I agree with the conservative FCC comissioners; this is a matter which should be dealt with in contracts between the government (state or federal) and the prison operator.
The FCC has recently been venturing into fields where it does not have expertise or (clear) authority. When the FCC issues regulations which should have been addressed by another regulator or actor, accountability is lost. Who is now to blame when something goes wrong with the prison phones? What happens when prisons fail to service the phones, or make it more difficult for inmates to use them? When it is not clear who is responsible for something, no one is responsible for it.
What horrors are you worried that a conservative-majority FCC will cause? That they will be accountable for the consequences of their actions, and not attempt to increase the scope of their authority?
I'm not sure how I understand how an independent commission created by congress to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"[1] is increasing the scope of their authority by very clearly making it possible for the incarcerated to access wire communications at a reasonable charge.
Can you elaborate on how you're seeing this as an overreach?
If you read the commission's charter broadly enough, and without regard to either the original understanding or the original intent, you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions. From the text you provided, one could, for instance conclude that the FCC has the authority to issue regulations which require parents to provide all children above the age of two with a cellphone capable of high-speed internet access with no data cap (just as easily as you could find that the FCC can regulate prison phone prices).
The FCC does not have authority to regulate phones or networks in any business or home, and cannot dictate whether your company can block certain websites or phone numbers, and the company can have a carrier set up these restrictions for them. Likewise, the FCC does have authority to regulate how phone services are provided to the prisons (though it is not clear that the FCC could discrimate prisons from other businesses), but not what happens within the prison itself or under the prison's request.
Except that prisoners are a captive audience, being held by the Government, and the phone companies get a monopoly on an essential good. So a federal regulatory body absolutely makes sense.
> [The FCC is] an independent commission created by [C]ongress to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"
Given that (almost?) all prisoners in US prisons are "people of the United States", this seems like exactly the correct body.
> If you read the commission's charter broadly enough, and without regard to either the original understanding or the original intent, you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions. From the text you provided, one could, for instance conclude that the FCC has the authority to issue regulations which require parents to provide all children above the age of two with a cellphone capable of high-speed internet access with no data cap (just as easily as you could find that the FCC can regulate prison phone prices).
>The FCC does not have authority to regulate phones or networks in any business or home, and cannot dictate whether your company can block certain websites or phone numbers, and the company can have a carrier set up these restrictions for them. Likewise, the FCC does have authority to regulate how phone services are provided to the prisons (though it is not clear that the FCC could discrimate prisons from other businesses), but not what happens within the prison itself or under the prison's request.
Given that not even the 13th amendment applies to prisoners, I also very much doubt that the largess of a congressional mandate for the FCC applies.
The FCC is obligated to determine if a telecommunications service is required to file tariffs:
"Tariffs contain the rates, terms and conditions of certain services provided by telecommunications carriers. The most common tariff filed at the FCC is for interstate local access service. These tariffs are filed by local exchange carriers, or LECs.
Long-distance companies and others pay the rates set out in these tariffs to LECs for access to local networks at the originating and/or terminating ends of a long-distance call. Access services include:
* End User access, which mainly recovers the Subscriber Line Charge, the Access Recovery Charge, and the Universal Service Fund Charge. ...
Except in very limited circumstances, long-distance companies are not permitted to file tariffs for long-distance service because the FCC has determined that the long-distance market is competitive. Like long-distance service, many broadband services have been detariffed. ...
Tariffs must be just and reasonable and may not be unreasonably discriminatory under Sections 201(a) and 202(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended." [0]
(Emphasis mine.)
If the long-distance market for prisoners is not competitive, the FCC is well within its remit to demand that rates for those services be just, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
> Given that not even the 13th amendment applies to prisoners...
Rights and privileges are severable. This means that loss of one does not imply loss of others.
Yeah, there's a -reasonable- interpretation of the charter, and your hypothetical broad interpretation. "in so far as possible" is an important phrase - there is no justification in the charges being set for prison communications other than "because we can", as shown by the utterly huge profits shown by these companies.
So how would you respond to 47 U.S.C. 276 (c)(d)? [1]
(c) STATE PREEMPTION
To the extent that any State requirements are
inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, the Commission's regulations on
such matters shall preempt such State requirements.
(d) DEFINITION
As used in this section, the term ''payphone service''
means the provision of public or semi-public pay telephones, the provision of
inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services.
This explicitly states that since inception, the FCC has been directed by congress to have jurisdiction over __inmate telephone service__, and __any ancillary services__.
How can you have anything __more__ direct than this language?
I am not a fan of trying to use original intent at all, but it is most often done by a relatively large number of judges by reading legislative history.[1]
It will result in local and regional monopolies and unbreakable contracts as it has with ISPs. Time and time again local entities are bribed or bought - at least when its done on the federal level there's one location that needs to be fixed, and maybe they'll actually have the resources to do a researched decision instead of signing up the first person to walk through the door with a solution.
I remain convinced that this should be dealt with in the prison's contract with the government, as other issues such as sanitation, clothing, etc. are dealt with, as it would allow for clear and detailed standards (as well as accountability and continuous monitoring) and not just price setting; however, if the problem here is one of monopoly, the regulator with the clearest authority is the FTC.[1]
The idea of prisons being governed by a trade commission would be almost comically ironic if it weren't so serious - we seem to be taking it literally the idea of prisoners being modern slaves. Contracts are always written to favor the one with more power.
Edit: In this case even there WAS a contract - the prisons signed an exclusive contract with Global Tel-Link, which would provide a percentage of the proceeds back to the prison. The deal incentivized both parties to raise prices as much as possible while the zero rights inmates had no recourse. Those are the sorts of contracts that happen all the time when there are no regulations. What would a trade commission do in this situation?
I don't know if you understand the scope and intent of their authority if you're implying this is not clearly inside of it. They exist to make sure that people retain reasonable access to communications. That includes stepping in when government agencies would seek to limit them in a way which harms the people. This is a clear instance of just that. There is absolutely no way you can conclude the rates are reasonable/justified. At $2+/minute, they could maintain an arsenal of prepaid cellphones with unlimited time.
They've used this authority for a very long time, and the most basic instances of this are municipalities trying to enact regulations that prohibit people from putting up antennas required for otherwise lawful radio communications.
It is still the responsibility of the prison to maintain and provide access to the phones as long as inmates are guaranteed that right. There's no question of who's accountable there. The prison and department of justice/corrections/etc depending on what type of facility.
The FCC has recently been venturing into fields where it does not have expertise or (clear) authority. When the FCC issues regulations which should have been addressed by another regulator or actor, accountability is lost. Who is now to blame when something goes wrong with the prison phones? What happens when prisons fail to service the phones, or make it more difficult for inmates to use them? When it is not clear who is responsible for something, no one is responsible for it.
What horrors are you worried that a conservative-majority FCC will cause? That they will be accountable for the consequences of their actions, and not attempt to increase the scope of their authority?