Providers, Advocates Seek Changes in Video IPCS Rate Caps Rulemaking
Incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) providers and public interest groups urged the FCC to revise its proposed rules on rate caps for video IPCS (see 2409200019). Commissioners adopted the Further NPRM in July along with an order lowering rates for audio IPCS and establishing interim rate caps for video IPCS. Providers opposed establishing service quality standards and expanding the definition of a correctional facility in comments posted Tuesday in docket 23-62. Public interest groups sought additional data, allowing more refinement of interim rate caps.
A coalition of public interest groups said the FCC should "act promptly" and establish permanent video IPCS rate caps. "Throughout this proceeding, interim rates have provided incremental progress toward achieving just and reasonable rates and provided sufficient reliability for business interests to allow the market to develop," said the Wright Petitioners, Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, Pennsylvania Prison Society and Public Knowledge: "Video IPCS rates are no different." The groups also suggested that the commission refine the interim caps for video IPCS by collecting data to determine used and useful costs.
The FCC "must take into account all of the costs associated with video IPCS in setting permanent rate caps," said Global Tel*Link's ViaPath. The company said the record shows that providing video IPCS "requires costs above and beyond those incurred to provide voice IPCS." It also called the proposal establishing service quality standards "not necessary" because they "will not account for the difference in services provided at each correctional facility."
The United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry and National Consumer Law Center disagreed, saying in joint comments that the FCC should "clearly state that the Communications Act requires carceral communications service providers to meet an adequate quality standard." The commission "has a statutory obligation to ensure service quality for incarcerated people."
Holding IPCS providers responsible for service quality standards is "misplaced," said NCIC Correctional Services, citing "complex variables associated with making video IPCS available to consumers." The company suggested the FCC instead "prohibit per-call charges for video IPCS" and enforce refund regulations. NCIC backed adopting a "uniform additive to account for correctional facility costs associated with making audio and video IPCS available at their facilities." In a separate filing, NCIC petitioned the FCC to reconsider its July order (see 2410100049).
Securus said the FCC lacked authority to adopt standards. "The commission has not classified VoIP as a telecommunications service nor are interoperable video conferencing services subject to Title II regulation," Securus said. The IPCS provider also noted the FCC lacks enough information to determine whether it should expand its rules to facilities other than jails and prisons.
Don't regulate IPCS in non-correctional confinement facilities, said Pay Tel. Facilities like nursing homes "do not have the same safety and security concerns, and generally do not have the same restrictions on other forms of communication," Pay Tel said. The company also warned that the proposed account balance refund rules are "unworkable" because it could expose IPCS providers to "state money transmitter laws as well as state and federal anti-money laundering statutes."
The National Sheriffs' Association also opposed expanding the definition of a "correctional institute" to include civil commitment, residential, group and nursing facilities. The group urged the FCC to "not attempt to inject uncertainty where none exists." NSA backed further disaggregating the very small jails tier, noting the FCC's rate cap for that tier "is not taking into account appropriate factors and providing sufficient recovery for IPCS providers and facilities."