4 ms·

They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority."[1] But they both said the idea had "well intentions." [2] Makes you

They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority."[1] But they both said the idea had "well intentions." [2] Makes you wonder what horrors a conservative majority FCC will cause. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/22/regulators-slash-price-prison-calls-fcc http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/22/regulators-sl... [2] Full commission meeting (item was first on agenda) https://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-october-2015 https://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-october-2...

nickff 11y ago
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?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- taurath 11y ago
  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.
  - nickff 11y ago
    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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
    - taurath 11y ago
      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?
- linksbro 11y ago
  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? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
  - nickff 11y ago
    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.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      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.
    - 11y ago
- s73v3r 11y ago
  I don't. I don't care about private contracts. This behavior is wrong and should be stopped.
- esseye 11y ago
  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.
gruez 11y ago
>They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority." isn't that the default response for them? they used similar reasoning to go against obamacare.
GuamPirate 11y ago
The FCC should always be a progressive institution, so a conservative majority would be against this goal by definition of the word "conservative".

nickff 11y ago

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?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
taurath 11y ago
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.
- nickff 11y ago
  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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
  - taurath 11y ago
    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?
linksbro 11y ago
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? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
- nickff 11y ago
  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.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    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.
  - 11y ago
s73v3r 11y ago
I don't. I don't care about private contracts. This behavior is wrong and should be stopped.
esseye 11y ago
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.

gruez 11y ago

>They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority." isn't that the default response for them? they used similar reasoning to go against obamacare.

GuamPirate 11y ago

The FCC should always be a progressive institution, so a conservative majority would be against this goal by definition of the word "conservative".