4 ms·

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, w

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.
- scottshepard 11y ago
  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.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    But is the FCC the correct body?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      As mentioned by linksbro upthread: > [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.
      - tedks 11y ago
        As mentioned by nickff upthread: > 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.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  If the intent was different, then why didn't they explicitly mention that?
  - nickff 11y ago
    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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
- themartorana 11y ago
  "The FCC does not have authority to regulate phones or networks in any business or home," Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure my wireless phone, the bands it can use, and the power it can transmit are highly regulated...
- linksbro 11y ago
  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? [1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

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.
scottshepard 11y ago
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.
- hugh4 11y ago
  But is the FCC the correct body?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    As mentioned by linksbro upthread: > [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.
    - tedks 11y ago
      As mentioned by nickff upthread: > 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.
s73v3r 11y ago
If the intent was different, then why didn't they explicitly mention that?
- nickff 11y ago
  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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
themartorana 11y ago
"The FCC does not have authority to regulate phones or networks in any business or home," Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure my wireless phone, the bands it can use, and the power it can transmit are highly regulated...
linksbro 11y ago
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? [1]https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf