Lee G. Petro
202-230-5857 Direct
202-842-8465 Fax
Lee.Petro@dbr.com

February 15, 2012

Law Offices
1500 K Street N. W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C.
20005-1209
(202) 842-8800
(202) 842-8465 fax
www.drinkerbiddle.com

By ECFS
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

CALIFORNIA
DELAWARE

RE:

ILLINOIS
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
WASHINGTON D.C.

Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal
CC Docket No. 96-128

WISCONSIN

Dear Ms. Dortch:
Martha Wright, et al. (“Petitioners”), by and through her attorneys, respectfully
submit into the record of the above-referenced proceeding this additional information in
support of the Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal (the “Alternative Proposal”),
which was filed with the Commission nearly five years ago, on March 1, 2007. To date,
there has been no action on the Alternative Proposal, which was submitted three and half
years after the Petitioners submitted its Petition for Rulemaking on October 31, 2003.
Thus, for the past eight and half years, the Petitioners have waited for
Commission action - action that was ordered by the District Court of the District of
Columbia on August 22, 2001, when it referred the class action lawsuit to the FCC with
the instruction that the Commission accept “appropriate pleadings” to “assist the Court
in its task of adjudicating” the class action claims.1 That class-action suit remains
pending to date, as the Petitioners, and the D.C. Circuit Court, await direction from the
Commission.
In the meantime, there have been sweeping changes to the inmate calling service
industry, with companies merging themselves out of existence, and with technological
changes making the provision of telephone service to inmates much simpler to provide
within the security parameters established by federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies.

Wright v. Corrections Corp. of America, C.A. No. 00-293 (GK)(D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2001),
Order, slip op. at 1; Memorandum Opinion, rel. November 5, 2001 (attached as Attachments B, C,
and D to the Petitioners’ Petition for Rulemaking).

1

Established 1849

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
February 15, 2012
Page 2
In the Alternative Proposal, the Petitioners proposed the adoption of benchmark
rates based on the undisputed fact that the actual cost of providing inmate calling
services were substantially lower than the rates changed to inmates and their families.
In particular, the Petitioners proposed that the Commission establish benchmark rates
of no more than $0.20 per minute for debit calling and $0.25 per minute for collect
calling, with no separate per-call charges imposed by the inmate telephone service
provider.
In the subsequent pleadings submitted into the record, it became clear that the
benchmark rates proposed by the Petitioner were actually more generous than expected,
and that the actual charges, net of commissions paid to state and local authorities, could
be substantially lowered with no set-up fees.
This result is supported by recent proposals submitted in response to a Request
for Proposal issued by the State of Missouri. In particular, the responses received by the
State of Missouri proposed the following per-minute charges for collect, pre-paid and
debit calls:2
Synergy:
Unisys:
TalkTelio:
Consolidated:

$0.09
$0.05
$0.05
$0.08

PCS:
$0.07
Securus
$0.05
CenturyLink: $0.07-$0.09
(four separate proposals)

Moreover, as noted in the Prison Legal News study submitted by the Petitioners
into the record on July 27, 2011, the following ten states had per-minute rates equal to,
or lower than, the benchmarks set forth in the Alternative Proposal:
Securus
GTL
GTL
Embarq
PCS
PCS
PCS
ICS
Securus
Embarq

Florida
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota
South Carolina

$0.04
$0.21
$0.10
$0.15
$0.10
$0.20
$0.05
$0.10
$0.24
$0.15

Clearly, then, the rates proposed in the Alternative Proposal were reasonable, and
perhaps overstated the actual costs, net of commissions paid to state and local
authorities, of providing inmate telephone services.

2

See Exhibit A.

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
February 15, 2012
Page 3
Thus, the Commission can and should move forward to adopt an order granting
the Alternative Proposal without further delay. The Alternative Proposal was released on
public notice, and the Commission received significant input from all interested parties.3
The Alternative Proposal was clearly a logical outgrowth of the long-pending proceeding,
and the subject matter of the Alternative Proposal was certainly anticipated by the
Commission and all interested parties.
However, in the event that the Commission intends to issue a further notice of
proposed rulemaking, it must specifically demand that the inmate telephone service
providers supply detailed cost information to support their position that the rates set
forth in the Alternative Proposal are too low. The inmate telephone service providers
have consistently refused to provide such information, and Securus Technologies’ most
recent submission into the record, a one-page letter indicating that its costs had
increased by 16% with no supporting information, is wholly insufficient to counter the
overwhelming evidence that the rates set forth in the Alternative Proposal are reasonable
and must be adopted.
Morover, in the absence of any specific cost data provided by the inmate
telephone service providers, the Commission must rely on the conclusive evidence
already in the record, and conclude that Securus and other inmate telephone service
providers have conceded that the proposed rates set forth in the Alternative Proposal are
reasonable.4 The inmate telephone service providers have had more than nine years to
supply specific cost data, and the Commission must reject the service providers’
“generalized assertions that their rates are justified by higher costs.”5
Therefore, the Petitioners respectfully restate its urgent request that the
Commission release an order adopting the proposals set forth in the Alternative
Proposal. As the Commission is aware, the District Court of the District of Columbia
referred the instant matter to the Commission more than 10 years ago based on the belief
that the Commission was best suited to resolve the case. Certainly, no one in 2001
expected that this proceeding would remain pending for more than ten years, with no
immediate end in sight.
Unless the Commission specifically requires the inmate telephone service
providers to submit into this docket accurate, detailed, and up-to-date cost information,
there is no need for the Commission to re-open the record, as it would merely delay
action for at least another two to three years. The inmate telephone service providers
have been given every chance to provide detailed cost data, and they have declined at
every turn. As such, it is time for the Commission to act.

Petitioners Reply Comments, dated June 20, 2007, pgs. 42-49.
Cable & Wireless P.L.C. v. FCC, 116 F.3d 1224, 1233 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (citing International
Settlement Rates, 12 FCC Rcd 19806, 19839 (1997).
5
Access Charge Reform, 16 FCC Rcd 9923, 9941, nt. 104 (2001).
3

4

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
February 15, 2012
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,

Lee G. Petro
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
1500 K Street N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-1209
202-230-5857 – Telephone
202-842-8465 - Telecopier
Counsel for Martha Wright, et al.
Attachments
cc (via electronic mail) :

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Commissioner Robert McDowell
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Austin Schlick, General Counsel
Sharon Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
Sherrese Smith, Chief Counsel & Legal Advisor to Chairman Genachowski
Michael Steffen, Legal Advisor to Chairman Genachowski
Christine Kurth, Policy Director & Wireline Counsel to Commissioner McDowell
Angela Kronenberg, Wireline Legal Advisor to Commissioner Clyburn
Victoria Goldberg, Acting Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
Pamela Arluk, Assistant Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
Jennifer Prime, Office of the Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau

DC01/ 2878277.1

EXHIBIT A