Welcome to the eTc Campaign online!

Progress Since 2000

INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the activity we have seen regarding prison telephone systems since we launched the Equitable Telephone Charges (eTc) Campaign in January, 2000. We have identified four categories of activity: Administrative Initiatives, Legislative Activity, Litigation, and Editorial Support. We have recently added a category entitled Telephone Company Practices to highlight some of the activities of the phone companies involved in this business.

It is obvious that much of the legislation has never been enacted into law. While that may seem discouraging, we have noticed that often the introduction of legislation has been followed by administrative improvements. We suspect that simply shedding light on the problems has led to these positive changes.

The amount of activity has been encouraging, since the issue was not widely discussed prior to the launch of our campaign. Nevertheless, the problems are unsolved. Much work remains. We are determined to continue our efforts until we achieve the reasonable rates we all deserve.

ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES

On February 17, 2007, the Department of Corrections implemented a new contract that reduced commissions by 10% (from 55% to 45%) and reduced the cost of a 15-minute phone call by nearly $2. This change was the result of strong advocacy work on the part of Arkansas-CURE and others, as well as threatened legislation to eliminate commissions altogether.

AZ	In April 2008, the Department of Corrections entered into a contract with Securus Technologies that reduced the cost of phone calls and introduced debit calling.

CA	California will phase out its commissions by fiscal year 2010/2011. Rates for future years are available at http://www.dts.ca.gov/stnd/calnet-imate-ward.asp. Click on Attachment 7A - New Pricing Workbook to view the separate worksheets for each fiscal year.

CO	On July 1, 2008, rate changes resulted in significant increases for local debit and local collect calls and for IntraLATA collect calls.

DC	In 2005, the DC jail implemented a phone system with reduced rates and debit calling. The system also allows calls to 800 numbers.

FL	In September 2007, the Department of Corrections entered into a contract with Securus Technologies through its wholly owned subsidiary T-NETIX Telecommunications Services, Inc. The contract includes reduced rates and a 5% commission to be paid to the Department of Corrections.

GA	On November 18, 2004, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved capped rates with reductions occurring every year (on July 1) through 2008.

On January 18, 2001, Board of Corrections Director announced that prepaid debit cards would be made available to prisoners. The system: 1) allows only pre-paid debit cards, no collect calls. 2) allows no calls to toll-free numbers. 3) uses a separate account. Friends and family members can send money to that account, and the account is not subject to deductions for restitution and pay for stay. Unlike all other prison phone debit systems, debit calls cost more than the collect calls did. Iowa is the only state that allows only debit calling. There is no provision for a collect call. The state entered into a new contract in November 2007. That contract did not alter the rates. At that time the Department also implemented a policy that all outside deposits for prepaid phone calls must be sent to the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP). ISP is located in a county that charges a 7% sales tax, so all deposits are now subject to that tax.

ID	In 2006, a new phone system was implemented that included collect, prepaid collect, and debit calling. Rate reductions for prepaid collect and debit calls were modest.

IN	In 2001, a new contract for state prison phones resulted in lower rates with no connect fee.

KS	In early 2008. a new contract was implemented, resulting in lower rates.

KY	In July, 1999, the Kentucky Public Service Commission ruled that by November, 1999, phone companies doing business with the Department of Corrections must roll back surcharges to $1.50 while freezing actual long distance charges at current rates.

MA	On April 7, 2008, the Department of Corrections introduced debit calling at reduced rates.

MD	On January 15, 2004, the Maryland prison system began operating under a new contract with T-NETIX. That contract replaced contracts with Verizon and AT&T and provided for reduced rates and debit calling. The State’s projected revenues are $5.5 annually.

ME	In 2008, the Department of Corrections implemented its own phone system that eliminates connect charges for debit calling. On June 23, 2008, the Maine Public Utilities Commission concluded that it has jurisdiction over the Maine DOC prisoner telephone system.

On December 4, 2006, the Department posted a memo indicating that debit calls could be made to cell phones. (Collect calls to cell phones will not be allowed.)

On February 1, 2007, the Department posted a memo indicating that calls will be allowed to phones using Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). The memo states that "VOIP is not call forwarding and is allowable".

Reduced collect and debit rates were implemented on August 1, 2008, as a result of language included in a budget bill enacted in December 2007. As a result of language in that bill, the state no longer receives a commission on prison phone calls.

MO	In the autumn of 2006, the Department switched its service to PCS, reduced the rates for all but local calls, and introduced debit calling. The department no longer accepts a commission on prisoner calls.

MT	In December 2005, the Department of Corrections implemented a new phone system with substantially lower rates.

NC	As far as we know, North Carolina is the only state that limits calls to 10 minutes.

NE	On September 6, 2007, the Department of Correctional Services renewed its contract with Global Tel*Link with no change in rates.

NH	On May 16, 2007, the state entered into a contract with Inmate Caling Solutions that provided lower rates for phone calls.

NJ	On April 1, 2005, the state entered into a contract with Global Tel*Link that reduced the cost of phone calls. The contract will expire March 31, 2010.

NV	On July 17, 2008, the state entered into a contract with Embarq that reduced the rate of phone calls.

NY	On April 1, 2007, the New York prison system became the second in the nation to eliminate commissions on prison phone calls. Savings of approximately 50% were reflected in the phone rates. Governor Eliot Spitzer had announced the changes on his eight day in office.

On August 21, 2000, Summit County Council members unanimously approved a contract that will reduce the fee for local collect calls from $2.50 per call to $1.80, the same rate the public is charged. The agreement followed negotiations between the County Sheriff’s Department and the Catholic Commission.

In 2004, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) entered into a contract with MCI Worldcom to provide telehone services. That contract was reassigned to Global Tel*Link in March 2007. The contract reduced the cost of calls while providing ODRC with a 33.5% commission on collect calls and a 53% commision on prepaid calls, plus a lump sum payment of $500,000 per month. The contract will expire on February 25, 2010.

In the summer of 2001, the Oklahoma Board of Corrections called for a pilot study of prepaid prisoner phone services to be conducted at two prisons.

In the summer of 2003, Corrections Corporation of America closed it’s facility in Sayre over a problem involving telephone rates. The facility had housed prisoners from Wisconsin who were being charged $3.95 to connect and $0.89 per minute to talk to family and friends at home. The State of Wisconsin demanded lower rates. The telephone contract was between the city of Sayre and AT&T. Despite several attempts, the city was unable to negotiate a change with AT&T. By the time AT&T agreed to let them out of the contract, it was too late. Prisoners had been moved to another CCA facility that could provide phone rates of $1.25 to connect and $0.22 per minute. Kerry Hibbs of AT&T was quoted as saying, "We find it hard to believe that they would shut down the prison over telephone rates. We had no interest in shutting the prison down."

Beginning in January 2008, the Corrections Department entered into a contract with Global Tel*Link that ended commissions and implemented a consistent rate for all calls.

Calls can be made to cell phones and to VOIP phones. Information on the DOC website suggests that "cordless phones, cell phones, and VOIP lines are prone to" being disconnected due to interruptions in the phone signal, and refunds will not be made in these cases. The Oregon Department of Corrections now offers both debit and collect calls.

In 2002, the Pennsylvania DOC entered into a new telephone contract with Verizon that was to have lowered the average price of a fifteen-minute call by as much as thirty percent. At the beginning of 2003, the Pennsylvania prison system introduced debit calling which offered modest rate reductions. Local call costs vary by institution. IntraLATA call costs vary by institution and, in some cases, by distance.

In the spring of 2007, the DOC began introducing a system to allow prisoners to receive email. The cost is $0.60 per standard page. The message is screened before being delivered. Because of security concerns, prisoners cannot send email.

RI	Rhode Island entered into a contract with Global Tel Link in 2007. The contract introduced lower rates and debit calling and eliminated the Department’s commission.

SC	In April 2004, the state negotiated changes to its contract with Sprint to introduce prepaid calling with a rate reduction of 20%.

In 2002, the legislature appropriated enough funds to cover anticipated lost revenues so the Department of Corrections could reduce their phone revenues. As a result, a new phone system was installed on August 1, 2002 that includes both collect and debit calling.

The state negotiated additional rate reductions in 2008.

TX	In 2008, Texas began phasing in phone service under a 7-year contract with an Embarq-Securus Technologies partnership. The contract is expected to generate $86 million in commissions to the state each year. The contract includes both collect and prepaid calling with rate savings on prepaid calls.

VA	In 2004, Virginia was receiving a 40% commission on prisoner phone calls, contributing $6-$8 million annually to the State’s general fund. The system permits both prepaid and collect calls.

On November 17, 2006, the state switched to a new contract that substantially reduced the cost of collect calls and introduced debit calling with slightly reduced rates. The rates for interstate and international calls were not changed and remain high. The department indicated that they were exploring the possibility of future reductions in rates for interstate and international calls, but that has not yet happened.

WV	Advocates in West Virginia report a “HUGE DECREASE” in the cost of prisoner calls under a contract with Global Tel*Link. The state receives a commission of 46% under the contract.

WY	In June 2006, Wyoming DOC entered into a contract with Inmate Calling Solutions to offer reduced rates on collect calls and debit calling.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

SB1978, (2000) would have required any contracts to provide phone service to state prison inmates and California Youth Authority wards to be negotiated to provide the lowest possible costs to wards and inmates, with a proviso that service contracts cover state expenses and provide a reasonable profit margin for the vendor. This bill also specified that state profits must not be a basis for awarding a contract. Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill.

HB 1975, (2000) would have recognized the importance of prisoner-family contact and would have required a survey of existing federal and state prison telephone systems. The resulting follow-up report would have been used to select a plan for prisoner phone services with a primary consideration that of reducing cost of calls and giving secondary importance to commissions. The bill did not pass.

HB 2115 (2001) would have prohibited governmental entities from profiting from prisoner phone calls. It did not become law.

SB 419 (2001) would have required the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission to set fees for collect calls from prison at 50% of the fee for a regular pay phone collect call. It did not become law.

HB 1225 (2002) required that a request for bids for a phone system for "confined offenders" must emphasize low rates and fees. Commissions would be limited to 33%. County jail contracts would have to terminate on the earlier of (1) four years after the contact was entered into, or (2) five months after the general election immediately after the date the contract was entered into. In the spring of 2002, commission on phone calls from the state’s 18 largest county jails were limited, by law, to no more than 33%.

SB 136 (2002) would have required that the telephone contract for a jail in a county with a population of more than or equal to 75,000 be awarded to the lowest and best proposal. It also would have required that commissions must be used to fund capital improvement projects at the correctional facility.

SB 259 (2001) would have required any contract for prisoner phone services be awarded to the lowest bidder and would have prohibited the state or any governmental entity from profiting from such services.

SB 353 (2001) would have prohibited surcharges on phone services provided to prisoners. Neither bill became law.

SB 183 (2004) would have required that any contract for telecommunication services provided to prisoners be awarded to the lowest bidder and prohibited the state or any governmental entity from profiting from such services.

MA	SB 1273 introduced by Senator Charles Shannon (2001) would have prevented any special surcharges or tariffs on prisoner calls. It would also have required the prison system to establish a debit calling system for prisoners. The bill was not enacted into law.

HB 663 (2001) would have prohibited the state or any county from imposing a surcharge, commission or other fee in excess of the allowable charge for the call for local or long-distance telephone service. In addition, charges could not have exceeded the average rate established by the Public Service Commission (PSC) charged by the state’s five largest telephone service providers for operator-assisted calls in the state. Furthermore, the state and counties would have to consider alternative methods of providing phone service to prisoners that seek to reduce costs and provide quality service. Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to conduct a survey of prison phone systems and explore alternatives such as debit accounts, calling cards, and debit cards. The bill passed in the house and died in senate committee.

On March 7, 2002, the House of Delegates Committee on Commerce and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on HB 839. The bill would prohibit the state from receiving commissions on prisoner phone calls, and would ensure that the reduction in the cost of the contract is "reasonably reflected in the charges for inmate telephone calls."

HB 873 (2004) would reduce commissions paid to state or local governments for the inmate telephone services by 20% per year until they are eliminated in 2009. In addition, any inmate telephone service contracts entered into in 2005 or later could not produce revenue for the state or a local government.

ME	LD 91 (2007) would have required the Public Utilities Commission to oversee and regulate the Department of Corrections telephone system, and produce annual reports for the legislature, with recommendations for improvement. The bill died in the Senate.

HB 4184 (2001) would have required competition in prison telephone systems.

HB 6367, introduced in 2002 by Representative Ken Daniels require that the prison phone system provide for debit calling, toll-free calling, and collect calling; no blocks other than for failure to pay or institutional security reasons; a limit on DOC commissions to 25%/ The bill would required that the contract by renegotiated within 6 months of the bill becoming law in order to implement the law’s requirements. The bill did not get a hearing in 2002, In 2003, Rep. Daniels reintroduced the bill as HB 5070. The bill was reintroduced in 2007 as HB 4041.

HB 1691 would have amended existing law to require that contracts for telephone services for state prisoners "be awarded to the lowest and the best bidder over the life of the contract, based on call costs to called parties." It would also have authorized the purchasing office to renegotiate any existing contracts to reduce call costs to called parties.

HB 1844 (2000) would have required the DOC to provide telephone systems in all institutions that do not permit a single vendor to control rates paid by recipients of inmate calls, either by allowing inmates to use prepaid phone cards or by some other method. The bill was not enacted into law.

HB 10 (2001) would have allowed minimum-security prisoners to place debit phone calls; it would also have required the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone systems and charges. The bill was not enacted into law.

NH	HB 1418 (2002) would have established a committee to study the cost of telephone calls from state prison inmates to their families, whether there is a link between frequent calls and recidivism, and study the feasibility of "the state subsidizing inmate phone calls to family members."

On March 14, 2001, Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that requires prisons and jails to provide telephone services at the lowest reasonable cost. The law, which will took effect June 15, 2001, applies to the state’s prisons, privately operated prisons used by the state, and jails throughout the state. The measure prohibits contracts that pay the prison operator a commission or share of call revenues.

We later received clarification regarding the above legislation. The bill reads, "A contract to provide inmates with access to telecommunications services in a correctional facility or jail shall not include a commission or other payment to the operator of the correctional facility or jail based upon amounts billed by the telecommunications provider for telephone calls made by inmates in the correctional facility or jail." We are concerned that this language does allow kickbacks or "gifts" that are based upon factors other than telephone rates billed. At the same time, the bill does state that contracts shall be negotiated and awarded to an entity that meets the correctional facility’s or jail’s technical and functional requirements for services, and that provides the lowest cost of service to inmates or any person who pays for inmate telecommunication services." Implementation of these contracts must be carefully observed.

On June 23, 2005, the New York Assembly passed the Family Connections Bill (A.7231-A), which would provide prisoners with fair-market telephone rates and prevent the state from making a profit from the system. Facilities would have the option of providing collect or debit phone service. The Senate did act on companion bill (S.5299-A).

On February 15, 2007, A05407 was introduced to require that rates for phone calls from correctional facilities be comparable to the surrounding community and that phone contracts for correctional facilities be based on the lowest rates to inmates using the phones.

OH	SB 103 (2001) would have required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to adopt a debit account calling system. The bill was not enacted into law.

In 2001, an interim legislative study examined the issue of prisoner telephone calls. Among the findings of the interim study: "It appears Department of Corrections ability to forfeit commission could save approximately 45% of most phone charges." The Corrections department’s chief of administrative operations (David Miller) said that the agency is also scrutinizing its charges.

In January, 2003, legislation (HB 1552) was introduced to reduce the cost of prisoner calls. Representative Kirby introduced a second bill (HB 1590), which, by March 7, had passed the house (95-4). Among the provisions of the bill are "fingerprint identification of the inmate placing the telephone call" and "periodic photographs of the inmate during the telephone conversation for identity verification." The bill was amended to change the language, "All revenue generated from inmate telephones and received by the Department of Corrections shall be for the benefit and welfare of inmates and personnel..." to , "... for the benefit and welfare of the Victim’s Compensation Fund." The law was not enacted.

HB1552 (2004) would limit the State’s revenue for prison phones to the amount required to cover their expenses. HB 2425 (2004) would allow the State to set the rates and to make a profit.

SB 856 was introduced in 2007 to require fairly priced phone services for prisoners to communicate with family, friends, and legal counsel.

PA	HB 1402 (2002) became law, allowing for a debit calling system.

RI	H 5710 (2001) would have placed phone revenues in the Prisoners’ Recreation and Education Account. In addition to normal account purchases, the funds would also have been used to purchase phone cards for prisoners whose families are indigent. The bill was not enacted into law.

Joint Resolution 1289 (2000) would have set up a committee to review prison telephone systems and rates and their impact on prisoners and their families. The bill was not enacted into law.

S 0405 (2002) and H3877 (2002) would “provide that the state shall forego any commission or other source of revenue derived from the placement of pay telephones (in prisons and juvenile facilities) and provide that the State Budget and Control Board shall ensure that the telephone rates charged for the use of these pay phones reasonably reflect this foregone state revenue.”

HB 1182 (2001) would have prohibited prison phone charges above "usual and customary." It was not enacted into law.

SB 105 was enacted, requiring the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone services and to report to the legislature no later than December 1, 2001.

In 2002, the state legislature provided the Department of Corrections with the funding it expected to lose in commissions when a debit-calling plan is implemented on July 1, 2002.

In March, 2003, two Texas legislators introduced bills to allow prisoners broader access to telephones. Representative Jack Stick introduced one of the bills. Representative Terri Hodges introduced the other (HB-1711). Neither bill was passed.

On May 15, 2007, the governor signed S.B. 1580, calling for implementation of a phone system in Texas prisons. The legislation specifies that the state will receive a commission of at least 40%. Calls cannot exceed 15 minutes and 120 minutes per month. To make calls, prisoners would have to be free of major disciplinary violations within the previous 90 days and have a prison job, be in school or in a treatment program. Contract negotiations are to be completed by August 31, 2008.

HB 2196 and HB 2213 (2001) would have mandated that any commission received by the DOC from phone contracts be used only to operate the prisoner phone system.

HJR 600 (2001) would have mandated a study of prisoner phone systems.

SB 156 (2001)eliminated the State Corporation Commission's jurisdiction over the Department of Corrections contract for the inmate phone system. (See the history of those actions in the Litigation Section.)

HB 805 (2002) would have required that any prison telephone system commission received by the Department of Corrections be used to reduce the surcharge or rates paid for those calls under any collect call system beginning July 1, 2003. The DOC would have been required to negotiate a plan to reduce the surcharge or rates without costs to the contractor providing the phone services.

HB 1115 (2002) was similar to HB 805 but involved state, local or regional correctional facilities, and did not include the requirement regarding renegotiating the contract.

HB 1632 (2007) would have authorized the State Corporation Commission to determine that the rates for debit or prepaid telephone systems at state correctional facilities were at the lowest available rates for the service in accordance with filed schedules. The measure also would have established a 10% cap on the amount of any commissions, lease payments or other fees that a provider of inmate telecommunications services may pay to the Commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision under its contract. Any amounts paid in excess of this cap would have been deposited in a newly established Prisoner Telephone Rate Fund and used to reduce the surcharges or rates paid for calls.

VT	In April, 2001, the legislature passed a bill that would phase out commissions by fiscal year 2006. The reductions would begin in fiscal year 2003. The next year, the legislature reversed the provision to phase out commissions.

WA	SB 6352 (2004) would allow use of debit calling. The bill was passed by the House and Senate in February, 2004.

The Dane COunty Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in 2007 that prohibits the jail from entering into a contract for jail inmate services that is intended to generate revenues for the county. Contracts must be subject to competitive bidding and shall be designed to achieve the best possible cost for inmates consistent with public safety.

LITIGATION

In March 2008, the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC) ruled that inmate phone service has NOT been deregulated. That means that service providers cannot arbitrarily raise rates for calls from the state's prisons. The PSC argued that the Department of Corrections and local jails are providing a location for companies to do business, not using the service themselves. Prisons, therefore. are not customers, which would mean the PSC is allowed to regulate the companies. The PSC also argued that prison staff members do not use the systems for their own phone calls and noted that most people in other offices have other options besides collect calls, including cell phones.

In September, 2000, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that MCI had not billed its tariffed rates for intrastate MCI Maximum Security Collect Calls. As a result, MCI was ordered to pay overcharges to Friends Outside, a California non-profit that assists families, prisoners and ex-prisoners. The PUC's ruling was the result of a complaint filed by the Utility Consumers' Action Network.

In April, 2004, we were informed that the Law Offices of John W. Allured and two other firms were representing plaintiffs in an action captioned "Elena Condes, et al v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al." At that time, the case was pending in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs alleged that Evercom Systems, et al had charged individuals for collect calls from prisoners when the calls were not authorized nor accepted by recipients.

DC Prisoners' Legal Services filed a class action suit in federal court seeking damages and injunctive relief for excessive rates and restrictions imposed on prisoners' use of long distance telephone services in private prisons. The Communications Act claims were referred to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In 2003, a petition for rulemaking was submitted to the FCC challenging (1) phone systems that allow only one provider to offer service at a given prison and (2) permitting the service provider to offer only collect calling services, rather than a choice between collect and debit calling. Petitioners argue that it is technically feasible for multiple long distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems without compromising security and other penological needs.

A suit was filed in April, 1999 against the State of Illinois, IL Directors of Central Management Services and Department of Corrections, Illinois Counties of Cook, DuPage and Kane, AT&T, MCI, Evercom, Ameritech, Invision Telecom, & Consolidated Communications Public Services, Inc. Plaintiff attorneys and law firms included Center for Constitutional Rights, Seliger, Elkin & Dolan, Ltd., People's Law Office, and Soule & Bradtke. The suit was originally dismissed by the U.S. District Court. In June, 2001, Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court rejected an appeal.

Attorneys Stephen Laudig, Lawrence M. Reuben, and Richard Waples filed a class action suit against the Sheriff of Marion County as a representative of all similarly situated county sheriffs in Indiana and against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Administration. The case raises a number of issues including breach of common law regarding the duty of reasonableness owed to the plaintiffs, the unauthorized taxing of a sum of money, the unauthorized imposition of a licensing fee, unreasonable and unjust rate or service charge, unjust enrichment, the combination to restrain and carry out restrictions on trade, and an allegation that the telephones had not provided reasonably adequate services and facilities to Class members. Defendants requested a motion to dismiss and the trial court agreed. On January 13, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial court, and ordered the case be heard.

Attorneys F. Thomas Conway and Bart Adams have filed suit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the KY Department of Corrections, the State of Missouri, the MO Department of Corrections, six KY counties, one Indiana County, one Arizona County, InVision Telecom, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corp.; LDDS WorldCom D/B/A Worldcom, Inc.; Gateway Technologies, Inc.; and Security Telecom Corporation. All claims were dismissed with the exception of a Sherman Anti-Trust claim for injunctive relief. The case was sent back to district court; we do not know the status.

In a case before the Kentucky Public Service Commission, the commission found prison phone rates "unjust and unreasonable." The Public Service Commission reviewed prison phone rates throughout the state leading to a significant rate reduction: a cap of $1.50 surcharge per call.

Diane King Smith challenged the Department of Corrections block of Remote Call Forwarding services. On February, 21, 2003, District Court Judge Michael Caldwell ordered the block lifted, because the DOC had not followed proper procedure in adopting the rule. The victory was likely to be short-lived, because a new rule banning such services was scheduled to take effect Mary 22, 2003.

Phillip Kassel, Esq. of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, Inc. has handled litigation on behalf of Massachusetts prisoners. A significant element of the case involved a prohibition against international phone calls. In February, 1998, the court ruled that the prison system must permit inmates to make collect, pre-paid, monitored, or international calls to family members. Unfortunately, the cost of the international calls has remained extremely high, and, to-date, litigation has been unsuccessful in lowering those rates.

Phillip Kassel, Esq. of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, Inc. has handled litigation on behalf of Massachusetts prisoners. A significant element of the case involved a prohibition against international phone calls. If February, 1998, the court ruled that the prison system must permit inmates to make collect, pre-paid, monitored, or international calls to family members. Unfortunately, the cost of the international calls has remained extremely high, and, to-date, litigation has been unsuccessful in lowering those rates.

In June 2008, the Maine Public Utilities Commission concluded that it has jurisdiction over the Maine Department of Corrections prisoner telephone system. Based upon that conclusion, it will examine a challenge by family members and supporters of prisoners that the rates and charges set by the DOC are unfair and unreasonable.

Prison Legal Services of Michigan submitted a motion to amend a long-standing prison rights case (Cain v. MDOC) to include a challenge to the prison telephone system. The challenge was based on the claim that the telephone system violates the constitutional rights of prisoners, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the Michigan Telecommunications Act, and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

On April 9, 2002, the trial Court ruled on the MDOC's motion for summary disposition on telephone issues. The Court upheld the MDOC's 20 number limit on PIN lists, the 15 minute limit on calls, the failure to provide indoor phones at some prisons, and the failure to have a writing surface at phones. In (the prisoners') favor, the Court ruled that (1) MDOC may make only one voice over announcement per call; (2) MDOC must allow prisoners to bring legal papers to the phone when talking to their attorneys; (3) each person responsible for approving or denying placement of an attorney’s number on PIN lists must have a current Bar Journal Directory; and (4) the MDOC must allow prisoners to place their attorney’s home phone number on their PIN lists if requested in writing by the attorney

MO	The State of Missouri was among the defendants in a lawsuit filed in Kentucky.

In February, 2000, several family members filed suit (Michael Guglielmo Sr. v. WorldCom Inc, ILD Teleservices Inc. and ILD Telecommunications Inc.) claiming that the phone companies charged rates higher than specified in a 1997 agreement with the state, that they failed to warn prisoners and their families about the higher rates, and that the phone companies were violating the state’s monopoly and consumer protection laws through their exclusive contracts. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge dismissed the claims related to the rates, but refused to dismiss anti-monopoly and consumer protection claims. Those were referred to the state Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction. In September, 2002, the Supreme Court in a 4-0 ruling found that under the federal filed rate doctrine telephone companies can and must charge the rates they have filed with the FCC. Associate Justice Linda Dalianis wrote that even if the companies misrepresent their rates, they cannot be sued for money damages because customers are responsible for knowing the published tariffs.

NM	On July 31, 2007, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ordered an inquiry into the rates and charges of Institutional Operator Service Providers (IOSPs) to determine whether there is a cost basis for the rates being charged. That case is still pending.

The law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in March, 2000, against the Commissioner of the NY Department of Correctional Services, the NY Attorney General, the NY Comptroller, MCI Worldcom, Inc., and MCI Telecommunications Corporation. Plaintiff’s attorneys were attempting to stop the Department of Correctional Services from implementing a new contract. In addition, plaintiff’s attorneys have also filed a class action suit in NY Court of Claims against the State of NY seeking restitution of all overpayments made by friends, families and counselors of prisoners.

In 2002, Outside Connection (OC) began offering Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) services. When MCI and the New York prison system discovered the practice, they began blocking calls to all OC numbers. OC responded by seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (which was unsuccessful), and then a preliminary injunction (which also failed.)

In March, 2003, Outside Connection filed a complaint with the FCC arguing that prison telephone system providers have no right to block family access to Remote Call Forwarding services. Attorneys for OC are Shooks, Hardy and Bacon in DC.

In January, 2000, Dayton attorneys Jon Paul Rion and David M. Deutsch filed suit against Ameritech, GTE, Ameritel, Evercom, MCI, the State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and sheriffs in four named counties alleging violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights by allowing phone companies to charge exorbitant rates. An update received in the summer of 2002, indicated that the defendant’s motion to dismiss had been overruled by Judge Rice of the 6th Circuit.

PA	In the autumn of 2002, the entire Commonwealth Court heard arguments in the case of Feigley and PA-CURE vs. the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. It is rare that the entire Court hears an argument at first glance.

On February 15, 2001, attorneys with the law firm of Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern and Lewis, P.A., filed suit against Sprint, T-Netix, Bell South, AT&T, GTE, Rock Hill Telephone Company, Farmers Telephone Company and Science Dynamics. A hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2002. We have no update.

In a ruling dated August 23, 2001, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) ruled that "collect call service from state prison facilities is not being offered on a competitive basis." It then required the phone provider (MCI Worldcom) to file "just and reasonable rates" for prisoner-initiated calls. The cost and supporting documentation were to be filed by January 7, 2002. In addition, MCI was "to review its charges to customers for this service since January 1, 1999. Upon further SCC review, customers may be due refunds with interest." MCI appealed that ruling. The appeal was rejected in January, 2002, and the SCC set another date for the rate study (May 20, 2002).

Senator Norment then filed bill SB156 that eliminated SCC jurisdiction over state agency contracts. That bill became law.

The law was challenged, and in March, 2003, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of MCI and against the SCC and Virginia CURE. By a 5-2 vote, justices ruled that the SCC has no jurisdiction over the DOC’s contract with MCI.

In January 2008, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission fined AT&T more than $300,000 for overcharging families of prisoners for collect calls from Airway Heights Corrections Center and Washington State Penitentiary. The over-billing, which occurred from March to June 2005 will also result in reimbursements of $67, 295 to those families. People can contact AT&T at 1-800-826-9923 to ask for a reimbursement form.

WI	In March, 2000, a suit was filed against MCI, AT&T, Ameritech, the State of Wisconsin, the Department of Corrections Secretary and several county sheriffs alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Communications Act.

EDITORIAL SUPPORT

Mobile Press Register editorial, March 17, 2008:
"It's bad policy for state agencies to make money off phone calls of prisoners. Inmate phone service provides an important lifeline to the outside world. It's one way an inmate can maintain relationships that will help him or her stay free of crime when released."

San Francisco Chronicle, editorial, June 15, 1999:
"California is due to rebid its pay-phone contracts next month. When it does, the state should consider not just commissions, but the practical rehabilitative powers of phone calls and family contacts. The state should make it clear to phone companies that such obscene profits at the expense of inmates and their families are unfair, unacceptable and bad public policy."

FL	*The Tampa Tribune*, December 28,1999 editorial: “... a reduction in costs to the relatives and friends of prisoners seems in order - even if it means a smaller cut for the state.”

The Atlanta Journal, October 22, 2001 editorial:
"A series of eye-opening articles by Atlanta Journal staff writer John McCosh on the soaring rates for collect calls from Georgia prisons got us wondering whether all crooks are behind bars...The Department of Corrections gets 65 percent of the revenue from each call, among the highest commissions in the nation. We find it galling that the state would seek to turn a profit from the family and friends of criminals, many of them unsophisticated consumers. Though we’ve advocated that the punishment fit the crime, we don’t recall urging that our correctional system exploit the supportive relatives of criminals, or profit so excessively from families’ efforts to keep in contact. Not even using that money to fund mental health services for inmates justifies this rip-off. Even without WorldCom’s over billing, the charges are excessive. They must be reconsidered."

Quad-City Times, editorial April 30, 2000

"This phone business is a scam, pure and simple.... These profit-sharing deals are nothing more than government-sanctioned kickbacks-and the mere fact that they’re legal doesn’t make them right. Try as they might, the counties cannot justify these contractual arrangements by arguing that taxpayers will have to make up the difference if the profit-sharing is discontinued. The end doesn’t justify the means - particularly when the 'end' is profit and the 'means' is price gouging of innocent individuals who never have been charged with a crime. The counties are engaged in a blatant money grab that is designed to victimize the relatives, friends, and lawyers of people who typically have yet to be convicted of a crime. It’s just plain unethical, and our county boards should put a stop to this practice now."

Indianapolis Star editorial, June 20, 2000:
"Charging the families of inmates exorbitant prices for their loved ones’ phone calls home borders on cruel and unusual punishment. Yet that’s exactly what’s been going on in Indiana prisons and county jails...Inmates and their families shouldn’t have to go to court to end this immoral practice. As a matter of state policy, Indiana needs to encourage prisoners’ contacts with their friends and families...The state of Indiana should insist on competitive bidding, prohibit profit sharing by the public agencies involved and insist these contracts be renegotiated as soon as humanly possible."

The Grand Rapids Press, editorial June, 15, 2000:
"The state Department of Corrections is making millions of dollars by tacking fees on collect calls made from its prisons. The surcharges are excessive and unfair and should be removed.... Of course, families don’t have to accept collect calls, notes Department of Corrections spokesman Matt Davis. That’s true. But those who say 'yes' to the call shouldn’t be penalized for doing so."

Detroit Free Press, editorial February 5, 2007:
"A few states, including New York and Washington are backing off policies to virtually extort exorbitant phone fees from the families of prisoners. Michigan ought to follow suit. The current (prison phone) system is not only an unfair burden to low-income families but also a barrier to the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the Michigan Department of Corrections. Studies show that inmates who maintain regular family contacts are less likely to re-offend. Through commissions - a nice word for legal kickbacks - state corrections departments have made big profits from phone systems". To be sure, taxpayers should not have to subsidize prison phone calls. But neither should the state make millions of dollars off them, while helping to sever the family and community ties that help offenders succeed after they’re released."

Concord Monitor, editorial April 5, 1999:
"(Corrections Commissioner Hank) Risley believes that collect calls from prison shouldn’t cost more than calls made anywhere else. He’s right, and deserves praise for his position.... While Risley’s decision is a step in the right direction, it may not put this issue entirely to rest. The county jails around the state have their own phone deals, some of which may raise the same questions the state’s has. Administrators of those jails would do well to follow Risley’s lead, rather than wait for their phones to ring with word of an inmate’s lawsuit."

NM	*Albuquerque Journal*, editorial January 5, 2000: “It is a sorry commentary on the moral compass of the Department of Corrections that it sees nothing wrong with extorting free citizens for the simple human contact of talking to loved ones, even if they are in prison.”

New York Times, editorial December 6, 1999:
"It is wrong to penalize and profit from the families of inmates, and unconscionable that New York should lead the pack. If the federal courts do not correct the practice, the state’s Department of Correctional Services should solicit bids for new contracts next year with a different aim in mind -- the cheapest phone calls possible, with no kickback for the state.”

Newsday, columnist Sheryl McCarthy, April 8, 2000:
"I’m told that around the country prison officials are allowing phone companies to charge high prices for prison phone service, and are using their take of the profits to run the prisons. This is another crime of the prison industrial complex, where everybody from phone companies to bankrupt towns to governors profit off criminals and their families. New York’s complicity in this scam is a rip-off, pure and simple.”

New York Times, editorial, January 14, 2006:
"(T)he high phone rates are actually a hidden tax on people who already pay for the prisons through their taxes. Beyond that, the states should not be in the business of bleeding low-income families - and fraying already fragile family ties - to pay for services that the state itself is obligated to provide.”

New York Times, editorial, December 22, 2006:
“With bills that sometimes reach into the hundreds of dollars a month, families must often choose between talking to a jailed loved one and paying the rent. The lost contact is especially crushing for imprisoned parents, who make up more that half the national prison population and are often held in prisons hundreds of miles away from their children.... State prison officials say the money is used to pay for programs that benefit inmates. But it also gouges the poorest citizens - driving them deeper into poverty - to pay for prison services that the state is obligated to provide. It might be legal, but it is also counterproductive and morally indefensible.”

New York Daily News, editorial December 26, 2006:
"It’s not unusual for low-income families to pay monthly bills of $200 or $400 to stay in touch with loved ones behind bars. The result has been a massive transfer of millions from mothers, wives, children and lawyers - people who did nothing wrong - to the coffers of the phone company and the Correctional Services Department, which takes a bit more that 57% of the proceeds. The innocent people being hit with this prison phone tax have paid more that $175 million since the contract was implemented.”

Staten Island Advance, editorial, December 27, 2006:
"(T)he vast majority of prisoners’ families are poor, and these excessively high phone bills make it even harder to make ends meet. What’s more, experts say that prisoners’ maintaining regular contact with family is critical to their prospects of rehabilitation once out of prisoner. It amounts to an unregulated, backdoor tax imposed o a constituency that has virtually no voice. The state’s contract with Global Tel expires on March 31. We urge Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer to end this onerous monopoly and insist on a new phone service in state prisons that is fair and competitively priced. Price-gouging prisoners’ families is no way for the State of New York to do business.”

New York Daily News, January 9, 2007:
"New York has become a fairer and less cruel place, thanks to yesterday’s announcement by Gov. Spitzer that the state will abandon the practice of charging collect-call rates - the highest in the nation - to families, friends and attorneys who want to communicate with prison inmates. The change means that those wishing to talk with New York’s 63,000 inmates will no longer have to pay $3 per call and 16 cents a minute. The cost will drop 50% when the new fiscal year starts in April, leaving tens of millions of dollars in the pockets of working people who did nothing wrong and should never have been hit with the punitive telephone calling rates in the first place. It’s a stark reversal of the immoral gouging imposed with such gusto by the administration of ex-Gov. George Pataki.”

New York Times, editorial, January 10, 2007:
"Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York set an important national example this week when he announced that the state corrections department would back away from a longstanding policy of charging prison inmates and their families more than six times the going rate for collect calls made from prison.... (F)air pricing for prison telephone service is important. In addition to unburdening poor families, it would encourage sustained contact between inmates and their relations. And that would make it more likely that the inmates would forge crime-free lives once they got out.”

Albany Times Union, Editorial, January 15, 2007:
"The indignity and, yes, hardship that came with charging more than six times as much for collect telephone calls made by inmates is ending in New York. Governor Spitzer has ordered the state to stop collecting what amounted to a legal kickback from prisoners’ phone calls.”

Columbus Dispatch, editorial, December 23, 1999:
“The need to force inmates to make collect calls to the outside is unclear. Why can’t they instead purchase competitively priced phone cards, for example? Doubtless, such cards could be programmed to prevent inmates from abusing phone privileges by making harassing calls. The state and counties should reassess this policy and the propriety of such contracts. They unfairly burden the already tenuous link between inmates and the outside world.”

Cleveland Plain Dealer, editorial, date unknown:
“The state should not be in the business of making money off of people unfortunate enough to have a family member in prison. The cost of a prison phone call should be reduced - not for the inmates, but for their families.”

Toledo Blade, Costly Prison Phone Calls, August 4, 2000:
“It is easy, given the current mood of seeing prison as punishment and revenge, and the concomitant short-changing of rehabilitation efforts in many penal systems, to dismiss this price gouging as just desserts. That is wrong-headed. It is not prisoners but their families and friends, potential voters, who are gouged. Equally wrong-headed, in these days of technological miracles, is the argument that any other phone format will compromise prison security. What about prepaid phone cards geared to specific numbers? With the current format of state-sanctioned venality, governments are teaching prisoners elegant lessons in extortion. The fact is that most people in jail get out. Once out, they are more likely to stay out if they have a family to return to. Communication is requisite to the maintaining of family ties. It can’t be priced beyond reach. Policy makers ought to know that, even if phone companies don’t care.”

Daily Oklahoman, "Dialing for Dollars", August 2, 2000:
"Gouging inmates’ family members and friends, who pay for these calls, does not make good policy. The exorbitant costs of collect phone calls punish those outside prison walls instead of the ones who committed the crimes that landed them behind bars....(T)he state should stop depending on expensive telephone calls to make up the difference in a budget that’s already gone through the appropriations process. It’s time corrections officials look for other ways to correct budget shortfalls."

Daily Oklahoman, “Prison Phone Fees Merit Review,” October 21, 2003:
"Telephone calls placed from prison are big business for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Some say too big, and we’re inclined to agree”. (Department spokesman Jerry Massie) points out that families have other ways to stay in touch, such as by writing letters or making visits. So a parent or spouse who lives hundreds of miles away should consider driving to the prison instead of being able to hold an affordable phone conversation with their loved one? How understanding, especially since so many of those behind bars, and their families, are at the low end of the economic scale. Asking families of prisoners to pay so much for their loved ones’ misdeeds seems heavy-handed and unfair.”

Tulsa World, “Is Phone System Fair for Inmates?” October 21, 2003:
"In the long run, it’s to the state’s advantage to have inmates keep in touch with their support system, since most inmates will be released back into the community at some point. With proper safeguards why can’t inmates be allowed to dial toll-free numbers or use calling cards?” (I)n the interest of fairness it might, indeed, be time for more competitive phone services for Oklahoma’s 22,000+ inmates.”

Tulsa World, "Talk isn’t cheap" editorial, October 28, 2006:
“It’s the offender in the state correctional facility who is supposed to pay a debt to society. So why should their families also be penalized by being forced to pay many times more for phone calls than the rest of us have to pay? “This is not a difficult issue. Correctional and rehabilitation experts all agree that maintaining contact with family and community is important to an inmate’s prospects for reintegrating into society. The state should attempt to facilitate that contact, not make money off it.... If Oklahomans want most offenders locked up, then we’re going to have to pony up the money to pay for it.”

Roanoke Times, editorial December 17, 1999:
"No one is suggesting that taxpayers should provide each prisoner with the perk of a personal telephone. But there is a public benefit to helping prisoners maintain family ties (studies reveal a correlation between such contact and a more successful return to society when their sentences are completed), and the system should be made fairer for their families.”

Roanoke Times, "Turning a Profit from Inmates’ Calls”, August 6, 2000:
"Unlike the Virginia Lottery, the corrections system is not supposed to be a money-making enterprise for the state...But the public also benefits when inmates are able to maintain family ties by telephone. Prisoners behave better while incarcerated, and they tend to have a more successful - that is, crime-free - return to society when they’ve completed their sentences. Given the latter, shouldn’t the public share the costs of the telephone system? Shouldn’t the state stop imposing what amounts to a special tax on inmates’ families? These issues, outside the purview of the SCC, are still the legislature’s to call.”

The Virginia-Pilot, editorial September 4, 2001:
"It is not in the state’s interest to gouge the people whom prison inmates call collect, usually loved ones. This, however, is precisely how the present system works. It must be changed...Last year, the Virginia Department of Corrections argued weakly that the prisoners had no standing to complain about rates because they weren’t WorldCom’s customers. The corrections department was the customer, it said, not any inmate. The SCC rightly rejected that argument. It seems unlikely that a corrections department that presented such an argument would voluntarily forgo the 40 percent commission. So the General Assembly should kill it. The commission should also be banned in local jails. Nearly all inmates are released eventually. The corrections department may seek to isolate inmates from the rest of the world as much as possible, but ultimately that is not in the state’s best interest. Ties to loved ones help inmates remain human.”

The News Leader, editorial August 29, 2001:
"And in Virginia, even the innocent get punished, all for the sake of the almighty dollar. We refer to the state’s practice of jacking up the price of in-state collect calls made by prisoners to family members.... Prison phone calls aren’t paid on the public dime. The innocent recipients of the phone calls are the ones who are paying, at an exorbitant rate. That isn’t right, and the SCC is correct in taking steps to ensure it doesn’t continue.”

The Charleston Gazette, August 3, 2000:
"It’s a sad fact of American justice that mostly low-income people are sent to prison. And even middle-class families can be devastated by lawyer bills if a son or daughter is arrested. Therefore, it’s unfair to slap huge costs on relatives who are least able to pay.... We hope the state Division of Corrections and the Legislature can find a way to reduce the phone cost for unlucky families with relatives in prison.”