80 FR 79020 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 243 (December 18, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 243 (December 18, 2015)
| Page Range | 79020-79027 | |
| FR Document | 2015-31253 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 79020-79027] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-31253] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 15-136] Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rules. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on ways to promote competition for Inmate Calling Services (ICS), video visitation, rates for international calls, and considers an array of solutions to further address areas of concern in the (ICS) industry. DATES: Comments due January 19, 2016. Reply comments due February 1, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 12-375 and/or rulemaking number 15-136, by any of the following methods: [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. [ssquf] Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. [ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418- 0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynne Engledow, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1540 or Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket: 12-375, released November 5, 2015. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following Internet Address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1105/FCC-15-136A1.pdf. The complete text may be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request alternative formats for persons with disabilities (e.g. accessible format documents, sign language, interpreters, CARTS, etc.) send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (tty). I. Discussion A. Promoting Competition 1. While we adopted regulations in the November 5, 2015 Report and Order to correct failures in the ICS market, the Commission generally prefers to rely on competition over regulation. We seek additional comment on whether there are ways to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future. We also seek comment on the extent to which the reforms adopted today facilitate a properly functioning market. 2. In the 2012 NPRM, (78 FR 4369) the Commission noted that the First Wright Petition asked the Commission to ``mandate the opening of the ICS market to competition.'' In the First Wright Petition, the Petitioners further requested that the Commission address high ICS rates by prohibiting exclusive ICS contracts and collect-call-only restrictions at privately administered prisons, and requiring such facilities to permit multiple long-distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems. The Commission sought comment on these proposals but noted that ICS contracts ``are typically exclusive.'' In the 2013 Order (78 FR 68005), the Commission observed that while it had previously held that competition existed among ICS providers to provide service to correctional facilities, facilities opposed the allowance of multiple providers due to security concerns. The Commission sought comment on whether security issues were still a legitimate reason for limiting competition within correctional facilities, and whether any technological advances had changed the justification for such exclusive use. The Commission asked similar questions in the Second FNPRM, and requested comment regarding any costs that may be incurred by the introduction of multiple providers within a single facility, any additional barriers to competition within a facility, and how to allow [[Page 79021]] greater competition without banning exclusive ICS contracts. 3. In response, commenters raised concern about requiring facilities to utilize multiple providers at the same location. Many commenters assert that security could be compromised if more than one ICS provider operated at a single facility. For instance, GTL notes that ``investigators would have to conduct duplicative search procedures'' which could compromise ``law enforcement's ability to monitor and track inmate calling for victim protection, investigative resources, and other public safety purposes.'' Securus warns that officers would need to be trained in every system and that having to check multiple systems could lead to a delay in officers' ability to react. Commenters also note potential increased administrative burdens and complexities for correctional facilities in order to install and maintain separate telephone systems. Securus asserts such complexities could include the need to create complex bids to allow for multiple providers, negotiate and oversee multiple contracts, review and process vendor payments and address vendor disputes. Commenters assert that these increased burdens to correctional facilities would likely lead to higher inmate ICS costs. Some commenters say that requiring multiple providers per facility could lead small facilities to eliminate ICS altogether. GTL states that, ``[i]f provision of ICS at facilities with multiple providers is not financially feasible for each provider, then facilities will not have multiple providers, regardless of what rules the Commission promulgates.'' Some commenters suggest that banning exclusive contracts would lead to lower capital investment resulting in lower and less predictable call quality. But HRDC suggests that ``[o]nly when consumers are afforded the choice to select telecommunications providers that offer the best service at the lowest price will a competitive and free market prevail in the ICS industry.'' 4. We seek additional comment on this issue because the record also indicates there may be multiple providers in some facilities. How common is this practice? Does it indicate that not all facilities enter into exclusive ICS contracts? If the Commission finds it necessary to ban exclusive ICS contracts to encourage greater competition in providing ICS in correctional institutions, we seek comment on our legal authority to do so. Would such a ban serve the express purposes of section 276(b)(1), namely to promote competition and the widespread deployment of payphone services? How should existing, exclusive ICS contracts be treated if the Commission decided to ban exclusive contracts? Should they be abrogated, grandfathered, subject to a transition period or some other treatment? We seek information on the extent to which multiple providers currently serve different regions of the country. Specifically, are there even multiple ICS providers available to serve each correctional institution? Are there correctional facilities that can only be served by one ICS provider? 5. Are there ways to mitigate concerns raised in the record that multiple providers could increase burdens and make it ``more difficult . . . to maintain security''? How could allowing competition inside correctional institutions decrease end-user rates? Would facilities, as suggested in the record, eliminate ICS if the Commission banned exclusive contracts? If so, would it be necessary for the Commission to take action to prevent this practice? We seek comment on our legal authority to do so. Is it feasible for multiple providers to serve the same facility without having to build out their own separate infrastructure, for example by offering some form of secure, dial- around service? If so, could the Commission require ICS providers to offer such a service? Is it possible for multiple providers to co-exist at a single facility without compromising important security features and increasing infrastructure and personnel costs? Would technological advances address such concerns? Would requiring multiple providers in institutions, by prohibiting providers from bidding on exclusive contracts, lead to lower capital investment and ultimately affect call quality, as suggested by both GTL and Pay Tel? Finally, should the Commission, as suggested, first adopt rate and ancillary service charge reform and then determine if additional steps are necessary and perhaps revisit the idea of intra-facility competition then? B. Video Calling and Other Advanced Inmate Communications Services 6. Our core goals for inmates and their families, friends, clergy and lawyers remain the same regardless of the technologies used-- ensuring competition and continued widespread deployment of ICS and the societal benefits that they bring. Since the Commission adopted the 2013 Order, we have seen an increase in the use of video calling, including video visitation. Given the lack of competitive pressures and the market failure the Commission has identified in the ICS market, we are concerned that rates for video calling and video visitation services that do not meet the definition of ICS could be used as a way to allow ICS providers to recover decreased rates as a result of the reforms adopted herein. We seek further comment on these newer technologies, to gain a better understanding of their use, the costs to providers and rates to consumers, and to identify any trend of moving away from more traditional ICS technologies. We seek comment on whether the incentives that allowed ICS rates to exceed just, reasonable, and fair levels might also occur for video calls and the action needed to address such issues. 7. Background. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on ``the impact of technological advancements on the ICS industry.'' The Commission also invited comment on its legal authority to regulate the rates for services provided over newer technologies. The Commission received insight from commenters, but additional information was necessary to gain a fuller understanding of video visitation and other advanced services. Accordingly, the Commission asked supplemental questions about these services in the Second FNPRM. For example, the Commission specifically sought ``a greater factual understanding of the availability of these and other services,'' among other issues. The record received in response to the Second FNPRM provided us with further detail about the issues surrounding these services, but we again seek additional information on some questions addressed in both the FNPRM and Second FNPRM, as well as other areas that we have determined warrant further consideration. We specifically seek comment on video calls, including, but not limited to, video visitation, as the record indicates that such technology is growing in use in correctional institutions. We also ask questions about other advanced services described in the record. 8. Discussion. Video calling has become another way for inmates to make contact with the outside world in addition to in-person visits and ICS via telephones hanging on the wall. One commenter suggested that video visitation systems, ``which allow both video and non-video calls at unregulated rates, email, text messaging, face-to-face visits, mail and hearing-impaired systems,'' actually compete with ICS providers. We seek comment on how pervasive video visitation services are in prisons and jails. How many facilities allow such services? Is there a difference in availability between prisons and jails? How many providers offer these services? Are there [[Page 79022]] providers of video visitation that are not also providers of traditional ICS, or do the same companies offer both services? Do commenters believe certain forms of video visitation are in fact distinct from ICS? If so, what feature(s) make them distinct? For instance, might intra-institution video visitation facilities that require the friend or family member to come to the institution in order to have a video visit fall inherently outside the definition of ICS as compared to video visitation between the inmate in the institution and a friend or family member in a remote location? Do certain forms of video visitation use devices other than ``inmate telephones'' as the term is defined in our rules? We also ask commenters to provide data on the minutes of use for video calls and whether and how these minutes of use have grown over the last few years. How common are video visitation only companies, as compared to traditional ICS providers? 9. We are particularly interested in the rates that providers of video calls charge for this service compared to traditional ICS. How are these rates established? For example, the Illinois Campaign states that one provider ``typically charges a dollar a minute for a video visit.'' PPI suggests that the rate may fluctuate between as low as $0.33 per minute for certain providers up to $1.50 per minute for others. We seek detailed information about the rates video visitation providers charge for these services. What is a typical rate charged for video visitation? Does the rate differ between prisons and jails? How much, if at all, do the rates for video visitation fluctuate based on the type or size of the facility? If there is a difference between charges for facility type or size, what are the reasons for the differences? Are the rates for these services different from the rates for traditional ICS? If so, what is the justification for the difference? To the extent that video visitation providers are charging rates that exceed our interim caps, have those providers been able to explain why their services are not a form of ICS that is not subject to those caps? If there are strictly video visitation providers who do not provide other forms of ICS, do their rates differ from those set by traditional ICS providers? Does the end-user rate fluctuate by call volume or technology used? 10. What limits or protections would need to be implemented to provide relief from or prevent excessive rates for video visitation services, to the extent that they are not already being treated as forms of ICS? Are the ancillary service charges for video visitation comparable to those of traditional ICS? PPI explains that certain ICS providers that also provide video visitation charge different amounts for credit card transaction fees depending on the technology used by the inmate. Is this typical for ancillary fees and charges in general? Do video visitation providers bundle this service with traditional ICS or other services, and does that affect the rates users pay for video visitation? Do providers pay site commissions on video calls? If so, we ask commenters to file information on the magnitude of these payments. 11. News articles and commenters indicate that some ICS providers, as a condition for offering video calling, have eliminated in-person visitation entirely. We seek comment on how common conditions, such as eliminating in-person visits, are to offering video visitation services. What cost savings do institutions experience, if any, by moving away from in-person visits? What effects do conditions such as the elimination of in-person visitation have on inmates and their decisions to use video visitation or traditional ICS? Are inmates and their families given a choice? Do they have input into the decision to eliminate in-person visits? Does the practice of eliminating or reducing in-person visitation differ between jails and prisons? The record indicates that some video visitation contracts may also include a quota system, mandating a minimum number of usages of the technology per month. What are the consequences if such quotas are not met? How frequently are such conditions included in video visitation contracts? Are there other requirements like this that video visitation providers include in their contracts? One commenter, for example, hypothesized that ``if commissions on phone services are restricted, providers could include with the phone services a video visitation system and, as an incentive to select them, offer to charge for on-site visits while offering a large commission on the consumer paid visitation services to compensate for commissions restricted on the inmate phone calling.'' Is this a practice that occurs, or is likely to occur in some facilities offering video visitation? 12. We also seek comment on the benefits of video visitation as compared to traditional ICS. In facilities that offer both video visitation and traditional ICS, what percentage of inmates and their families utilize video visitation? For the inmates and families that do use video visitation, how frequent is their use? What is the comparative percentage between video visitation usage and traditional ICS usage? Are inmates and their families more apt to use video visitation in jails or prisons, or is there no notable difference based on the type or size of facility? We seek comment on the impact video calling has on inmate connectivity with friends and family. For example, is there evidence that video calling has reduced or increased the frequency of connectivity with friends and family because they may be charged by the minute, while friends and family do not have to pay for an in-person visit? 13. We seek general comment on the costs to providers of video visitation. Are there additional costs to ICS providers in developing, provisioning, or offering video visitation services? Are there costs to the correctional facilities for provisioning video visitation services? Do ancillary service charges and site commissions affect video visitation rates? If so, how? 14. We have made clear that our authority to regulate ICS is technology neutral. We also note that certain commenters have specifically agreed that we have authority to regulate video visitation. For example, PPI suggests that we should ``regulate the video visitation industry so that the industry does not shift voice calls to video visits.'' To the extent that video visitation is not already a form of ICS that is subject to our ICS rules, is this a suggestion we should pursue? Are there any barriers to the Commission specifically regulating video visitation service that do not constitute inmate telephone service under section 276? 15. HRDC and PPI have suggested that the same perverse incentives that have harmed the traditional ICS market also harm the video visitation market. We seek additional comment on whether there is a similar market failure for video visitation and other advanced services as the market failure described above for traditional ICS. Keeping in mind the Commission's stated goals of increased communication at just, reasonable, and fair rates, what steps can be taken to prevent or alleviate problems in video visitation that have prompted our action with regard to traditional ICS? Would adopting rate caps be effective to ensure just, reasonable, and fair rates for video visitation that does not meet the definition of ICS? To the extent the record indicates that a similar failure is occurring in the market for video calling as we witnessed for traditional ICS, we seek comment on adopting rate caps and reforms to ancillary service charges to ensure that video calls and video visitation do not create loopholes that providers may exploit and undermine the reforms adopted herein. [[Page 79023]] 16. Some commenters are concerned that bundling regulated and unregulated products together harms the market for ICS. Would prohibiting IC providers' bundling of regulated and unregulated products together in contractual offerings alleviate some of the problems with current rates charged for advanced services? What other kinds of advanced services are available to inmates? Are they available commonly in most facilities, or only in certain ones? What is the demand for these services and what rates and fees are charged? What additional functionalities do they offer? Do they provide any greater benefits to inmates, their families, or others, than traditional services? What are ICS providers' rates for other services such as email, voicemail or text messaging? The record indicates that some ICS providers offer tablet computers and kiosks that allow inmates to access games, music, educational tools, law library tools and commissary ordering. What is the compensation mechanism for access to these offerings? What are ICS providers' rates for such services, including both service-specific rates and ``all-you-can-eat'' plans? 17. We also seek comment on the implications of offering video calls, including video visitation, for inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing. Increased deployment of video call systems has the potential to provide inmates who are able to communicate using American Sign Language (ASL) with the ability to access and use VRS, as well as providing direct communications with other ASL users who have video communications access. We note, however, that VRS and videophone users require a smooth, uninterrupted transmission of signal to communicate effectively in ASL. What range of bandwidths and broadband speeds are currently provided or planned for video call systems? What bandwidth and broadband speed are the minimum necessary for effective video communications between ASL users? In addition, what types of video technology are currently used in video call systems? To what extent are video call systems interoperable with the video communications systems used by VRS providers? Should such interoperability be required? If video call systems are used to provide accessible video communications services to deaf inmates, what steps need to be taken to ensure that any charges for such service are fair, just, and reasonable, given that for deaf inmates, such services are functionally equivalent to voice communication? Finally, we seek comment on how prevalent VRS is in correctional institutions. C. Recurring Data Collection 18. As discussed above, we adopt a second, one-time Mandatory Data Collection to occur two years from the effective date of this Order. In this data collection, we will require all ICS providers to submit ICS cost, calling, company and contract information as well as facility, revenue, ancillary fee and advanced service information. We found the data received in response to the 2013 Mandatory Data Collection to be beneficial, and anticipate that the forthcoming additional data will also be helpful to ensure that ICS rates and practices remain just, reasonable, and fair, in keeping with our statutory mandate. 19. Throughout this proceeding, several commenters suggest that the Commission impose additional periodic reviews to ``ensure that the reforms create and maintain the proper incentives to drive ICS rates to competitive levels.'' We have found in the Order that for the time being, only a one-time additional collection is warranted. We seek comment, however, on extending in the future the Mandatory Data Collection adopted in this Order into a recurring data submission. Should providers be required to file the cost data described above in the Mandatory Data Collection annually? Why or why not? Do commenters agree that an ongoing annual data collection would provide the Commission with more fulsome data with which to help ``drive end user rates to competitive levels?'' Since ICS contracts typically run at least three to five years, with one-year extension options, is there benefit in collecting more than several years' worth of cost data in order to obtain a more accurate picture about ICS costs? Some commenters have asserted that upfront investment costs in certain ICS facilities are very high. Would collecting ICS cost data over more than one or two years lead to a more accurate economic picture for such investments? Would an ongoing ICS cost data collection provide the Commission a clearer picture of the industry than a one-time data collection? Would the benefit of such data submissions to the Commission, and its continued monitoring and regulation of the ICS industry, outweigh any potential burden on ICS providers? D. Contract Filing Requirement 20. In the 2013 Order the Commission reminded providers of their obligations to comply with existing rules, including rules requiring that ICS providers that are non-dominant interexchange carriers make their current rates, terms, and conditions available to the public via their company Web sites. In 2014, the Commission sought comment on ``how to ensure that rates and fees are more transparent to consumers'' and specifically on the requirement that ICS providers notify their customers regarding the ICS options available to them and the cost of those options. 21. Several commenters have expressed concern over a lack of transparency regarding ICS rates and fees. HRDC asserts ``almost a total lack of transparency on the part of both ICS providers and the government agencies from which they secure their monopoly contracts.'' HRDC further contends that ``state agencies often create obstacles to inhibit the public records process that require [sic] consumers and other organizations to unnecessarily expend time and money to obtain records designated by law to be ``public'' records.'' HRDC suggests that the Commission require ``all ICS providers to post their contracts with detention facilities on their Web sites where they are publicly available.'' Mr. Baker, of the Alabama PSC, asserts that ``lack of transparency in the ICS industry is problematic'' and recommends several solutions, including requiring providers to submit to the Commission and to state commissions ``upon request or routinely if requested, a copy of the contract from each facility serviced as well as the provider's response to any facility invitation to bid or request for proposal.'' 22. Securus disagrees with these suggestions and asserts that what HRDC calls ``public documents often contain information that is protected from disclosure under the very statutes, like the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, that HRDC invokes'' as a reason for mandating their disclosure. Securus asserts that such protected information includes ``non-public financial data, proprietary information about patented and patentable technology, and the operation of crucial security features.'' Securus contends that requiring the production of ICS contracts ``could contravene federal and state disclosure statutes.'' Securus further asserts that, even if it were able to enact the ``appropriate, lawful redaction'' needed to protect sensitive and confidential data, the production of such contracts would be ``far too broad and too burdensome.'' Finally, Securus asserts that such contract production will be unnecessary if certain reform proposals are adopted, such the Joint Provider Proposal provision requiring all ICS providers to annually certify full [[Page 79024]] compliance with all federal and Commission rules and regulations. 23. Section 211 of the Act grants the Commission authority to require common carriers to ``file with the Commission copies of contracts and agreements relating to communications traffic.'' Section 43.51 of the Commission's rules specifies that any dominant communications common carrier ``must file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement to which it is a party and amendments thereto'' that relate to ``[t]he exchange of services'' and ``matters concerning rates.'' The Commission has also clarified that ``only non-dominant carriers treated with forbearance are not required to file contracts,'' whereas non- dominant carriers who are not treated with forbearance are still subject to filing requirements because ``material filed by [non- dominant] carriers subject to streamlined regulations may be useful in the performance of monitoring.'' 24. We share commenters' concern that ICS contracts are not sufficiently transparent. We also share the concern of commenters who assert that members of the public must ``unnecessarily expend time and money to obtain records'' of ICS contracts. We also recognize the evidence suggesting that the information regarding ICS contracts and rates that is publically available may not be as reliable as the actual contract. 25. Should the Commission require ICS providers to file all contracts, including updates, under its section 211(b) authority? Does the annual reporting requirement meet this transparency objective? Are there any reasons such a requirement would not apply to all ICS providers or result in the filing of all ICS contracts? We seek comment on the costs and benefits related to contract filing. Would such a requirement be overly burdensome to ICS providers? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Would such requirement conflict with any other state or federal laws or requirements, such as the Freedom of Information Act? How should the contracts be filed with the Commission? To allow greater public accessibility to ICS contracts, we seek comment on requiring ICS providers to file their contracts with the Commission, in a newly assigned docket, via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) within 30 days of entering into a new contract. What would trigger the need to file an updated contract and how quickly after execution should new or updated contracts be filed? In what format should contracts be filed? What are the best ways to handle issues related to confidentiality? Would the Protective Order in effect in this docket adequately cover any confidentiality issues that might arise surrounding contracts that might be filed with us? We seek comment on these and any other potential issues that may arise related to the potential filing of ICS contracts with the Commission. For example, should the Commission adopt additional tools to help it prevent contract-related gaming such as that described above? What do commenters suggest as additional means to combat such gaming? E. International Calling Rates 26. In the 2013 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the prevalence of international ICS calling and on the need to reform international ICS rates. The Commission also sought comment on its legal authority to regulate international ICS and on what rates should apply to international ICS, should the Commission assert jurisdiction. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought ``updated comment on international ICS and the need for Commission reform focused on such services.'' 27. In response, several commenters urge the Commission to regulate international ICS rates. The record demonstrates that many inmates either lack access to international ICS or that such services are only available at very high rates. Numerous international ICS calling rates far exceed the rates permitted for interstate ICS calls, with some international rates from county correctional institutions set as high as $17.85 to $45 for a 15-minute call. Friends and family members who live outside the United States and who wish to stay in contact with those who are incarcerated pay the price of such high rates. Commenters also suggest that immigrant detainees are particularly vulnerable to high phone rates, due to several factors, including their need to stay in touch with family abroad and the centrality of phone access to immigration proceedings. We seek comment on whether and how we should act to improve inmates' and detainees' access to ICS for international calls, as well as what rates should apply to such calls. We seek comment on applying the adopted rate caps to all international calls. 28. Legal Authority to Reform International Rates. Longstanding precedent establishes the Commission's authority to ensure that payphone service providers--including providers of ICS--``are fairly compensated for international as well as interstate and intrastate calls.'' In addition, section 201 provides the Commission with the authority to ensure that carriers' rates and practices for interstate and ``foreign'' communications are just and reasonable, and grants the Commission authority to ``prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.'' Based on these provisions, we tentatively conclude that the Commission has authority to reform international ICS rates as necessary to ensure that they are fair, just, and reasonable. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 29. Rates for International Calling. Although several parties note that rates for international ICS calls are very high in some facilities, the record contains relatively little information about the specific costs, if any, ICS providers incur in providing international calling or what would constitute just, reasonable, and fair compensation for international ICS calls. The Mandatory Data Collection required providers to submit their costs related to the provision of ICS, including the provision of international calling. Responses to the Mandatory Data Collection, however, did not separate out costs for international calls from costs for the provision of interstate and intrastate calls. Thus, we lack information about the costs providers incur in providing international ICS. 30. We seek comment on extending our rate caps for interstate and intrastate calls to international calls. Would establishing international rates at levels consistent with our rate caps ensure that ICS users do not pay rates that are unfair or that are unjustly or unreasonably excessive? Would capping rates for international calls at the same levels as we have established for interstate and intrastate calls allow providers to receive fair compensation? If not, why not? Would allowing a higher rate for international calls lead to over- recovery by providers, as their costs for international calls are already factored into the rate caps we set to govern interstate and intrastate ICS rates? Would the benefit of breaking out international calls be sufficient to justify the added complexity of adding a separate regime for international calls in addition to the rate caps we adopt in the accompanying Order? What percentage of ICS providers' minutes of use do international calling minutes constitute? For example, would a relatively low volume of international calls weigh against establishing a separate rate [[Page 79025]] regime for such calls, particularly given that the costs of international calls are already included in the costs we used to set the rate caps for interstate and intrastate ICS? 31. There is evidence that many of the approximately 400,000 immigrants detained in this country each year are held in local jails and prisons that have contracted with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). ICS rates and policies were discussed at the Commission's 2014 ICS Workshop. The record indicates that ICE ``detainees are charged . . . a uniform rate of 15 cents per minute for international calls to landlines and 35 cents per minute for international calls to mobile phones,'' with ``no additional connection fees or ancillary charges.'' We seek comment on these rates. Should the Commission establish separate rate caps for international calls that terminate to landline devices and for those that terminate to mobile devices? If so, what rates should apply to each type of call? How challenging would it be for ICS providers to bill different rates for different types of international calls? Is it administratively feasible for ICS providers to distinguish between calls to landline phones versus calls to mobile devices? Should rates vary depending on which foreign country the inmate is calling? Should there be a separate rate cap for international calls made by ICE detainees? Why or why not? 32. The ICE ICS contract provides for free telephone calling services to select numbers through a ``centralized pro bono platform which can be accessed at any detention facility.'' According to the record, since this ICE contract was awarded, ``the number of calls per detainee and minutes per detainee has increased substantially.'' The record also indicates that detainees may make calls to 200 different countries for the same per-minute rates. We seek additional comment on the rates available under the ICE contract. Are these rates a reasonable approximation of what the Commission should adopt for international rate caps? Is ICE able to attain economies of scale that other facilities are not? Would it be more appropriate for the Commission to: (1) Adopt the ICE rates for all international calls, (2) subject international ICS calls to the same rate caps we adopt for interstate and intrastate calls, or (3) adopt a different rate regime that is not based on either the ICE rates or the existing rate caps? Are any of these options supported by cost data or other data in the record? If not, is such data available? If the Commission adopts rate caps that are higher than those currently offered by ICE facilities, should those facilities be allowed to raise their rates? We seek comment on ICE's decision to apply different rates for international landline ($0.15/minute) and international mobile ($0.35/minute) calls. Are these rates a reasonable approximation of providers' costs? Is this cost differential a similar one to that which other providers have experienced? 33. We also seek further comment on other issues related to international calling from correctional facilities. The record indicates that although it is feasible for inmates to make international calls, international ICS calling is not always available. Commenters assert that the lack of availability of international calling is particularly burdensome to immigrant inmates and their families. We note that many immigration detainees are housed in county jails, rather than in ICE detention facilities. In addition, some inmates in jails and prisons have family and loved ones in countries outside the United States. Do most facilities allow international calling? If not, why not? Are any additional restrictions applied to such calls, such as time-of-day restrictions or prior-permission requirements? Should the Commission require the availability of international calls? If so, what legal authority would we rely on to adopt such a requirement? If we were to adopt such a requirement, what rates should apply to international calls and how should the Commission set such rates? Would subjecting international calls to the same rate caps that apply to interstate and intrastate ICS calls lead to providers or facilities discontinuing or restricting international ICS calls? F. Third-Party Financial Transaction Fees 34. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on third- party financial transactions, and asked how it should ensure that money transfer service fees paid by ICS consumers are just and reasonable and fair. In the ICS context, third-party financial transaction fees consist of two elements: A fee from a third party, such as Western Union or Money Gram to transfer funds from a consumer to an inmate's ICS account, and an additional charge by an ICS provider for processing the funds transferred via the third party for the purpose of paying for ICS calls. After carefully reviewing the record, we determine, in the Order above, that the first aspect of third-party financial transaction, e.g., the money transfer or credit card payment, does not constitute an ``ancillary service,'' within the meaning of section 276. However, we assert jurisdiction over any additional fee or markup that the ICS provider might impose on the end user, and require ICS providers to pass third-party transaction fees to end users with no additional markup. 35. Several commenters express concern about an additional issue related to these transactions: Potential revenue-sharing arrangements between ICS providers and financial companies. ICSolutions, for example, states that, despite the Commission's cap on third-party financial transaction fees, providers and vendors have an incentive to enter into fee-sharing arrangements with financial services companies, ``thereby complying with the pass-through cost component, but still unnecessarily increasing consumers' cost.'' ICSolutions urges the Commission to address this practice by imposing limits on the fees third-party financial companies can charge end users in an effort to prevent ``secondary fee-sharing arrangements'' between these companies and ICS providers that can ``unnecessarily increase the cost of financial transactions to consumers.'' Similarly, CenturyLink asserts that ICS providers can ``divert transactions to certain third party processors, claiming high fees charged by the third party.'' CenturyLink states that, by using a third-party payment processor, an ICS provider can inflate ancillary fees through a revenue-sharing agreement that adds a ``direct or indirect markup'' to ancillary services. CenturyLink argues that providers should be ``permitted to use such services but not permitted to enter into arrangements that add a direct markup or indirect markup though a revenue sharing arrangement.'' Securus, however, defends these calling arrangements as ``innovative, valuable'' additions to ICS that benefit consumer by giving them more options. 36. We seek additional comment on the revenue-sharing issues discussed above. First, we seek comment on issues related to our jurisdiction over these transactions. Does the Commission have jurisdiction over third-party financial processor vendors, or over contracts between ICS providers and third-party vendors? Does our authority over ICS providers allow us to regulate providers' ability to enter into revenue-sharing arrangements with third-party vendors? Could these service charges constitute unjust and unreasonable practices, in violation of section 201(b), or a practice that would lead to unfair rates in violation of section 276, because, for example, the manner in which such charges are imposed artificially inflates the amounts that consumers pay to [[Page 79026]] access ICS? How can we ensure that these revenue sharing arrangements are not used to circumvent our rules prohibiting markups on third-party fees? How common are the revenue-sharing arrangements described by CenturyLink and others? Do providers have any control over the fees established by third parties, such as Western Union or credit card companies, for payment processing functions? Are these revenue-sharing arrangements used to add direct or indirect markups to ancillary services? Should the Commission distinguish between revenue-sharing arrangements between providers and affiliated companies versus arrangements between providers and unaffiliated third parties? If so, what would be the legal basis for such a distinction? Does the Commission have greater authority over arrangements between ICS providers and their affiliates than it does over agreements between providers and unaffiliated entities? Assuming the Commission were to regulate arrangements between providers and affiliated companies that offer financial services, how would such regulations work? Specifically, how could the Commission prevent an affiliate from sharing revenues (or profits) with an ICS provider? Are there other factual or legal considerations the Commission should consider in determining whether and how to address arrangements between ICS providers and financial services companies? G. Cost/Benefit Analysis of Proposals 37. Acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying costs and benefits, we seek to determine whether each of the proposals above will provide public benefits that outweigh their costs. We also seek to maximize the net benefits to the public from any proposals we adopt. For example, commenters have argued that inmate recidivism decreases with regular family contact. This not only benefits the public broadly by reducing crimes, lessening the need for additional correctional facilities and cutting overall costs to society, but also likely has a positive effect on the welfare of inmates' children. We seek specific comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals above and any additional proposals received in response to this Third Further Notice. We also seek any information or analysis that would help us to quantify these costs or benefits. We request that interested parties discuss whether, how, and by how much they would be impacted in terms of costs and benefits of the proposals included herein. Additionally, we ask that parties consider whether the above proposals have multiplier effects beyond their immediate impact that could affect their interest or, more broadly, the public interest. Further, we seek comment on any considerations regarding the manner in which the proposals could be implemented that would increase the number of people who benefit from them, or otherwise increase their net public benefit. We recognize that the costs and benefits may vary based on such factors as the correctional facility served and ICS provider. We have received minimal cost benefit analysis in this proceeding. Therefore, we request again that parties file specific analyses and facts to support any claims of significant costs or benefits associated with the proposals herein. II. Procedural Matters A. Filing Instructions 38. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments and reply comments on this Third FNPRM must be filed in WC Docket No. 12-375.Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202- 418-0432 (tty). B. Ex Parte Requirements 39. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation ad not merely a list of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. If the oral presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the [[Page 79027]] electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 40. This Further Notice contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this document, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is available in Appendix F of the full-text copy of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released November 5, 2015. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). III. Ordering Clauses 42. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 43. It is further ordered, that pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a), that this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective 30 days after publication of a summary thereof in the Federal Register except as noted otherwise above. Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-31253 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![79020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Office of Management and Budget has Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
approved the information collection 418–1540 or Lynne.Engledow@fcc.gov East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
requirements contained in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a MD 20743.
paragraph. The OMB approval number summary of the Commission’s Third D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
is 1024–0026. The NPS is collecting this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Express, and Priority mail must be
information to provide the WC Docket: 12–375, released November addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Superintendent data necessary to issue 5, 2015. The full text of this document Washington DC 20554.
ORV special use permits. The may be downloaded at the following People with Disabilities: To request
information will be used to grant a Internet Address: http:// materials in accessible formats for
benefit. The obligation to respond is transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ people with disabilities (braille, large
required to order to obtain the benefit in Daily_Business/2015/db1105/FCC-15- print, electronic files, audio format),
the form of the ORV permit. 136A1.pdf. send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
Dated: December 9, 2015. The complete text may be purchased the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
Karen Hyun,
12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 418–0432 (tty).
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Washington, DC 20554. To request I. Discussion
[FR Doc. 2015–31793 Filed 12–17–15; 8:45 am] alternative formats for persons with
disabilities (e.g. accessible format A. Promoting Competition
BILLING CODE 4310–EJ–P
documents, sign language, interpreters, 1. While we adopted regulations in
CARTS, etc.) send an email to the November 5, 2015 Report and Order
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s to correct failures in the ICS market, the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Consumer and Governmental Affairs Commission generally prefers to rely on
COMMISSION Bureau at (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418– competition over regulation. We seek
0432 (TTY). additional comment on whether there
47 CFR Part 64
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 are ways to promote competition within
[WC Docket No. 12–375; FCC 15–136] of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR the ICS market to enable the
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file Commission to sunset or eliminate our
Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling comments and reply comments on or regulations adopted herein in the future.
Services before the dates indicated on the first We also seek comment on the extent to
page of this document. Comments may which the reforms adopted today
AGENCY: Federal Communications
be filed using the Commission’s facilitate a properly functioning market.
Commission.
Electronic Comment Filing System 2. In the 2012 NPRM, (78 FR 4369) the
ACTION: Proposed rules. (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Commission noted that the First Wright
SUMMARY: In this document, the Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, Petition asked the Commission to
Commission seeks comment on ways to 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). ‘‘mandate the opening of the ICS market
promote competition for Inmate Calling D Electronic Filers: Comments may be to competition.’’ In the First Wright
Services (ICS), video visitation, rates for filed electronically using the Internet by Petition, the Petitioners further
international calls, and considers an accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ requested that the Commission address
array of solutions to further address ecfs/. high ICS rates by prohibiting exclusive
areas of concern in the (ICS) industry. D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to ICS contracts and collect-call-only
file by paper must file an original and restrictions at privately administered
DATES: Comments due January 19, 2016.
one copy of each filing. If more than one prisons, and requiring such facilities to
Reply comments due February 1, 2016. docket or rulemaking number appears in permit multiple long-distance carriers to
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, the caption of this proceeding, filers interconnect with prison telephone
identified by docket number 12–375 must submit two additional copies for systems. The Commission sought
and/or rulemaking number 15–136, by each additional docket or rulemaking comment on these proposals but noted
any of the following methods: number. that ICS contracts ‘‘are typically
D Federal Communications Filings can be sent by hand or exclusive.’’ In the 2013 Order (78 FR
Commission’s Web site: http:// messenger delivery, by commercial 68005), the Commission observed that
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the overnight courier, or by first-class or while it had previously held that
instructions for submitting comments. overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All competition existed among ICS
D Mail: Federal Communications filings must be addressed to the providers to provide service to
Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Commission’s Secretary, Office of the correctional facilities, facilities opposed
Washington, DC 20554. Secretary, Federal Communications the allowance of multiple providers due
D People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission. to security concerns. The Commission
FCC to request reasonable D All hand-delivered or messenger- sought comment on whether security
accommodations (accessible format delivered paper filings for the issues were still a legitimate reason for
documents, sign language interpreters, Commission’s Secretary must be limiting competition within correctional
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 facilities, and whether any technological
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, advances had changed the justification
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
418–0432. Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours for such exclusive use. The Commission
For detailed instructions for are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand asked similar questions in the Second
submitting comments and additional deliveries must be held together with FNPRM, and requested comment
information on the rulemaking process, rubber bands or fasteners. Any regarding any costs that may be incurred
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION envelopes and boxes must be disposed by the introduction of multiple
section of this document. of before entering the building. providers within a single facility, any
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D Commercial overnight mail (other additional barriers to competition
Lynne Engledow, Wireline Competition than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail within a facility, and how to allow
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79263/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79021
greater competition without banning services? How should existing, and video visitation services that do not
exclusive ICS contracts. exclusive ICS contracts be treated if the meet the definition of ICS could be used
3. In response, commenters raised Commission decided to ban exclusive as a way to allow ICS providers to
concern about requiring facilities to contracts? Should they be abrogated, recover decreased rates as a result of the
utilize multiple providers at the same grandfathered, subject to a transition reforms adopted herein. We seek further
location. Many commenters assert that period or some other treatment? We comment on these newer technologies,
security could be compromised if more seek information on the extent to which to gain a better understanding of their
than one ICS provider operated at a multiple providers currently serve use, the costs to providers and rates to
single facility. For instance, GTL notes different regions of the country. consumers, and to identify any trend of
that ‘‘investigators would have to Specifically, are there even multiple ICS moving away from more traditional ICS
conduct duplicative search procedures’’ providers available to serve each technologies. We seek comment on
which could compromise ‘‘law correctional institution? Are there whether the incentives that allowed ICS
enforcement’s ability to monitor and correctional facilities that can only be rates to exceed just, reasonable, and fair
track inmate calling for victim served by one ICS provider? levels might also occur for video calls
protection, investigative resources, and 5. Are there ways to mitigate concerns and the action needed to address such
other public safety purposes.’’ Securus raised in the record that multiple issues.
warns that officers would need to be providers could increase burdens and 7. Background. In the Second FNPRM,
trained in every system and that having make it ‘‘more difficult . . . to maintain the Commission sought comment on
to check multiple systems could lead to security’’? How could allowing ‘‘the impact of technological
a delay in officers’ ability to react. competition inside correctional advancements on the ICS industry.’’ The
Commenters also note potential institutions decrease end-user rates? Commission also invited comment on
increased administrative burdens and Would facilities, as suggested in the its legal authority to regulate the rates
complexities for correctional facilities in record, eliminate ICS if the Commission for services provided over newer
order to install and maintain separate banned exclusive contracts? If so, would technologies. The Commission received
telephone systems. Securus asserts such it be necessary for the Commission to insight from commenters, but additional
complexities could include the need to take action to prevent this practice? We information was necessary to gain a
create complex bids to allow for seek comment on our legal authority to fuller understanding of video visitation
multiple providers, negotiate and do so. Is it feasible for multiple and other advanced services.
oversee multiple contracts, review and providers to serve the same facility Accordingly, the Commission asked
process vendor payments and address without having to build out their own supplemental questions about these
vendor disputes. Commenters assert that separate infrastructure, for example by services in the Second FNPRM. For
these increased burdens to correctional offering some form of secure, dial- example, the Commission specifically
facilities would likely lead to higher around service? If so, could the sought ‘‘a greater factual understanding
inmate ICS costs. Some commenters say Commission require ICS providers to of the availability of these and other
that requiring multiple providers per offer such a service? Is it possible for services,’’ among other issues. The
facility could lead small facilities to multiple providers to co-exist at a single record received in response to the
eliminate ICS altogether. GTL states facility without compromising Second FNPRM provided us with
that, ‘‘[i]f provision of ICS at facilities important security features and further detail about the issues
with multiple providers is not increasing infrastructure and personnel surrounding these services, but we again
financially feasible for each provider, costs? Would technological advances seek additional information on some
then facilities will not have multiple address such concerns? Would requiring questions addressed in both the FNPRM
providers, regardless of what rules the multiple providers in institutions, by and Second FNPRM, as well as other
Commission promulgates.’’ Some prohibiting providers from bidding on areas that we have determined warrant
commenters suggest that banning exclusive contracts, lead to lower further consideration. We specifically
exclusive contracts would lead to lower capital investment and ultimately affect seek comment on video calls, including,
capital investment resulting in lower call quality, as suggested by both GTL but not limited to, video visitation, as
and less predictable call quality. But and Pay Tel? Finally, should the the record indicates that such
HRDC suggests that ‘‘[o]nly when Commission, as suggested, first adopt technology is growing in use in
consumers are afforded the choice to rate and ancillary service charge reform correctional institutions. We also ask
select telecommunications providers and then determine if additional steps questions about other advanced services
that offer the best service at the lowest are necessary and perhaps revisit the described in the record.
price will a competitive and free market idea of intra-facility competition then? 8. Discussion. Video calling has
prevail in the ICS industry.’’ become another way for inmates to
4. We seek additional comment on B. Video Calling and Other Advanced make contact with the outside world in
this issue because the record also Inmate Communications Services addition to in-person visits and ICS via
indicates there may be multiple 6. Our core goals for inmates and their telephones hanging on the wall. One
providers in some facilities. How families, friends, clergy and lawyers commenter suggested that video
common is this practice? Does it remain the same regardless of the visitation systems, ‘‘which allow both
indicate that not all facilities enter into technologies used—ensuring video and non-video calls at
exclusive ICS contracts? If the competition and continued widespread unregulated rates, email, text messaging,
Commission finds it necessary to ban deployment of ICS and the societal face-to-face visits, mail and hearing-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
exclusive ICS contracts to encourage benefits that they bring. Since the impaired systems,’’ actually compete
greater competition in providing ICS in Commission adopted the 2013 Order, with ICS providers. We seek comment
correctional institutions, we seek we have seen an increase in the use of on how pervasive video visitation
comment on our legal authority to do so. video calling, including video visitation. services are in prisons and jails. How
Would such a ban serve the express Given the lack of competitive pressures many facilities allow such services? Is
purposes of section 276(b)(1), namely to and the market failure the Commission there a difference in availability
promote competition and the has identified in the ICS market, we are between prisons and jails? How many
widespread deployment of payphone concerned that rates for video calling providers offer these services? Are there
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79263/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79023
16. Some commenters are concerned prevalent VRS is in correctional are non-dominant interexchange carriers
that bundling regulated and unregulated institutions. make their current rates, terms, and
products together harms the market for conditions available to the public via
C. Recurring Data Collection
ICS. Would prohibiting IC providers’ their company Web sites. In 2014, the
bundling of regulated and unregulated 18. As discussed above, we adopt a Commission sought comment on ‘‘how
products together in contractual second, one-time Mandatory Data to ensure that rates and fees are more
offerings alleviate some of the problems Collection to occur two years from the transparent to consumers’’ and
with current rates charged for advanced effective date of this Order. In this data specifically on the requirement that ICS
services? What other kinds of advanced collection, we will require all ICS providers notify their customers
services are available to inmates? Are providers to submit ICS cost, calling, regarding the ICS options available to
they available commonly in most company and contract information as them and the cost of those options.
facilities, or only in certain ones? What well as facility, revenue, ancillary fee 21. Several commenters have
is the demand for these services and and advanced service information. We expressed concern over a lack of
what rates and fees are charged? What found the data received in response to transparency regarding ICS rates and
additional functionalities do they offer? the 2013 Mandatory Data Collection to fees. HRDC asserts ‘‘almost a total lack
Do they provide any greater benefits to be beneficial, and anticipate that the of transparency on the part of both ICS
inmates, their families, or others, than forthcoming additional data will also be providers and the government agencies
traditional services? What are ICS helpful to ensure that ICS rates and from which they secure their monopoly
providers’ rates for other services such practices remain just, reasonable, and contracts.’’ HRDC further contends that
as email, voicemail or text messaging? fair, in keeping with our statutory ‘‘state agencies often create obstacles to
The record indicates that some ICS mandate. inhibit the public records process that
19. Throughout this proceeding, require [sic] consumers and other
providers offer tablet computers and
several commenters suggest that the organizations to unnecessarily expend
kiosks that allow inmates to access
Commission impose additional periodic time and money to obtain records
games, music, educational tools, law
reviews to ‘‘ensure that the reforms designated by law to be ‘‘public’’
library tools and commissary ordering.
create and maintain the proper records.’’ HRDC suggests that the
What is the compensation mechanism
incentives to drive ICS rates to Commission require ‘‘all ICS providers
for access to these offerings? What are
competitive levels.’’ We have found in to post their contracts with detention
ICS providers’ rates for such services,
the Order that for the time being, only facilities on their Web sites where they
including both service-specific rates and
a one-time additional collection is are publicly available.’’ Mr. Baker, of the
‘‘all-you-can-eat’’ plans?
warranted. We seek comment, however, Alabama PSC, asserts that ‘‘lack of
17. We also seek comment on the on extending in the future the transparency in the ICS industry is
implications of offering video calls, Mandatory Data Collection adopted in problematic’’ and recommends several
including video visitation, for inmates this Order into a recurring data solutions, including requiring providers
who are deaf or hard of hearing. submission. Should providers be to submit to the Commission and to
Increased deployment of video call required to file the cost data described state commissions ‘‘upon request or
systems has the potential to provide above in the Mandatory Data Collection routinely if requested, a copy of the
inmates who are able to communicate annually? Why or why not? Do contract from each facility serviced as
using American Sign Language (ASL) commenters agree that an ongoing well as the provider’s response to any
with the ability to access and use VRS, annual data collection would provide facility invitation to bid or request for
as well as providing direct the Commission with more fulsome data proposal.’’
communications with other ASL users with which to help ‘‘drive end user rates 22. Securus disagrees with these
who have video communications access. to competitive levels?’’ Since ICS suggestions and asserts that what HRDC
We note, however, that VRS and contracts typically run at least three to calls ‘‘public documents often contain
videophone users require a smooth, five years, with one-year extension information that is protected from
uninterrupted transmission of signal to options, is there benefit in collecting disclosure under the very statutes, like
communicate effectively in ASL. What more than several years’ worth of cost the Freedom of Information Act, 5
range of bandwidths and broadband data in order to obtain a more accurate U.S.C. 552, that HRDC invokes’’ as a
speeds are currently provided or picture about ICS costs? Some reason for mandating their disclosure.
planned for video call systems? What commenters have asserted that upfront Securus asserts that such protected
bandwidth and broadband speed are the investment costs in certain ICS facilities information includes ‘‘non-public
minimum necessary for effective video are very high. Would collecting ICS cost financial data, proprietary information
communications between ASL users? In data over more than one or two years about patented and patentable
addition, what types of video lead to a more accurate economic technology, and the operation of crucial
technology are currently used in video picture for such investments? Would an security features.’’ Securus contends
call systems? To what extent are video ongoing ICS cost data collection provide that requiring the production of ICS
call systems interoperable with the the Commission a clearer picture of the contracts ‘‘could contravene federal and
video communications systems used by industry than a one-time data state disclosure statutes.’’ Securus
VRS providers? Should such collection? Would the benefit of such further asserts that, even if it were able
interoperability be required? If video data submissions to the Commission, to enact the ‘‘appropriate, lawful
call systems are used to provide redaction’’ needed to protect sensitive
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and its continued monitoring and
accessible video communications regulation of the ICS industry, outweigh and confidential data, the production of
services to deaf inmates, what steps any potential burden on ICS providers? such contracts would be ‘‘far too broad
need to be taken to ensure that any and too burdensome.’’ Finally, Securus
charges for such service are fair, just, D. Contract Filing Requirement asserts that such contract production
and reasonable, given that for deaf 20. In the 2013 Order the Commission will be unnecessary if certain reform
inmates, such services are functionally reminded providers of their obligations proposals are adopted, such the Joint
equivalent to voice communication? to comply with existing rules, including Provider Proposal provision requiring
Finally, we seek comment on how rules requiring that ICS providers that all ICS providers to annually certify full
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79263/page/4.svg)
![79024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
compliance with all federal and execution should new or updated service providers—including providers
Commission rules and regulations. contracts be filed? In what format of ICS—‘‘are fairly compensated for
23. Section 211 of the Act grants the should contracts be filed? What are the international as well as interstate and
Commission authority to require best ways to handle issues related to intrastate calls.’’ In addition, section 201
common carriers to ‘‘file with the confidentiality? Would the Protective provides the Commission with the
Commission copies of contracts and Order in effect in this docket adequately authority to ensure that carriers’ rates
agreements relating to communications cover any confidentiality issues that and practices for interstate and
traffic.’’ Section 43.51 of the might arise surrounding contracts that ‘‘foreign’’ communications are just and
Commission’s rules specifies that any might be filed with us? We seek reasonable, and grants the Commission
dominant communications common comment on these and any other authority to ‘‘prescribe such rules and
carrier ‘‘must file with the Commission, potential issues that may arise related to regulations as may be necessary in the
within thirty (30) days of execution, a the potential filing of ICS contracts with public interest to carry out the
copy of each contract, agreement, the Commission. For example, should provisions of this chapter.’’ Based on
concession, license, authorization, the Commission adopt additional tools these provisions, we tentatively
operating agreement or other to help it prevent contract-related conclude that the Commission has
arrangement to which it is a party and gaming such as that described above? authority to reform international ICS
amendments thereto’’ that relate to What do commenters suggest as rates as necessary to ensure that they are
‘‘[t]he exchange of services’’ and additional means to combat such fair, just, and reasonable. We seek
‘‘matters concerning rates.’’ The gaming? comment on this tentative conclusion.
Commission has also clarified that 29. Rates for International Calling.
‘‘only non-dominant carriers treated E. International Calling Rates Although several parties note that rates
with forbearance are not required to file 26. In the 2013 FNPRM, the for international ICS calls are very high
contracts,’’ whereas non-dominant Commission sought comment on the in some facilities, the record contains
carriers who are not treated with prevalence of international ICS calling relatively little information about the
forbearance are still subject to filing and on the need to reform international specific costs, if any, ICS providers
requirements because ‘‘material filed by ICS rates. The Commission also sought incur in providing international calling
[non-dominant] carriers subject to comment on its legal authority to or what would constitute just,
streamlined regulations may be useful regulate international ICS and on what reasonable, and fair compensation for
in the performance of monitoring.’’ rates should apply to international ICS, international ICS calls. The Mandatory
24. We share commenters’ concern should the Commission assert Data Collection required providers to
that ICS contracts are not sufficiently jurisdiction. In the Second FNPRM, the submit their costs related to the
transparent. We also share the concern Commission sought ‘‘updated comment provision of ICS, including the
of commenters who assert that members on international ICS and the need for provision of international calling.
of the public must ‘‘unnecessarily Commission reform focused on such Responses to the Mandatory Data
expend time and money to obtain services.’’ Collection, however, did not separate
records’’ of ICS contracts. We also 27. In response, several commenters out costs for international calls from
recognize the evidence suggesting that urge the Commission to regulate costs for the provision of interstate and
the information regarding ICS contracts international ICS rates. The record intrastate calls. Thus, we lack
and rates that is publically available demonstrates that many inmates either information about the costs providers
may not be as reliable as the actual lack access to international ICS or that incur in providing international ICS.
contract. such services are only available at very 30. We seek comment on extending
25. Should the Commission require high rates. Numerous international ICS our rate caps for interstate and intrastate
ICS providers to file all contracts, calling rates far exceed the rates calls to international calls. Would
including updates, under its section permitted for interstate ICS calls, with establishing international rates at levels
211(b) authority? Does the annual some international rates from county consistent with our rate caps ensure that
reporting requirement meet this correctional institutions set as high as ICS users do not pay rates that are unfair
transparency objective? Are there any $17.85 to $45 for a 15-minute call. or that are unjustly or unreasonably
reasons such a requirement would not Friends and family members who live excessive? Would capping rates for
apply to all ICS providers or result in outside the United States and who wish international calls at the same levels as
the filing of all ICS contracts? We seek to stay in contact with those who are we have established for interstate and
comment on the costs and benefits incarcerated pay the price of such high intrastate calls allow providers to
related to contract filing. Would such a rates. Commenters also suggest that receive fair compensation? If not, why
requirement be overly burdensome to immigrant detainees are particularly not? Would allowing a higher rate for
ICS providers? Do the benefits outweigh vulnerable to high phone rates, due to international calls lead to over-recovery
the costs? Would such requirement several factors, including their need to by providers, as their costs for
conflict with any other state or federal stay in touch with family abroad and the international calls are already factored
laws or requirements, such as the centrality of phone access to into the rate caps we set to govern
Freedom of Information Act? How immigration proceedings. We seek interstate and intrastate ICS rates?
should the contracts be filed with the comment on whether and how we Would the benefit of breaking out
Commission? To allow greater public should act to improve inmates’ and international calls be sufficient to justify
accessibility to ICS contracts, we seek detainees’ access to ICS for international the added complexity of adding a
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
comment on requiring ICS providers to calls, as well as what rates should apply separate regime for international calls in
file their contracts with the to such calls. We seek comment on addition to the rate caps we adopt in the
Commission, in a newly assigned applying the adopted rate caps to all accompanying Order? What percentage
docket, via the Commission’s Electronic international calls. of ICS providers’ minutes of use do
Comment Filing System (ECFS) within 28. Legal Authority to Reform international calling minutes constitute?
30 days of entering into a new contract. International Rates. Longstanding For example, would a relatively low
What would trigger the need to file an precedent establishes the Commission’s volume of international calls weigh
updated contract and how quickly after authority to ensure that payphone against establishing a separate rate
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79263/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 243 / Friday, December 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 79027
electronic comment filing system other forms of information technology; document. The Commission’s Consumer
available for that proceeding, and must and (e) way to further reduce the and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, information collection burden on small Reference Information Center, will send
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants business concerns with fewer than 25 a copy of this Further Notice of
in this proceeding should familiarize employees. In addition, pursuant to the Proposed Rulemaking, including the
themselves with the Commission’s ex Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
parte rules. 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. of the Small Business Administration
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on (SBA).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
how we might further reduce the
40. This Further Notice contains III. Ordering Clauses
information collection burden for small
proposed information collection business concerns with fewer than 25 42. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
requirements. The Commission, as part employees. pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 201(b),
of its continuing effort to reduce 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403 of
paperwork burdens, invites the general D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
the Communications Act of 1934, as
public and the Office of Management 41. As required by the Regulatory amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j),
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and
information collection requirements Commission has prepared an Initial 403 Third Further Notice of Proposed
contained in this document, as required Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) Rulemaking is adopted.
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of for this document, of the possible 43. It is further ordered, that pursuant
1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments significant economic impact on small to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the
should address: (a) whether the entities of the policies and rules Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)
proposed collection of information is addressed in this document. The IRFA and 1.103(a), that this Third Further
necessary for the proper performance of is available in Appendix F of the full- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be
the functions of the Commission, text copy of the Commission’s Second effective 30 days after publication of a
including whether the information shall Report and Order and Third Further summary thereof in the Federal Register
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, except as noted otherwise above.
the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) released November 5, 2015. Written
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and public comments are requested on this Federal Communications Commission.
clarity of the information collected; (d) IRFA. Comments must be identified as Gloria J. Miles,
ways to minimize the burden of the responses to the IRFA and must be filed Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
collection of information on the by the deadlines for comments on the Secretary.
respondents, including the use of Notice provided on or before the dates [FR Doc. 2015–31253 Filed 12–17–15; 8:45 am]
automated collection techniques or indicated on the first page of this BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Dec 17, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_79263/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 01:38:41
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 01:38:41
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rules. | |
| Dates | Comments due January 19, 2016. Reply comments due February 1, 2016. | |
| Contact | Lynne Engledow, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1540 or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 79020 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR