{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidorj7fe2pbw3jspx4dyrjjg2sf64hf3f5ghnxwkobxbenpy4xcwm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:mg5ozsljpp6t5b4lvwys4t72/app.bsky.feed.post/3lrvok334ija2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreib6eohxsidczrmsontfi3phsmmakpgt737wm3sebxhfmuhgs3alea"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/webp",
    "size": 56012
  },
  "description": "FCC rules prisoners shouldn’t pay for most communications security services. But opponents ask: Who will?",
  "path": "/advocates-sheriffs-and-service-providers-face-off-over-fccs-prison-phone-rates/",
  "publishedAt": "2025-06-18T18:52:02.000Z",
  "site": "https://broadbandbreakfast.com",
  "tags": [
    "opposing briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit",
    "All Videos from Speeding BEAD Summit",
    "By] imposing an unreasonably strict definition of what qualifies as ‘necessary,’ the FCC systematically undervalues critical safety and security measures,” wrote two major providers of incarcerated communications services, Securus Technologies and Pay Tel Communications, along with the National Sheriffs’ Association, in a [_joint filing_",
    "_separate brief_",
    "_Martha Wright-Reed Act_",
    "_caused a stir when it took effect last November_"
  ],
  "textContent": "June 18, 2025 – The battle over how much incarcerated people should pay to stay connected with loved ones escalated this week.\n\nSheriffs, telecom providers, and civil rights advocates filed opposing briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit over a Federal Communications Commission rule that slashed prison phone rates and restricted providers from passing along most of the costs associated with call monitoring and other security measures.\n\nWhile sheriffs and service providers opposed the FCC’s limits on passing security costs onto incarcerated people, public interest groups said the FCC’s order didn’t go far enough.\n\n\n\n_****FROM SPEEDING BEAD SUMMIT****_\n _****Panel 1: How Are States Thinking About Reasonable Costs Now?****_\n_****Panel 2: Finding the State Versus Federal Balance in BEAD****_\n _****Panel 3: Reacting to the New BEAD NOFO Guidance****_\n _****Panel 4: Building, Maintaining and Adopting Digital Workforce Skills****_\n\n All Videos from Speeding BEAD Summit \n\nAlong with the standard service costs that providers need to charge for a phone call or other communications service, incarcerated people’s communications services providers must provide security and safety services to ensure prisons can monitor inmates’ calls. The FCC’s proposed solution to this extra security cost has upset groups on both sides of the issue.\n\n“By] imposing an unreasonably strict definition of what qualifies as ‘necessary,’ the FCC systematically undervalues critical safety and security measures,” wrote two major providers of incarcerated communications services, Securus Technologies and Pay Tel Communications, along with the National Sheriffs’ Association, in a [_joint filing_ submitted Sunday.\n\nPublic interest groups, including the Direct Action for Rights and Equality, pushed back in a _separate brief_ Monday stating, “The Commission correctly excluded site commissions and many…safety and security costs that do not benefit IPCS consumers. Nonetheless, the Commission’s Order should have gone further to protect consumers.”\n\nThe FCC’s 2024 order interpreting the _Martha Wright-Reed Act_, which ensures “just and reasonable” rates for communication devices like payphones for prisoners, _caused a stir when it took effect last November_. The order “slashed the cost of a 15-minute call from as high as $11.35 in some large jails to as low as $0.90.”\n\nThe ISPs serving prisons said in November that the FCC “went too far” and “overcorrected in a way that [will] ultimately hurt [everyone involved].”\n\nBut in their most recent First Circuit brief, public interest advocates argued the FCC still allowed too many security-related costs to slip through.\n\n“In determining the lower bounds [of the price capping], the Commission unlawfully…included safety and security costs, but those costs predominantly serve law enforcement” and are not useful to IPCS consumers, DARE et al. said, continuing that the existence of these security costs are “speculative” and the FCC “arbitrarily included a two-cent ‘additive’ to account for ‘correctional facility costs.’”\n\nStill, prison telecom providers maintained that “the rate caps place more than half of all providers underwater.” The FCC’s “conclusion that IPCS rates should not pay for [certain] safety and security measures does not make those costs disappear,” Securus and Pay Tel wrote.",
  "title": "Advocates, Sheriffs, and Service Providers Face Off Over FCC’s Prison Phone Rates",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-11T03:27:46.764Z"
}