity.

I never worked that contract again. I was told that the parent company of the contract did not want me to even touch their equipment again.

=====

It took two and a half years to get my current job. The rules changed a few years ago and you can now be required to answer for your past as long as you live (there used to be a reprieve, of sorts, after about ten years). That means that the moment I am asked abou

Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[WillAffleckUW]

Is it all going to the ultra-rich as they line their pockets from private prisons for profit?

Well, is the President not black?

There, that answers your question.

Re:Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that for 8 years, a black president did nothing and now you're blaming the new guy because it fits your particular political view.

Re:Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[Anonymous Coward]

Things became worse for black people under every subjective measure during the Obama administration, yet 5 months out it's back to being Whitey's fault.

Gotta love 'em!

Re:Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[Anonymous Coward]

it's back to being Whitey's fault

I'd have said "Orangey", personally.

Re: Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that you completely ignored the criminal justice reform implemented under the Obama administration in favor of making an entirely false claim to support your own political aggrandizement?

That reminds me of a man named Trump, who belabored Obama's deportation policies as non-existent but then admitted Obama had deported over two million people. The truth is, Obama prioritized, and set about effective practices, not just head-lines grabbing bans that are defended by a twit.

I mean really, you could say that Obama could have done more, but you went so far as to claim nothing was done. An easily disproved falsehood since this very article points to action being taken by the Obama administration.

That there are others, including Executive Orders, the Fair Sentencing Act, and the Department of Justice launching the Smart on Crime initiative, only points to your deliberate and willful ignorance.

Re:Internet calls cost 0.001 cent per hour

[Anonymous Coward]

It's difficult to build sandcastles to hold up to the tide.

Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal bureaucratic power-grab was prevented by the courts. I wish it could have happen in my country.
Bureaucrats do whatever they please.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal bureaucratic power-grab was prevented by the courts. I wish it could have happen in my country.
Bureaucrats do whatever they please.

Regulating rates on inmates is a "power grab". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[ganjadude]

the feds putting intrastate regulations is a powergrab, the object or service is not of importance. it starts with this and whats next???

Re: Amazing. Your system actually works.

[orlanz]

Well? What is next? We haven't started with this so we don't know what is next. We already privatized and profitized imprisonment.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[schwit1]

This is a power grab. Not everything is a federal issue. We have unelected federal bureaucrats telling a state what it can and can't do inside the state. What the state is doing is unethical, but it's not the FCC's place to regulate. This should be handled by state civil right groups, state regulators and state courts.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, we need strong local government and weak federal government so that the rich and connected can do what ever they want, and the poor can be stomped on. That's the very foundation of libertarianism.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[zippthorne]

You do realize that under the opposite system the rich and connected ... do whatever they want and stomp on the poor, except everwhere instead of just most places.

When you create new levers of federal power, who do you think is going to be most interested and able to manipulate them?

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Uberbah]

When you create new levers of federal power, who do you think is going to be most interested and able to manipulate them?

Classic libertarian fallacy: blaming the institution of government for the effects of capitalism. Also nonsense when you look at countries like Norway, which has much more expansive government services but doesn't have a capitalist cult. Like you do.

Re: Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

The larger the scale of government the less democratic control there is.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[sabbede]

The foundation of Federalism is that the levers of power must remain as close to the people as possible, with the Federal government handling issues between States, with other Nations, and with the Native Americans that can only be dealt with at a national level. Matters of public health, safety and education belong to the States, which are "closer" and more responsive to the voters.

Re:Amazing. Your system actually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the state is doing is unethical, but it's not the FCC's place to regulate. This should be handled by state civil right groups, state regulators and state courts.

Yes, it should. But federal government officials swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights - and we know the Bill of Rights was intended from the beginning to apply to the state governments as well, excepting a few items that are limited to Congress (it's right there in James Madison's writing). That implies the federal government has the legal authority to act when the state governments violate fundamental individual rights.

Further, the Bill of Rights is open-ended, and nothing prevents the application of rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments to private entities as well as state and local government.

In short, the federal government has both the legal authority and justification for acting when the states - or third party agents of the states - are acting in violation of fundamental rights.

For any state to allow overcharging inmates for phone calls is a violation of fundamental rights in itself (think about it). Further, the right to ethical government is one of the most fundamental rights that can be asserted under the 9th Amendment - and since you've correctly identified this as unethical, that means we're dealing with multiple Bill of Rights violations.

Hence the federal government can act - and federal officials are in fact required to do so by the oaths they swear to uphold the Bill of Rights. This isn't a case of FCC overreach, but rather a corrupt or incompetent judge preventing the government from doing it's sworn job (and hence violating his or her oath).

The state governments should be given a chance to correct matters, of course - only if they fail to do so in a timely matter should this become a federal matter. That follows as a consequence of the 10th Amendment. It's a lot like talking to your boss about a problem before you go to his boss or even higher up the chain of command.

Incidentally, violation of fundamental rights "under the colour of law" is both a criminal offence under federal law (and has been since the post Civil War reconstruction era), and grounds for civil suit.

What *can* FCC do?

[ilsaloving]

Every article I come across seems to involve the FCC getting slapped down over pretty much everything, especially when it risks a corporations profits.

If no one wants them to regulate anything. why even bother having an FCC at all at this point?

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

This happens to be about the FCC, but really has nothing to do with the FCC per se.

This is about whether a federal agency can regulate purely intrastate activity. The FCC's rules capping costs for state-to-state calls stand.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[markdavis]

>"This is about whether a federal agency can regulate purely intrastate activity. The FCC's rules capping costs for state-to-state calls stand."

+1 Insightful

Bingo. It has nothing to do with if we think the rates are fair or not. It has to do with the autonomy of the States. If you don't like it in your State, complain to your State, not the Fed.

It is really, really hard for many to swallow the concept that we are are the "United States of America" and not the "Federal State of America."

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[bobbied]

Well... Traditionally the FCC was about RF communications and in that capacity they are really necessary. Of course they also branched out into phone/telegraph regulations from that point and have collected legacy "communications" technologies as they developed. They took on broadcasting, Cable TV, POTS networks, Cell phones and now the internet all fall within their authority. Where I don't think the FCC's classical mission has really gone away, I do think that their legacy claim on things like the internet and related technologies is something that fits into their regulatory structure easily.

Maybe it's time for a wholesale reorganization of the FCC and the laws upon which they are based? I think a wholesale re-thinking about the primary roles of the FCC needs to be done and a whole lot of the ground they have assumed based on legacy might be better handled though another agency if at all. Why does the FCC have any say about how the internet may work anyway? Sure keep the RF emissions regulations, licensing and enforcement parts, but make most of the rest of the functions of the FCC more about setting standards and less about regulating how certain businesses must operate.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, they'll either have to fade into obscurity, or perform some sort of Night of Long Antennas to completely *remove* the existence of every last old bastard gouging the country and destroying the freedom to communicate in the interests of both slavery and infinite unregulated profiteering.

Basically, either the FCC murders the entire C-level of all telecommunications companies - including the majority of them who are actually sitting in government offices and making decisions in their fellows favors, or the FCC does absolutely nothing and all of us suffer.

Because, let's be honest here: strongly worded letters have done nothing. Even attempting to use enforcement powers has simply had those stripped in favor of completely screwing the country over. What ELSE are they going to do, when the law is no longer in any fashion usable?

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[thegreatbob]

I wish to make a random broadband RF generator for great profit. While this may affect the function of consumer wireless electronics, I assure you that people will still buy them. Ajit, can you be a pal and get rid of those pesky spectrum allocation rules?

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[PopeRatzo]

Bingo. It has nothing to do with if we think the rates are fair or not. It has to do with the autonomy of the States. If you don't like it in your State, complain to your State, not the Fed.

Oh, horseshit. Do you believe calls made from a VOIP phone to a number in the same state uses a different communication system than a VOIP phone to an out-of-state phone?

The phone system is not the same as county highways, especially since the companies that run these phone systems are national.

http://www.gtl.net/correctiona...

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[jm007]

It's not about regulation, it's about money, power and control. By keeping the FCC on a leash, there is still the option to sic them on anyone when the power to regulate is desired over the inability to regulate... whatever works in that particular context.

Private prisons are an abomination. How we treat prisoners is an indicator of civilization. Seeing the weak and defenseless (legally speaking) as nothing more than a money resource is such an obvious aberration of what our country is supposed to be about that the only way to not know is to intentionally ignore it. It's political cancer to want to defend prisoners and that's why they're easy pickings for the unethically greedy.

What do you think the public response would be if you switched out 'prisoners' with 'cancer patients' in the story? Is there any reason why it's okay to price gouge one group but not another? The quick go-to answer is "... fuck 'em, they shouldn't have been doing criminal things." To a degree, that's correct. Through due process they were stripped of certain rights and incarcerated. But incarceration is the punishment... not financial ruination because you want to communicate to family, friends and legal counsel.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[thegreatbob]

I'd have modded up, if I hadn't already dropped my load of snark around here somewhere.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[mrchaotica]

So, since this effectively overturns Wickard v. Filburn, the next order of business is abolishing the DEA (since the entire concept of Federal drug prohibition relies on it), right?

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except whether the calls are made within the state or not, there is a looooooooong line of Supreme Court cases standing directly n opposition to this decision stating that the federal government can regulate intrastate commercial activity when it uses the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as , you know, the telephone system.

Furthermore, given the move of the telephone network to VOIP and mobile networks, I'd like to see how the prison phone operators can argue that their calls are never routed through equipment that is across state lines and thus inherently interstate in character.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

It based on where the call originates and where it terminates. How it gets between the two is of no concern.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[c]

Every article I come across seems to involve the FCC getting slapped down over pretty much everything, especially when it risks a corporations profits.

They seem to overstep their authority in too many cases. For example, this seems more like an FTC issue; at the institution level, this is pretty much the definition of "coercive monopoly"...

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Trailer Trash]

Every article I come across seems to involve the FCC getting slapped down over pretty much everything, especially when it risks a corporations profits.

If no one wants them to regulate anything. why even bother having an FCC at all at this point?

Because this is something that should be handled by legislation, not regulation. That's why we elect Congress.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[markdavis]

>"Do you believe calls made from a VOIP phone to a number in the same state uses a different communication system than a VOIP phone to an out-of-state phone?"

It doesn't matter. It is still a caller from within the State calling someone else within the same state State at a State facility and being billed in the same State. It is not a Federal matter, it is a State matter.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Every article I come across seems to involve the FCC getting slapped down over pretty much everything...

"FCC issues new non-controversial regulation that's obviously entirely within its remit." is not news. "FCC issues controversial regulation that is upheld by the courts." gets less airtime than regulations that are overturned.

Don't let your brain's tendency to assign far more weight to things that it hears about frequently than to those it rarely hears about confound your thinking. These sorts of conflicts are significant outliers in the FCC's stream of events.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the FCC was formed from two existing entities, the Federal Radio Commission and the telecommunications regulation handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. No tradition about it, but actual law. Which ahs also been updated to include the Internet. By Congress. And by treaty. The US hasn't backed out of all of them.

In terms of business operations, the history of the industry shows a need for them to be regulated, if anything, Congress has been failing in giving the FCC the authority it needs, as witnessed by the numerous and substantive complaints citizens have about dealing with these companies.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[currently_awake]

If you phone a local prison then you'll phone an out of state one less, therefore it's an interstate commerce clause issue and subject to federal regulation. (it was even funnier when they used essentially the same reasoning to regulate drugs).

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Jack Kolesar]

This is absolutely true. However, it is true because most people (younger people) place ZERO value on state to state differences in laws. Not only have walls been broken down between countries, but state to state differences in law seem absolutely ridiculous to most. Most younger people these days feel no need to stay within the state to which they are born. That is why it makes no sense to them for a law to be different from one state to the next. I happen to agree with them. Bring on the F.S.A. as far as I'm concerned.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[omnichad]

This is billing related. If a federal agency is to be involved, it should be the FTC.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[PopeRatzo]

It's a national company, with a national network. Profits don't stay within the state. See the commerce clause.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[phorm]

Phones themselves are an inter-state (and really, international) system. I *highly* doubt that the communications are not crossing state lines to a CO somewhere even when they're to/from a in-state source.

Unless the company has a CO in each state it operates, then it's likely still inter-state communications and/or commerce.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[liquid_schwartz]

It is really, really hard for many to swallow the concept that we are are the "United States of America" and not the "Federal State of America."

Probably because 2 out of 3 times when states rights bump up against federal rights the feds win. It probably has something to do with the final verdict for the Federal Government coming from the Federal Supreme Court.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[BradleyUffner]

A person's civil rights should not change just because they are on one side of an imaginary line or the other. State's right are a vestige of a bygone age, when we couldn't travel across the country in a matter of hours. They have no place in our modern political system..

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[irving47]

They even got smacked down over the do not call list. For all its failures, it was a pretty popular idea. Congress had to pass a law to authorize them to make it/try to enforce it.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should start learning to appreciate the fact that laws can be different state to state. It's the only reason why some people can finally get medical weed. It's the only reason any gay people were able to get married before 2015. It's the only reason why people who fear others with guns can live in states where they're so restricted only criminals have them, and why people who don't fear others with guns can live in states where access is relatively loose. Young people should learn real quick (before they start voting to fuck it all up) that the only time having one common law across all sorts of disparate people is any good is when you're on the positive end of that law. But ask the gay folks if they want to wait until every LGBT issue is resolved at the federal level before they can see any improvements at all. Ask the medical weed folks if they want to go back to suffering and pain just so that we can have a common law across all the states. Ask the folks in NYC if they want Vermont firearms laws, and ask the folks in Texas if they want NYC laws. Better yet, ask yourself if you really and truly want Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to dictate local policy to your town.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, fuck all those states that legalized weed, round em all up and send everyone of the growers, customers and patients to jail. Same with those homosexual jerks that went and got married before Obergefell, they should all be rounded up and jailed too. And every state that has higher than federal minimum wages? Fuck that shit, states rights have no place in our modern political system.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you mean the 'States of America' not United.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[zippthorne]

Is anyone going to try to make that argument? I bet the supremes decline to hear it, but it would definitely be interesting to see how that goes.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[fafalone]

What's surprising is that they even consider it "purely intrastate". Well, not surprising actually, just sad. Protecting people from being exploited doesn't get the same constitutional exemptions that punishing people does.
The same courts say that the federal government can arrest and imprison you for a plant you grow on your own land exclusively for your own consumption, because that means you're not buying it from someone else who potentially might get their supply from a source that might be in another state, and that effects the market, so that's enough to call it interstate commerce that the feds can regulate (Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich). With a reading like that, the fact that the same wires cross state lines and the same company does business in other states and almost certainly some information about the call is stored on a computer in another state, well that's clearly even more of an interstate activity! But sadly for prisoners and their families they don't qualify for the Drug Exception to all limits the constitution places on the federal government.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[markdavis]

>"Then you mean the 'States of America' not United."

No, because the Constitution holds the States together and gives the Fed some very limited and specific powers. That is the "United" part.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[Anonymous Coward]

... United States of America" and not the "Federal State of America".

Yes, you're united: As long as you're not in prison or jail, on welfare, mentally ill, black or brown, thinking price-capping or limited monopolies are a good idea; life is comfortable.

... the autonomy of the States ...

The FTC is allowed to invoke the 'commerce clause' on anything. The US government needs to pressure the states into limiting state-operated monopolies, not bitching about drinking age and (domestic) airport security; which are also the responsibility of the states.

... complain to your State ...

That they and the monopolies they endorse have got more rights than human beings: Yeah, I can imagine their worry and concern.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[mrchaotica]

Hey, I'd be perfectly happy for this ruling to greatly limit the Interstate Commerce Clause -- if the same reasoning was applied to every other issue too. There are many, many Federal regulations -- including everything from drug prohibition to the Obamacare individual mandate -- that rely on decisions about the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause that conflict with this one.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[mrchaotica]

A person's civil rights should not change just because they are on one side of an imaginary line or the other. State's right are a vestige of a bygone age, when we couldn't travel across the country in a matter of hours. They have no place in our modern political system..

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's true that no government (regardless of level) should have the power to infringe on the rights of the People. But, of the powers that government can have, it is not necessarily true that the Federal government must have all of them instead of only a subset.

In fact, this is exactly what the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution affirms: that all valid governmental powers (and by "valid" I mean powers which do not infringe on human rights) which are not specifically delegated to the Federal government are instead reserved for State or local governments. In other words (to make a technology analogy to firewalls or ACLs), the Federal government is supposed to operate on a default-deny policy: the Federal government is prohibited from exercising any authority except for the powers explicitly whitelisted in Article 1, Section 8.

Re:What *can* FCC do?

[david_thornley]

The ACA individual mandate was allowed as a tax by the Supreme Court, not under the Interstate Commerce clause.

I do agree about the drug laws. Nobody's ever pointed me at any part of the Constitution that says that enforcing drug laws inside a state is a Federal concern.

Cross state is all you need.

[BlueCoder]

Long distance calls are as cheap as local ones so all it takes is buying a calling card or an organization willing to set up an at cost dial in card for prisoners.

And there needs to seriously be a shamming program for administrators and bureaucrats that advocate stupid things like gauging prisoners.

Re:Cross state is all you need.

[BankRobberMBA]

Prisoners typically have access to only one service provider for telephone/videophone/email services. The providers are all profiteers. They can easily provide cheaper services, but their motivation is to pursue monopoly pricing. Some inmates have had success with Google numbers, but others complain of poor sound quality.

There used to be several number selling companies that would sell local numbers to prisoners' families (which made calls cheaper), but a lot of them went out of business when FCC capped prices on long distance calls. Maybe they'll come back now to provide long distance numbers? Probably not enough volume of business to make it worthwhile.

Re:Cross state is all you need.

[tlhIngan]

Prisoners typically have access to only one service provider for telephone/videophone/email services. The providers are all profiteers. They can easily provide cheaper services, but their motivation is to pursue monopoly pricing.

Of course they can provide cheaper services. A local call in most areas is FREE. And long distance is a penny or less a minute (or even free) in plenty of areas.

Except in prison, where you can pay dollars per minute for a local call. Not even satellite phones cost that much! Hell, even cellphones at their most expensive 30 years ago were still cheaper than a prison phone call. Long distance could easily cost more than what NASA pays to call the ISS. Hell, I bet even a phone call to Mars would cost less than from prison. (And no, prisoners cannot pay for it - it's always collect).

Re:Cross state is all you need.

[BankRobberMBA]

In all Federal Prisons and some states the prisoners do pay for their own calls using money in their commissary account. Having said that, most prisoners in my prison did rely on their families sending them money for calls.

Really Beau?

[Anonymous Coward]

Headline:

FCC Can't Cap the Cost of Cross-State Prison Phone Calls, Court Rules

Summary:

Today, the court ruled that the FCC had overstepped when it attempted to regulate the price of calls within states. In the majority opinion, the court left little wiggle room for advocates of price-capping, with the possible exception of the cross-state caps, which are a minority of calls made by inmates.

Not only is the headline wrong, it is exactly the opposite of the text!

Re:Really Beau?

[Anonymous Coward]

./ Costly Current Crop Can't Cut the Crap from Cross Posts, Coward Rules.

Sounds like a states issue

[Tyrannosaur]

So the correct answer to the problem would be to complain to the states' own legislatures, which are supposed to be more responsive to their constituents than federal organizations anyway.

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[David_Hart]

So the correct answer to the problem would be to complain to the states' own legislatures, which are supposed to be more responsive to their constituents than federal organizations anyway.

Except that the States are also benefiting both by the creation of for-profit prison systems and the sharing of revenue from scams like this. In my opinion, a prison system should never be privatized. There is too much opportunity for the exploitation of prisoners.

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[markdavis]

>"Except that the States are also benefiting both by the creation"

But that is their right and mandate....

I agree the rates are silly and some States are doing the wrong thing and also that some private prisons should have much better oversight. But it is not the Fed's domain and the court ruled correctly (which is shocking).

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is their right and mandate....

Nope. States have no right nor mandate to exploit any portion of the populace, especially not the portion under coercive custody.

Rather the opposite, actually. See Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act and the Walsh-Healey Act.

I agree the rates are silly and some States are doing the wrong thing and also that some private prisons should have much better oversight.

Don't Tell Jeff Sessions. He'll be aghast.

But it is not the Fed's domain and the court ruled correctly (which is shocking).

Actually, the court did not make such a ruling, and it is the business of the Federal government.

The FCC merely lacks the authority since Congress hasn't granted it to them.

However, Congress could authorize it.

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[Nutria]

Rather the opposite, actually. See Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act and the Walsh-Healey Act.

I looked at those Acts, and don't see how they relate to the FCC regulating intra-state commerce.

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[markdavis]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Sounds like a states issue

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Re: Sounds like a states issue

[markdavis]

Nothing you just quoted usurps the 10th Amendment or gives the Fed powers beyond what is spelled out in the Constitution.

Re: Sounds like a states issue

[Anonymous Coward]

By its very text, the 10th Amendment already granted said authority.

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather the opposite, actually. See Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act and the Walsh-Healey Act.

I looked at those Acts, and don't see how they relate to the FCC regulating intra-state commerce.

You must have missed the preceding part of the post.

Here, I'll copy it again for you:

But that is their right and mandate....

Nope. States have no right nor mandate to exploit any portion of the populace, especially not the portion under coercive custody.

Rather the opposite, actually. See Hawes-Cooper Act in 1929, the Ashurst-Sumners Act and the Walsh-Healey Act.

Let me know if that doesn't help you improve your understanding.

Re: Sounds like a states issue

[markdavis]

>"By its very text, the 10th Amendment already granted said authority."

It grants the authority of the Fed to do the several several specific things listed, all the rest (millions+ of things) reserved to the States or the "people" (meaning no government).

Re:Sounds like a states issue

[sabbede]

It's not anti-democratic in this case, it's anti-Federalism. In the opposite direction from the original anti-federalists, who wanted an even weaker Federal government.

There's also an element of laziness. It's easier to get one government to change policies than 50.

Re: Sounds like a states issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I phrased it poorly, the 10th Amendment grants no authority, rather it takes as given that the authority exists, in the form of the Constitution, which is what grants said authority, in the main text, and in Amendments.

Both precedingly and subsequently.

Government by the People and for the People

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, by a very small subset of the people, and against all the rest.

What's the actual decision?

[H3lldr0p]

The blurb only quotes the article and neither of which links to the decision. What did the court say that limited what the FCC can do? What was their reasoning and why did it 'leave little wiggle room'?

The sentence makes an okay headline but without an actual article describing the decision it doesn't make any sense.

Appeals, not Supreme

[gurps_npc]

This is an Appeals court, not a Supreme Court ruling.

Big difference.

Not that it matters anymore...

[thegreatbob]

I somehow doubt this is an issue any longer. (insert something about Ajit Pai here)

300$ for a 10 minute call...

[Zurkeyon3733]

This is a CRIME in and of itself, and MUST be stopped! My uncle had a warrant for a traffic ticket he forgot about once. He called my mother for bail so he could get out and deal with the ticket and warrant. That 10 minute call, cost my mother 300$. Its robbery. Simple as that. A dollars worth of Phone call, in town, for 300x that amount... Only thieves and CRIMINALS do such things!

Re:300$ for a 10 minute call...

[guruevi]

Bail is posted from police stations, not state prisons. You can make a reasonable set of calls free of charge while you're being arraigned and before you go to an actual prison, such as to call for an attorney. They can't charge you money for anything before you are convicted.

Re:300$ for a 10 minute call...

[Zurkeyon3733]

You get a phonecall when you get arrested... This call is AT COST. Aka "Collect"... so when he called for someone to bail him out, that call cost the person he called, my mother, 300$... Whatever BS you just typed, is just that. Because I saw the bill :-) FYI - you don't go to "Prison" for traffic warrants :-P

Re:300$ for a 10 minute call...

[Zurkeyon3733]

you must have missed the part where this applies to Prison and JAIL calls.... LOL!

Must have missed something...

[MiniMike]

So what's the argument in favor of letting them gouge prisoners and their families on phone calls? This seems counterproductive to the stated purpose of a prison, reform. Their punishment if supposed to be time behind bars, not high phone bills.

Re:Must have missed something...

[Altrag]

The usual argument.. "Bad government! Stop trying to protect the people we want to abuse because capitalism!"

I mean if the prisoners don't like it, they can just go to a competing jail right? That's how it works isn't it?

Re:Must have missed something...

[Anonymous Coward]

> So what's the argument in favor of letting them gouge prisoners and their families on phone calls?

Capitalism.

Corruption and abuse of monopoly are legal in the USA.

Re:Must have missed something...

[currently_awake]

Is it possible to pick your jail? A bit of competition would certainly improve the situation.

Re:Must have missed something...

[BankRobberMBA]

This is a bit off-topic, but oddly sometimes you can pick your jail. Kind of. This is important because if you get arrested and go to prison, THE WORST TIME YOU WILL DO IS IN COUNTY.

There are two jails in my city*. If you get arrested by the Feds, you can ask them to take you to whichever you prefer (one is miles better). Sometimes they will.

When you're in jail, you can call your Atty and tell him that the 'Bloods' (or, you know, Crips, whatever) are threatening you. Often they will transfer you to a different jail.

Often, you can fake a suicide attempt and get sent to the nearest secure psychiatric facility. I knew a guy who did this, it was like magic.

Finally, in the Feds, just calling the Marshals** to complain about the facility can sometimes trigger a move.

*1 - County jail run by the Sherrif's Office. Staffed by deputies. Basically a steel and concrete dungeon with lots of violence.
  2 - Private jail run by CCA. Staffed by "corrections officers". Immensely frustrating, but clean and pretty safe.

** In addition to chasing fugitives, the U. S. Marshals are responsible for most of the movement of Federal Prison inmates. They are who run the Con Air flights (on which I flew once - not as cool as the movie).

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[suutar]

staying out of trouble != not doing the crime. Some examples.

I see a business opertunity

[Frosty Piss]

I see a business opertunity where a company - perhaps a not-for-profit - crates a phone center in some state that takes long distance calls from Inmates and forwards them to their "loved ones". Of course this will require registration, perhaps by the inmates lawyer of family to prevent inmate scams... The cost could be kept low because of not-for-profit status, certainly it could be done for less than the Phone Company Scammers.

Re:I see a business opertunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. The for-profit prison and for-profit prison-phone-company will figure this out pretty quickly and team up to block your exchange numbers.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[Hognoxious]

You mean "if you ain't got the dimes, don't do the crimes"?

Too many people in prisons in the first place

[roman_mir]

USA has too many prisoners in the first place. Everything is a crime and if something is not a crime that's temporary. Shutting down the DEA would get rid of what, over half of the prison population at least?

Of-course this goes against the profit motive of the well politically connected prison industrial complex, so that's another problem in itself - the government passing the laws that put people to prisons and then handing out contracts to private corporations to keep those people there. There is a profit motive here and it starts with the politicians. Of-course the opposite of prisons would be freedom and liberty and we can't have that in the United States of America.

Freedom and liberty to do with your body as you wish, freedom and liberty to sell any product that people desire to purchase. Freedom and liberty not to be locked up for either using or selling any substances.

How about only locking people up for violence against other people? How about private prisons *NOT* getting government contracts?

AFAIC there shouldn't be any public police or public roads or public education or public health care or public courts, everything should be private. Everything should be paid with use fees and insurance payouts, not with any taxes. There shouldn't be income and wealth taxes, there shouldn't be anything that can allow the public to place people into prisons. All matters are private, event the most violent once.

At that point the question of the phone call pricing is no longer in the hands of any public authority / government, it is a private question. The size of the prisoner population is no longer in the hands of any public authority / government, it's private. You get robbed, beaten up, murdered, your insurance has to pay out, it can use the money to investigate and to place the offender behind bars of a private prison after going through a private court room.

Why would insurance do that? Because it needs to reduce the number of robberies, beatings, murders so that the number of payouts goes down.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[guruevi]

In that case insurances would simply declare everything 'not a crime' so they wouldn't have to pay out. At some point you'll need a form of regulation in those systems unless you're advocating anarchy and you would have to defend yourself against bands of roving bandits by force.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[WrongMonkey]

52.9% of prisoners are were convicted of violent crimes. Only 15.7% had a drug conviction as their most serious offence. Of those, only 3.5% of had simple procession as their most serious conviction.

Source:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf Table 9

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[roman_mir]

In that case insurances would simply declare everything 'not a crime'

- then insurance wouldn't be in business of insurance, would it? Why would I buy an insurance product that didn't insure me against something I want insurance against? You can declare whatever you like, but you cannot have my business if you are unable to provide me with a product I need.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[roman_mir]

I should have qualified it with Federal prisoners.

Table 10 of that PDF shows that drug prisoners are 49.5% of the total federal prison population. Not over half though, just under half.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[WrongMonkey]

Table 1: Federal prison population accounts for less than 13% of all US prisoners.

It is not the federal government that is behind the mass incarceration problem. And its not the drug laws either.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[guruevi]

Says plenty of people that think their home insurance covers them against storms, hail and floods. Whoops, we just declared it an act of god, you're (not) in a flood plain or wind speeds above 60mph are tropical tornado's, not regular tornado's.

Nobody insures against petty crimes, that's why you have a deductible on your insurance in the first place. Mandating insurance just means people will go to the cheapest offers, which usually covers nothing with huge deductibles.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[roman_mir]

Nobody insures against petty crimes until there is a demand for that type of a product. There always will be a deductible, that is beside the point. Today with all of the might of the police state that you are running you still cannot get your bicycle back. Oh, sure, you can file a report.

Re: Too many people in prisons in the first place

[Reverend Green]

Most people in American prisons were convicted by means of coerced confession ("plea bargain") - just like in Stalin's USSR!

#EmptyTheGulag

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Today with all of the might of the police state that you are running you still cannot get your bicycle back.

I've gotten compensation for no less than 3 criminal acts against me, as well as returns of 6 stolen items.

Though ALL of the might? Hardly.

Re:Too many people in prisons in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

This is interesting info that I've never seen before. I'm libertarian so I find 'drug laws' to be 'amoral' to begin with so I've always argued 'non-violent drug offenders' should not be in jail. I had conflicting ideas of 'how big a problem that is' & it doesn't seem big.

NOW, having said that & while I would not advocate releasing 'violent offenders' even if that violence is against another criminal (drug dealer) I do think it IS important to identify how many of these 'violent offenders' would maybe NOT violent offenders if Drug laws didn't exist. Consider Alcohol. Prohibition resulted in A LOT of violence (where 'a lot' is subjective in my mind & could easily be skewed by 'sensationalist recounting of history) but we don't have a lot of violence related to alcohol any more (manufacturer's & distributors aren't shooting at each other to 'protect their turf').

So again, while I fully support putting violent offenders in jail, I still believe that without drug laws (and prostitution laws for that matter) we'd LIKELY would have 'many' (again subjective) fewer prisoners.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the just world fallacy.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to bet you've committed a felony today. I can't tell you what that felony was, but simply based of the immensity of our laws, it's almost certain you've done something that's legally a felony today. The only reason you aren't in prison is because they've chosen not to target you. Do you really think it's so simple to simply stay out of trouble?

And I'm willing to bet your thinking "well, just don't do anything to be targeted" but realize that it could be the color of your skin, or just that a cop looks at you as you're walking by when he's having a bad day. Staying out of trouble is more a matter of luck than anything else.

no public health care = prison is nice place to be

[Joe_Dragon]

no public health care = prison is nice place to be hell even $3 min phone calls are bargain next to an private doctor that bills $100+ for an 15 min visit with lab fees on top of that.

Or $15K-20K + for the ER.

A bit of experience

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former federal prisoner, I can tell you from experience that the rates these "service providers" charge are usurious at best, criminal at worst. It is the families that ultimately pay, since the amount of money earned from prison "jobs" amounts about $12 per month, on average. A typical 15 minute phone call cost over $3.00 Do the math.

It's curious to me that any crime involving the internet automatically comes under federal jurisdiction, under the assumption that all internet communications cross state lines. I would like to see advocates of lower rates demonstrate that telephone calls are routed in such a way that they meet the definition of interstate commerce and telecommunications.

Then the FCC would have the authority to cap rates. Until then, it's just a bunch of private companies (and local and state authorities, receiving a cut of the take) raping inmates and their families and, worse, actively creating a situation that discourages frequent contact between inmates and their friends and families. Way to set up someone for failure upon release and guarantee a high recidivism rate!

Title & summary don't match

[mattack2]

Title says "can't cap the cost of cross-state prison phone calls", the summary says "little wiggle room for advocates of price-capping, with the possible exception of the cross-state caps".

The title should really say intrastate (or in-state) prison phone calls.

Doesn't anybody read anymore?

Re:no public health care = prison is nice place to

[roman_mir]

A doctor visit may be 100USD per 15 minutes or maybe without government interference the prices actually come down. Maybe without government income and wealth taxes, business regulations, involvement in every nook and cranny the actual *free* market, free *from* government oppression and theft provides the health care system that people are able to afford *out of pocket* in the first place.

Insurance then would be used for what it is supposed to be used - high deductible, low monthly payment plan to cover actually expensive events.

Maybe without government creating inflation through the borrowing and the Federal reserve the prices would stop creeping up and instead would start coming down... prices on everything.

Easy answer

[rsilvergun]

whatever the cable companies want so long as Trump's in the Whitehouse. As for why bother, well, the Cable companies need somebody to rubber stamp their large cash subsidies.

Not saying we get rid of the FCC. It did fine for 8 years of Obama. Let's find ourselves another Obama and maybe give him a congress he (or she) can work with.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[brantondaveperson]

That's obviously a completely irrelevant, and shockingly callous statement. Don't you find it a little strange that the more disadvantaged someone in your society is, the more difficult and expensive everything becomes? Live in a poor neighbourhood, pay more in insurance. Suffer poor health, pay more in health insurance, if you can even get it. Wind up in jail, be unable to afford a telephone call to your family, who may very well be the only people you have left.

The whole thing is tilted, so that once you start falling, you tend to keep going, and there may be no way back. Whatever good fortune you have experienced in your lifetime, I'd wager much of it came from luck. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you pulled yourself out of the gutter, perhaps you were born into poverty, suffered ill-health, wound up in jail through no real fault of your own, and still managed to survive, and eventually to overcome.

But that's pretty vanishingly unlikely. I certainly didn't. I was born with good health, a reasonable brains, into a comfortable situation. Education was both provided for free, and I was expected to undertake it. When I completed it, a job was easy to come by. I bumped into a wonderful girl by accident, and how I have a beautiful family, and a good and happy life. All of that, all of it, was nothing better than luck. That luck could change any day. I am not so conceited and blind to imagine otherwise.

When they kill guards for lower rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Courts will pull their dicks out of the prisoners ass not till then.

We need to keep these cost high

[Anonymous Coward]

If we don't profit off of our prisoners how the he'll are the holywood / Washington elite going to afford to send their privileged kids to elite schools where they can learn how to profit off of helping poor people beat poverty by creating massive government housing programs run by elite Hollywood/ Washington types.

No we need to keep fucking our fellow citizens and keep the prison industrial complex going. It is the only way. Prison is a democrat's wet dream. Free food. Free housing. Gun free zone, etc. I guess that is why democratic states have such high incarceration rates. The D's are just trying to give their fellow citizens the freebies they deserve and helping themselves in the process.

Antitrust laws?

[Ihlosi]

Wouldn't this issue be a matter of antitrust laws instead of the FCC regulating things?

Local numbers, Google voice

[Anonymous Coward]

Local numbers and google voice are meaningless to this system. We have a customer who has a son in jail in the next county (70mi trip). We got her a GV number back before Google bought them. Still had the higher rate. We got her a Page Plus cellphone with a number in the same town, Did not help. We even got her a land line in the same town. Did Not Help. Turns out they were charging the rate based on her listed mailing address not her phone number. American prisons and related facilities are a fkn joke. With modern SIP calling (which many, most?, prison telcos use calls could be damn near free.)

For the love of mod points.

[Anonymous Coward]

+all of them

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

"... the (appeals) court ruled that the FCC had overstepped when it attempted to regulate the price of calls within states."
So, if I grow wheat or cannabis in my own backyard for my own personal use, it's interstate commerce, but regulating phone calls isn't. Hypocrites in robes.

what happened to a free market economy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just let any company sell their phone services to inmates at the pace they feel is competitive.
The problem here is that prisons are for profit corporations and abuse their monopoly position (they alone control who can sell the phone service in the prison) to their advantage.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[Anonymous Coward]

HOLY CRAP! Prisoners aren't 'disadvantaged in society', in fact they are no longer really 'in society' because they committed a crime.

Now, we can have a reasonable debate about how we treat prisoners or even if some of these should even be in jail (non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail in my opinion) but do NOT lump them in with normal 'law abiding citizens'.

This is vile

[whitroth]

And it is extortion. I had someone in the Brevard Co, FL jail in '04, and $50 min "deposit", use it or lose it, *and* you could ONLY CALL FROM ONE PHONE NUMBER. And you had to register that phone # with the jail before hand, so they were limited in who they could call.

And most of you are too young to remember pay by the minute phone calls, and this was long-distance pricing in the same freickin' county.

Note: it is a documented *fact* that the more contact a prisoner has during their imprisonment, the lower the recidivism rate.

WTF with the heading?

[Anonymous Coward]

HOLY CRAP! How bad are the editors that the subject of the summary is in TOTAL odds with the summary. It isn't about CROSS State caps it was 'in-state' caps! Someone needs more coffee or something before posting these things! A monkey could have done better.

Re:Don't do the crime, you won't have to do the ti

[strikethree]

Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you pulled yourself out of the gutter, perhaps you were born into poverty, suffered ill-health, wound up in jail through no real fault of your own, and still managed to survive, and eventually to overcome.

I pulled myself out of the gutter. None of my childhood friends did. They are all dead or in prison for life now. :(

Regardless, bad luck could have kept me in the same conditions as my childhood friends. I needed plenty of good luck get out of the gutter.

TL;DR, you are correct.