August 2016

The Federal Communications Commission took additional steps to ensure that inmate calling service rates are just, reasonable and fair for inmates and their families, and that jails, prisons and providers are fairly compensated for the costs of providing the service. The Order adopted by the Commission builds on its landmark inmate calling service reforms of 2013 and 2015 by responding to issues raised in the record of the proceeding since then. The FCC’s careful review showed that a modest increase in the rate caps set in 2015 is warranted. By covering the legitimate costs of jails and prisons, this adjustment will ensure continued availability and development of inmate calling services, while still resulting in significant savings for inmates and their families.

The rate caps adopted are, on average, significantly lower than the 2013 interim rate cap of 21 cents a minute that currently applies to interstate long-distance calls. The new caps will govern both in-state and interstate calling, reducing the price for most inmates of an average 15-minute call by nearly 35 percent. The FCC’s inmate calling rate cap functions as a ceiling, not a floor, and so does not prevent states where calling costs are lower from reducing rates further. The Order adjusts the FCC’s 2015 rate caps, which were blocked by a court stay pending appeal. Recognizing higher costs in small institutions, the new rates for debit/prepaid calls are as follows (2015 rate caps in parentheses):
State or federal prisons: 13 cents/minute (11 cents/minute)
Jails with 1,000 or more inmates: 19 cents/minute (14 cents/minute)
Jails with 350-999 inmates: 21 cents/minute (16 cents/minute)
Jails of up to 349 inmates: 31 cents/minute (22 cents/minute)

Rates for collect calls are slightly higher in the first year and will be phased down to these caps after a two-year transition period. Approximately 71 percent of inmates reside in state or federal prisons, and approximately 85 percent of inmates reside in institutions with populations exceeding 1,000.

The Federal Communications Commission took several steps to implement new rules to ensure that people with hearing loss have full access to innovative wireless devices. The action taken has several parts, all of which will modernize existing hearing aid compatibility rules while maintaining the balance between fostering accessibility and promoting innovation and investment. With this Report and Order, the Commission amends the hearing aid compatibility requirements that are generally applicable to wireless service providers and manufacturers of digital wireless handsets.

Specifically, the Commission increases the number of hearing aid compatible handsets that service providers and manufacturers are required to offer by setting two new percentage benchmarks:
66 percent of offered handset models must be compliant following a two-year transition
period for manufacturers, with additional compliance time for service providers, and
85 percent of offered handset models must be compliant following a five-year transition
period for manufacturers, with additional compliance time for service providers.

The new rules establish a more limited obligation for entities offering only four or five handsets.

[Commentary] On July 21, yet another interest group weighed in on the network neutrality debate: academics. In a letter organized by Stanford’s Barbara van Schewick, the 126 signatories, described by van Schewick as “leading” academics, claimed that the European Union net neutrality law, unless amended through guidelines from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC), will frustrate academics’ “ability to research, collaborate, and educate.” Given the seriousness of this assertion, TechPolicyDaily.com investigated the substance behind the claims.

Of all the inconsistencies this letter represents, the most important is these academics’ failure to support policy with research and academic evidence. It appears that in a clicktivist world, it is enough for academics to lend their name and university affiliation to an effort without having to deliver any substance. Moreover, policymakers appear to believe that an academic stamp of approval — any name, as long as it is attached to an academic title — is sufficient representation for the entire community. Such practices are a disservice to universities, bona fide academics, and anyone who expects telecom regulators to make decisions based on substantive evidence.

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark.]