Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Rules and Regulations In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission Commission denies a petition for reconsideration filed by Global TelLink Corp. GTL seeking reconsideration of the 2020 ICS Order on Remand, released on August 7, 2020. The Commission reiterates that the jurisdictional nature of a telephone call from a prison or jail depends, for purposes of charging consumers, on the physical location of the originating and terminating endpoints of the call. To the extent the endpoints of any particular call from a prison or jail could be either intrastate or interstate and such endpoints are not known or easily knowable, consistent with Commission precedent, rates or charges for such calls may not exceed any applicable federally prescribed rates or charges.
DATES: Effective July 28, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Minsoo Kim, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at 202 4181739 or via email at Minsoo.Kim@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commissions Order on Reconsideration, FCC 2160, released on May 24, 2021. This summary is based on the public redacted version of the document, the full text of which can be obtained from the following internet address: https docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-21-60A1.pdf.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

I. Introduction 1. Unlike virtually everyone else in the United States, incarcerated people have no choice in their telephone service provider. Instead, their only option typically is to use a service provider chosen by the correctional facility, and once chosen, that service provider typically operates on a monopoly basis. Egregiously high rates and charges and associated unreasonable practices for the most basic and essential communications capabilitytelephone serviceimpedes incarcerated peoples ability to stay connected with family and loved ones, clergy, and counsel, and financially burdens incarcerated people and their loved ones. Never have such connections been as vital as they are now, as many correctional facilities have eliminated in-person visitation in response to the COVID19 pandemic.
2. The Commission adopts an Order on Reconsideration denying GTLs petition for reconsideration of the 2020
ICS Order on Remand, published at 85

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Jul 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

FR 67450 Oct. 23, 2020, and reiterates that the jurisdictional nature of a telephone call for purposes of charging consumers depends on the physical location of the originating and terminating endpoints of the call. To the extent the endpoints of any particular call could be either intrastate or interstate and such endpoints are not known or easily knowable, consistent with the Commissions precedent, rates or charges for such calls may not exceed any applicable federally prescribed rates or charges.
3. The Commission expects todays actions to have immediate meaningful and positive impacts on the ability of incarcerated people and their loved ones to satisfy the Commissions universal, basic need to communicate.
Although the Commission uses various terminology throughout this item to refer to the intended beneficiaries of the Commissions actions herein, unless context specifically indicates otherwise, these beneficiaries are broadly defined as the people placing and receiving inmate calling services ICS calls, whether they are incarcerated people, members of their family, or other loved ones and friends. The Commission also may refer to them, generally, as consumers.
II. Background 4. Access to affordable communications services is critical for everyone in the United States, including incarcerated members of our society.
Studies have long shown that incarcerated people who have regular contact with family members are more likely to succeed after release and have lower recidivism rates. Because correctional facilities generally grant exclusive rights to service providers, incarcerated people must purchase service from locational monopolies and subsequently face rates far higher than those charged to other Americans.
A. Statutory Background 5. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended Communications Act or Act divides regulatory authority over interstate, intrastate, and international communications services between the Commission and the states. Section 2a of the Act empowers the Commission to regulate interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio. This regulatory authority includes ensuring that all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with interstate or international communications services are just and reasonable in accordance with section 201b of the Act. Section 201b also provides that the
PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

40341

Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out these provisions.
6. Section 2b of the Act preserves states jurisdiction over charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service. The Commission is thus generally forbidden from entering the field of intrastate communication service, which remains the province of the states. Stated differently, section 2b erects a presumption against the Commissions assertion of regulatory authority over intrastate communications.
7. Section 276 of the Act directs the Commission to prescribe regulations that ensure that payphone service providers, including inmate calling services providers, are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone. The statute explicitly exempts telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals from the requirement that providers must be compensated for each and every completed call.
Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 1996 Act amended the Act and changed the FCCs authority with respect to some intrastate activities, with respect to section 276, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the strictures of section 2b remain in force. Accordingly, that court concluded that section 276 does not authorize the Commission to determine just and reasonable rates for intrastate calls, and that the Commissions authority under that provision to ensure that providers are fairly compensated both for intrastate and interstate calls does not extend to establishing rate caps on intrastate services. Judge Pillard dissented from this view, finding permissible the Commissions contrary interpretation of the meaning of fairly compensated in section 276.
B. History of Commission Proceedings Prior to 2020
8. In 2003, Martha Wright and her fellow petitioners, current and former incarcerated people and their relatives and legal counsel Wright Petitioners, filed a petition seeking a rulemaking to address excessive inmate calling services rates. The petition sought to prohibit exclusive inmate calling services contracts and collect-call-only restrictions in correctional facilities. In 2007, the Wright Petitioners filed an alternative petition for rulemaking in
E:FRFM28JYR1.SGM

28JYR1