15 ms·

1. The government decides that prisoners can make phone calls, but they can only use a single prison-approved phone operator, and that operator is a private com

1. The government decides that prisoners can make phone calls, but they can only use a single prison-approved phone operator, and that operator is a private company. 2. The private company realizes it has no competition, raises prices as much as it wants. 3. The government is surprised with the outcome. I would say the government is at fault here for prohibiting competition, not the companies. It's the 21st century, you could establish a system where any company, with an appropriate license and government approval, could offer tablets / cell phones for prisoner use, with appropriate limitations and restrictions placed on them of course. Prisoners could then choose which company they want to go with. That would instantly eliminate the problem.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thuuuomas 2y ago
“Instantly” here meaning “potentially, after current contract obligations end & institutions complete the switch to a new provider”.
Avshalom 2y ago
I do not think the government was at all surprised, punitive charges are very much a part of the prison system in this country[1] this is people deciding to lessen the burden slightly. [1] https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/pay-to-stay-state-law-charging-inmates-for-prison-cells-being-applied-differently-from-county-to-county https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investi...
airza 2y ago
"the government" as an entity here really elides the difference between the federal government and state governments; state governments hold the majority of prisoners in the US and the ability of the federal government (via the FCC) to regulate prison phone calls that do not cross state lines is new since 2022. But even on top of that, what would the dream free market implementation even look like here? An entire licensure and certification system for these tablets which will inevitably be crammed with as many upsells as the law does not prohibit? What is the recourse for someone who is in prison and chooses a company whose products do not work? Are they supposed to call tech support?
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I can answer this, as the tablets they everywhere are cheap Temu junk. If it's hardware, you have to return the tablet to the prison, and good luck on them satisfying the warranty for you. Easier just to get your family to put another $250-400 on your commissary and just buy a new one. If it's software -- you're usually shit out of luck. If it's a serious bug and enough people file paperwork every day, then after a few weeks of outage it is often escalated to the operator. Another few weeks after that they will eventually fix it. Things move very, very slowly in jails and prisons, so expect long stretches of downtime.
- shuntress 2y ago
  > what would the dream free market implementation even look like here? Every company's dream: Free labor and captive audiences.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
glenstein 2y ago
>1. The government decides that prisoners can make phone calls, but they can only use a single prison-approved phone operator, and that operator is a private company. You're saying "the government" a lot, but AFAIK there's no specific federal mandate of any kind to the effect of requiring a specific company handle calls at all jails and prisons. If anything that is the consequence of an absence of any specific regulation rather than the presence of one, which is completely the opposite of the point you seem to be making. In reality, a variety of completely separate state and local correctional facilities put the service out to bid. If anything, it is federal level prisons that would most fit the description of "the government" where you have the best regulations, where there is scrutiny of the bidding process, where there are already caps to limit the expenses associated with calls. At the county and municipal level, companies that tend to win the contracts have special deals in the form of a "site commission" payments, which are a kickback to the prisons, incentivizing them to give a monopoly to whichever company charges the most and kicks back the most to the prison. Edit: I feel like I (1) spoke directly to what the parent commenter was saying (2) stated uncontroversial facts, (3) echoing a point a chorus of other commenters are making about what "the government" really means, but I'm seeing a bunch of drive-by downvotes. Would appreciate if anyone wants to chime in and help me understand what I'm missing.
- WhitneyLand 2y ago
  You’re technically correct, but try to zoom out for a minute and look at the subtlety of human nature. This topic has fired every one up because it’s unnecessarily cruel, hurts families who didn’t do anything wrong, enriches companies not providing any value, and shows people trying to be “tough on crime” when very ironically they’re probably creating more crime by eroding support systems. The parent commenter mostly expresses that outrage, and makes a passing comment about business competition. By this time anything you said that could be perceived as possibly being near the other side of the argument is going to be taken as supporting the other side. But they are two separate points that can be independently discussed you say? Technically that’s true, but humans don’t work like that. Always step back and look at the biggest point being made and realize, there may be little room for nuance depending on the context.
easyThrowaway 2y ago
I can't really wrap my mind around the idea that communications in the prison system should be paid by the inmates going straight through a private company. If somebody told me this was some lore from Bioshock I'd tell them the joke is too on the nose. Who knows, maybe I'm just too... european to truly understand. What I'd really like to know instead is the conversation that your representatives and the telco board had on the matter. Also, the golf course where it happened. Because I'd bet very good money that nobody in the current (or any previous) administration is in any way surprised with the outcome.
- tzs 2y ago
  A bit of Googling turned up stories about the high cost of phone calls for prisoners in France, Germany, and the UK and that their systems are run by private companies. I couldn't find out of the money goes "straight through" to the phone system provider or if the government collects and forwards it, but does that really make a difference?
- alistairSH 2y ago
  I can't really wrap my mind around the idea that [anything] in the prison system should be [so terribly broken] It all makes sense when you accept that the American justice system is configured for maximum vengeance, not rehabilitation, and certainly not the best outcomes for society. WE MUST PUNISH THE SINNERS!
- whoitwas 2y ago
  A significant percentage of prisons in the US are private companies operating for profit who spend lobbying dollars to influence policy. This even happens with the juvenile "justice" system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  It's helpful to think of American governance as being simply a gigantic money funnel, where taxpayer dollars goes in the top, and the US and State legislators point the small end of the funnel at all their various favored private businesses and individuals. It's just plain old corruption but wearing a suit and tie and a spiffy "business-friendly" mask.
pjc50 2y ago
Absolutely key to understanding this is that "government" in (1) is a state-level government which has been bribed by the private phone company. This sort of thing happens at every level, but it's more often than not the Federal government preventing abuses by the states. Edit: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/02/11/kickbacks-and-commissions/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/02/11/kickbacks-and-c... - it's even more blatant, they're paying a large share of this revenue directly to local governments.
- matwood 2y ago
  And more generally, this is one of the bad outcomes when pushing decisions back to state and local governments. They are typically easier to bribe and/or control with fewer extreme idea (prison is about maximum punishment at every turn) people.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
> I would say the government is at fault here for prohibiting competition, not the companies. To borrow a slightly old meme, porque no los dos? If my local government cuts firefighting budgets, and I decide to take advantage of this to become an arsonist, I don't think anyone would say that it's the government at fault for half the town going ablaze.
notaustinpowers 2y ago
It's absolutely grotesque to me. Florida charges their inmates $50/day as a "bed fee" that they must pay when they are released. If you were found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison, but were released after 1 month because your charge was overturned, you still have to pay the fee for the full 5 years you would have been there. It makes me ashamed to be an American.
- frob 2y ago
  Florida is a special version of horrible when it comes to treatment of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people. The citizens of Florida overwhelmingly voted to restore voting rights to people who had completed their sentence. Ron DeSantis and the Republicans modified the law to prevent people from voting if they hadn't paid all of their fees, which there is no central tracking or source of. They then went on to arrest Black citizens who tried to register to vote after their PO had told them they owed no money and were clear to vote.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - netsharc 2y ago
      Nah, his God said it was fine... his God wants him to be the leader of the world!
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - notaustinpowers 2y ago
    Who needs those pesky things like free and fair elections when you can just disenfranchise the competition!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
acomjean 2y ago
Its hard to imagine that they didn't know this would happen based on the USA recent past history with phone pricing. There was a time (when I was young) where there was just one phone company in the USA. Prices were high for long distance (My mom is first generation so called out frequently). Then deregulation and competition (MCI/Sprint) lowered those prices dramatically. In the late 90s I lived with roommates that didn't have long distance. We used phone cards we bought at the local convenience store. Those were actually pretty good price wise.
hermannj314 2y ago
These decisions ruin families all so a small group of elites can profit. I do wish there was an easy way when things like this happen to immediately say, "if you are happy with this FCC decision, here are the politicians responsible, the FCC directors and employees that did nothing for decades, etc." and then we can deny-list those people and their families from polite society.
lyu07282 2y ago
so much effort to constantly having to play whack a mole with a malicious industry that pays all your politicians election campaigns. I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you have to engage in just having to justify your neoliberal ideology in your own head all the time. Wait until you hear how much tax payers pay for school lunches and textbooks, prison libraries and commissaries. I also better not mention the bail bond industry. We just aren't doing neoliberalism hard enough yet, don't you see?
cptskippy 2y ago
It's silly that the government allows for service providers to charge excessive rates, when they should have contracted rates. And your solution is equally absurd. Provide prisoners with tablets or cellphones and let them choose their own service provider? You know that prison phone calls are monitored right?
JoshTko 2y ago
Phone calls should be a human right. The govt should just make these calls free. We want these folks to be able to connect with family and maintain connection to give them the best chance of integrating back. Charging for phone call is unnecessarily punitive.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  When I was locked up in the county jail (charges dropped later) my mother was dying from cancer. I wanted to call her, but it was so insanely expensive ($1.50/min) I could only call for 5 mins a day until she died. I scheduled a bail hearing due to my mother's illness, but it took months. It was scheduled for a Monday. My mother died on the Saturday. When we got in front of the judge on Monday the prosecutor snapped on the judge, "Judge, what are we even doing here! This is total waste of my time. His mother died already. This issue is moot."
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Look at compassionate release laws. 'Technically' the courts are compassionate, but the rules are so Kafkaesque, whatever the reason will have passed before the process is exhausted. No one gets out on compassionate release even though many qualify (say you are the only immediate family/available caregiver of someone incapacitated and/or dying).
bmelton 2y ago
What strikes me as the likeliest implementation of a fair-market system is what we have in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) system, which is that the bureaucracy of ensuring fairness is so high that we end up with $400 tablets costing $4,000, as tech companies try to get into the space but find out that they need to hire a team of contract attorneys and compliance officers and DCAA compliant time-reporting software and retraining their employees to use it and be subject to regular audits etc. etc.
cogman10 2y ago
The part you are missing is these private phone operators made deals with private prison operators, no government involved. The government is still to blame for having private prisons. For everything you point out, a prison should not be private because it's a market with a literal set of captives that cannot choose their prison. That incentives the prison to gouge at every turn.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
I actually always hold companies accountable for their actions, whether or not other factors allowed those actions. They're still price-gouging prisoners because they can. That's still abhorrent behavior.
whoitwas 2y ago
Why should the phone be operated by a third party for profit? Why are prisons operated for profit?
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  "because who cares are you really trying to defend murderers and pedophiles!?" <- vast majority of avg US citizens. Talking about prisoners rights in any way will get you questionable looks from most people. "Prison isn't supposed to be fun" "lock em up and throw away the key" etc.
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    Of course I am. They're our neighbors too and it's very rare for people to be incarcerated forever. Humans are very narrow minded.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
makestuff 2y ago
I could be wrong on the interpretation, but I wonder if this will be one of the first cases challenged based on the Chevron ruling. I would think the challenge would be the law does not specify what the price should be so we can set it to whatever until congress passes a law specifying it.
- raegis 2y ago
  I expect the same. The phone prices are astronomical due to political corruption, in part, and right wing judges usually side with the corrupt in cases like this.
grecy 2y ago
This is exactly where lobbying and "money is speech" has gotten us. Now you understand why healthcare, higher education, big infrastructure, prisons and so much more is so completely broken. Big companies have bought their way into every level of government so they can extract profit at every step. Note this is not a bug, this is by design.
TylerE 2y ago
No, the companies are absolutely at fault, just like pay day lenders. Absolute leech’s on society.
nativeit 2y ago
I’m all for successful businesses operating within the parameters of the law, but is it not also correct to expect some adherence to a minimum ethical standard? Exploitation is what it is. Legal or not, it’s gross and it’s what these companies have been doing for years without consequences. The rates aren’t even really accurately reflected in those per-minute tables. There are also a lot of service charges and other fees, blocks of time must be purchased with minimum amounts ($20 minimum is not uncommon), and then fees are taken from the prepaid funds as they are used, causing the balance to decline much faster than one might expect, and allowing the service providers to further conceal their deceptive billing practices. Actual average rates can easily exceed $0.50/min, and it shouldn’t be surprising that the folks who depend on these services to maintain family and relationships are frequently not the most flush with cash. This has been a brazen redistribution of funds from those who have the least resources, to those who have the least conscience. Somewhat relevant, video calls have been hailed as improving the ability for incarcerated individuals to keep in touch with their loved ones. This is also a cynical lie. Video calls have been used nearly across the board as an excuse to end in-person visitation. It’s cruel, and should be stopped. Some minimum visitation should be afforded to inmates, particularly since many of them are pre-trial and presumed innocent, and in any case their families and loved ones deserve to maintain contact with them, not to mention it’s a positive reinforcement towards rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  ??? So what do you wanna do, make it illegal to be immoral?
  - mannykoum 2y ago
    Isn't that the definition of the rule of law? When operating a society under the rule of law, morality is meant to define the framework of rules and regulations by which we live our lives. If the law is immoral then there should be a mechanism to change it—as is the case here.
  - jchw 2y ago
    Clearly not, since that's unenforceable and a bad idea anyway. Instead we pretty much have to play whac-a-mole by smacking regulation onto things when the industry can't or doesn't self-regulate itself. Just allowing competition isn't a fix. It might be better than not allowing competition, but that's not even guaranteed anyways, nothing is a panacea.
alfalfasprout 2y ago
How are you supposed to have competition for something like this? Ultimately the prison will only go with one carrier.
MikeTheGreat 2y ago
I think you missed step zero: 0. Rent-seeking private company/ies realize that prisoners could be a literal captive audience, and successfully lobbies governments (state and federal) to require prisoners to use only a single, prison-approved phone operator. Also, step 2 is now redundant, and replace step three with "Profit!!!"
gumby 2y ago
> I would say the government is at fault here for prohibiting competition, not the companies. We should be naming and shaming the companies that choose the immoral path. That does happen sometimes, but over the last 40 years the US seems to have shifted to "if you can get away with it, that's fine", especially for corporations. That attitude has waxed and waned over the history of the country, but the progressive era (from the late 19th century) was notably one where doing the right thing (or "doing well by doing good") was considered proper.
FredPret 2y ago
Capitalism works really great when there's competition. When there's a government-sanctioned monopoly like this, you get all of the efficiency and speed of a for-profit corporation, but it all goes in the wrong direction. I once read a game-theory study somewhere that showed you need four or five operators minimum to avoid monopolistic cooperation.
standardUser 2y ago
> I would say the government is at fault here It's always the government that is at fault for either poor/ineffective regulation or lack of enforcement. Unless a company is flagrantly breaking the law, blame the government. Companies are just doing what we know they will always do - engaging in every lawful (or gray area) tactic they can to turn a buck. When we don't like the way a company is turning a buck, we have precisely one recourse - government regulation.
- casperb 2y ago
  I don’t think this is universally true. At least not here in the Netherlands, but even in visiting the US it does not feel like that everywhere. I think it is very sad the moral standards are so low. I find that even harder when mixed with “why does the government get involved in everything?” attitude. I also don’t lead my company of 27 people that way.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    Too often I see the attitude of "I can't believe a company would do that". Personally, I always believe it. We know companies will do everything within the law to make money, as is their purpose for being, and we also know they will break the law if they think they can get away with it. Not all companies all of the time, but we are fools if we don't expect it from some companies some of the time and on a consistent basis. It actually reminds me of a Dutch policy (which may be apocryphal, please correct me) wherein prisoners in the Netherlands do not face further penalties for escape attempts because they are simply engaging in the only natural behavior we can expect from a person in a cage.
    - rustcleaner 2y ago
      >It actually reminds me of a Dutch policy (which may be apocryphal, please correct me) wherein prisoners in the Netherlands do not face further penalties for escape attempts because they are simply engaging in the only natural behavior we can expect from a person in a cage. This is my philosophy as well, which is why I as a juror would be soft on "crimes against law enforcement" because being a cop is part hunter, and do you expect all your game to not attempt evasion?
jmward01 2y ago
Companies are evil when they lobby to change laws in their favor, not when they take advantage, to the maximum extent possible, of the law. Just taking advantage of the law is rational, it is changing it that makes them evil. In this case the companies are pure evil and should be dissolved.
marricks 2y ago
We really don’t need innovation in every corner of our lives. It could have just stayed as normal landlines phones with a fix cost paid by the prisons. I don’t think the free market has a ton to offer for basic services that should be guaranteed. Look at American internet, plenty of supposed options but terrible rates and performances compared to Europe. Yes we’re more spread out but that doesn’t begin to explain service sucking in a city with limited options.
imroot 2y ago
Don't forget, the telecom operators usually send large amounts of money in kickbacks to the prison in exchange for the 'privilege' to run these systems. While Prisoners have no expectations of privacy, most do not know that all of their calls are listened to, transcribed, and shared with prison officials. There is some speech-to-text sentiment analysis that will prioritize a call that has certain phrases spoken. It's just...a mess. When I was a public defender, I had prosecutors and jail staff hint to me about things that were said during the calls. A few years later, they had to drop the charges in a few cases because it was discovered and reported that the calls between attorneys and clients were being monitored and recorded.
mywittyname 2y ago
> 3. The government is surprised with the outcome. No, they are not. We keep giving officials a pass by making their malicious behavior out to be incompetence. The entire goal of the prison system in the USA is to extract as much money out of each prisoner from the tax payers, the prisoners, and the prisoner's families.
Terr_ 2y ago
Vendor competition helps, but it might not be enough depending on how the incentives are set up, especially with a literally-captive customer base. If all costs are passed to the inmates, then the prison doesn't have much of an incentive to pick a cheap vendor, compared to a convenient one or the one that takes prison officials on free golf trips. Worse, hyphies may be considered a feature if the institution is trying to pressure inmates into to "work" programs which are profitable for the institution.
mrkeen 2y ago
> with an appropriate license and government approval What exactly would the prisons have to comply with here... Not overcharging for phone calls?
tssva 2y ago
The government is not a single entity. In this case the federal government is limiting what the state and local governments can do. The federal government can limit what federal prisons and those servicing federal prisons can do directly but not state and local governments directly, so they place the limits on the companies because that is what they have the power to do. The state and local governments are partners with these phone companies and the outrageous rates are not a surprise outcome but an intentional one. In exchange for allowing such rates the prisons get free surveillance services and some combination of a fixed and percentage of revenue payment from the companies. In other words a legal kickback.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thuuuomas 2y ago

“Instantly” here meaning “potentially, after current contract obligations end & institutions complete the switch to a new provider”.

Avshalom 2y ago

I do not think the government was at all surprised, punitive charges are very much a part of the prison system in this country[1] this is people deciding to lessen the burden slightly. [1] https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/pay-to-stay-state-law-charging-inmates-for-prison-cells-being-applied-differently-from-county-to-county https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investi...

airza 2y ago

"the government" as an entity here really elides the difference between the federal government and state governments; state governments hold the majority of prisoners in the US and the ability of the federal government (via the FCC) to regulate prison phone calls that do not cross state lines is new since 2022. But even on top of that, what would the dream free market implementation even look like here? An entire licensure and certification system for these tablets which will inevitably be crammed with as many upsells as the law does not prohibit? What is the recourse for someone who is in prison and chooses a company whose products do not work? Are they supposed to call tech support?

qingcharles 2y ago
I can answer this, as the tablets they everywhere are cheap Temu junk. If it's hardware, you have to return the tablet to the prison, and good luck on them satisfying the warranty for you. Easier just to get your family to put another $250-400 on your commissary and just buy a new one. If it's software -- you're usually shit out of luck. If it's a serious bug and enough people file paperwork every day, then after a few weeks of outage it is often escalated to the operator. Another few weeks after that they will eventually fix it. Things move very, very slowly in jails and prisons, so expect long stretches of downtime.
shuntress 2y ago
> what would the dream free market implementation even look like here? Every company's dream: Free labor and captive audiences.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

glenstein 2y ago

>1. The government decides that prisoners can make phone calls, but they can only use a single prison-approved phone operator, and that operator is a private company. You're saying "the government" a lot, but AFAIK there's no specific federal mandate of any kind to the effect of requiring a specific company handle calls at all jails and prisons. If anything that is the consequence of an absence of any specific regulation rather than the presence of one, which is completely the opposite of the point you seem to be making. In reality, a variety of completely separate state and local correctional facilities put the service out to bid. If anything, it is federal level prisons that would most fit the description of "the government" where you have the best regulations, where there is scrutiny of the bidding process, where there are already caps to limit the expenses associated with calls. At the county and municipal level, companies that tend to win the contracts have special deals in the form of a "site commission" payments, which are a kickback to the prisons, incentivizing them to give a monopoly to whichever company charges the most and kicks back the most to the prison. Edit: I feel like I (1) spoke directly to what the parent commenter was saying (2) stated uncontroversial facts, (3) echoing a point a chorus of other commenters are making about what "the government" really means, but I'm seeing a bunch of drive-by downvotes. Would appreciate if anyone wants to chime in and help me understand what I'm missing.

WhitneyLand 2y ago
You’re technically correct, but try to zoom out for a minute and look at the subtlety of human nature. This topic has fired every one up because it’s unnecessarily cruel, hurts families who didn’t do anything wrong, enriches companies not providing any value, and shows people trying to be “tough on crime” when very ironically they’re probably creating more crime by eroding support systems. The parent commenter mostly expresses that outrage, and makes a passing comment about business competition. By this time anything you said that could be perceived as possibly being near the other side of the argument is going to be taken as supporting the other side. But they are two separate points that can be independently discussed you say? Technically that’s true, but humans don’t work like that. Always step back and look at the biggest point being made and realize, there may be little room for nuance depending on the context.

easyThrowaway 2y ago

I can't really wrap my mind around the idea that communications in the prison system should be paid by the inmates going straight through a private company. If somebody told me this was some lore from Bioshock I'd tell them the joke is too on the nose. Who knows, maybe I'm just too... european to truly understand. What I'd really like to know instead is the conversation that your representatives and the telco board had on the matter. Also, the golf course where it happened. Because I'd bet very good money that nobody in the current (or any previous) administration is in any way surprised with the outcome.

tzs 2y ago
A bit of Googling turned up stories about the high cost of phone calls for prisoners in France, Germany, and the UK and that their systems are run by private companies. I couldn't find out of the money goes "straight through" to the phone system provider or if the government collects and forwards it, but does that really make a difference?
alistairSH 2y ago
I can't really wrap my mind around the idea that [anything] in the prison system should be [so terribly broken] It all makes sense when you accept that the American justice system is configured for maximum vengeance, not rehabilitation, and certainly not the best outcomes for society. WE MUST PUNISH THE SINNERS!
whoitwas 2y ago
A significant percentage of prisons in the US are private companies operating for profit who spend lobbying dollars to influence policy. This even happens with the juvenile "justice" system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal.
ryandrake 2y ago
It's helpful to think of American governance as being simply a gigantic money funnel, where taxpayer dollars goes in the top, and the US and State legislators point the small end of the funnel at all their various favored private businesses and individuals. It's just plain old corruption but wearing a suit and tie and a spiffy "business-friendly" mask.

pjc50 2y ago

Absolutely key to understanding this is that "government" in (1) is a state-level government which has been bribed by the private phone company. This sort of thing happens at every level, but it's more often than not the Federal government preventing abuses by the states. Edit: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/02/11/kickbacks-and-commissions/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/02/11/kickbacks-and-c... - it's even more blatant, they're paying a large share of this revenue directly to local governments.

matwood 2y ago
And more generally, this is one of the bad outcomes when pushing decisions back to state and local governments. They are typically easier to bribe and/or control with fewer extreme idea (prison is about maximum punishment at every turn) people.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

> I would say the government is at fault here for prohibiting competition, not the companies. To borrow a slightly old meme, porque no los dos? If my local government cuts firefighting budgets, and I decide to take advantage of this to become an arsonist, I don't think anyone would say that it's the government at fault for half the town going ablaze.

notaustinpowers 2y ago

It's absolutely grotesque to me. Florida charges their inmates $50/day as a "bed fee" that they must pay when they are released. If you were found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison, but were released after 1 month because your charge was overturned, you still have to pay the fee for the full 5 years you would have been there. It makes me ashamed to be an American.

frob 2y ago
Florida is a special version of horrible when it comes to treatment of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people. The citizens of Florida overwhelmingly voted to restore voting rights to people who had completed their sentence. Ron DeSantis and the Republicans modified the law to prevent people from voting if they hadn't paid all of their fees, which there is no central tracking or source of. They then went on to arrest Black citizens who tried to register to vote after their PO had told them they owed no money and were clear to vote.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - netsharc 2y ago
    Nah, his God said it was fine... his God wants him to be the leader of the world!
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    [flagged]
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  Who needs those pesky things like free and fair elections when you can just disenfranchise the competition!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

acomjean 2y ago

Its hard to imagine that they didn't know this would happen based on the USA recent past history with phone pricing. There was a time (when I was young) where there was just one phone company in the USA. Prices were high for long distance (My mom is first generation so called out frequently). Then deregulation and competition (MCI/Sprint) lowered those prices dramatically. In the late 90s I lived with roommates that didn't have long distance. We used phone cards we bought at the local convenience store. Those were actually pretty good price wise.

hermannj314 2y ago

These decisions ruin families all so a small group of elites can profit. I do wish there was an easy way when things like this happen to immediately say, "if you are happy with this FCC decision, here are the politicians responsible, the FCC directors and employees that did nothing for decades, etc." and then we can deny-list those people and their families from polite society.

lyu07282 2y ago

so much effort to constantly having to play whack a mole with a malicious industry that pays all your politicians election campaigns. I can't imagine the amount of mental gymnastics you have to engage in just having to justify your neoliberal ideology in your own head all the time. Wait until you hear how much tax payers pay for school lunches and textbooks, prison libraries and commissaries. I also better not mention the bail bond industry. We just aren't doing neoliberalism hard enough yet, don't you see?

cptskippy 2y ago

It's silly that the government allows for service providers to charge excessive rates, when they should have contracted rates. And your solution is equally absurd. Provide prisoners with tablets or cellphones and let them choose their own service provider? You know that prison phone calls are monitored right?

JoshTko 2y ago

Phone calls should be a human right. The govt should just make these calls free. We want these folks to be able to connect with family and maintain connection to give them the best chance of integrating back. Charging for phone call is unnecessarily punitive.

qingcharles 2y ago
When I was locked up in the county jail (charges dropped later) my mother was dying from cancer. I wanted to call her, but it was so insanely expensive ($1.50/min) I could only call for 5 mins a day until she died. I scheduled a bail hearing due to my mother's illness, but it took months. It was scheduled for a Monday. My mother died on the Saturday. When we got in front of the judge on Monday the prosecutor snapped on the judge, "Judge, what are we even doing here! This is total waste of my time. His mother died already. This issue is moot."
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Look at compassionate release laws. 'Technically' the courts are compassionate, but the rules are so Kafkaesque, whatever the reason will have passed before the process is exhausted. No one gets out on compassionate release even though many qualify (say you are the only immediate family/available caregiver of someone incapacitated and/or dying).

bmelton 2y ago

What strikes me as the likeliest implementation of a fair-market system is what we have in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) system, which is that the bureaucracy of ensuring fairness is so high that we end up with $400 tablets costing $4,000, as tech companies try to get into the space but find out that they need to hire a team of contract attorneys and compliance officers and DCAA compliant time-reporting software and retraining their employees to use it and be subject to regular audits etc. etc.

cogman10 2y ago

The part you are missing is these private phone operators made deals with private prison operators, no government involved. The government is still to blame for having private prisons. For everything you point out, a prison should not be private because it's a market with a literal set of captives that cannot choose their prison. That incentives the prison to gouge at every turn.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

I actually always hold companies accountable for their actions, whether or not other factors allowed those actions. They're still price-gouging prisoners because they can. That's still abhorrent behavior.

whoitwas 2y ago

Why should the phone be operated by a third party for profit? Why are prisons operated for profit?

bongodongobob 2y ago
"because who cares are you really trying to defend murderers and pedophiles!?" <- vast majority of avg US citizens. Talking about prisoners rights in any way will get you questionable looks from most people. "Prison isn't supposed to be fun" "lock em up and throw away the key" etc.
- whoitwas 2y ago
  Of course I am. They're our neighbors too and it's very rare for people to be incarcerated forever. Humans are very narrow minded.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

makestuff 2y ago

I could be wrong on the interpretation, but I wonder if this will be one of the first cases challenged based on the Chevron ruling. I would think the challenge would be the law does not specify what the price should be so we can set it to whatever until congress passes a law specifying it.

raegis 2y ago
I expect the same. The phone prices are astronomical due to political corruption, in part, and right wing judges usually side with the corrupt in cases like this.

grecy 2y ago

This is exactly where lobbying and "money is speech" has gotten us. Now you understand why healthcare, higher education, big infrastructure, prisons and so much more is so completely broken. Big companies have bought their way into every level of government so they can extract profit at every step. Note this is not a bug, this is by design.

TylerE 2y ago

No, the companies are absolutely at fault, just like pay day lenders. Absolute leech’s on society.

nativeit 2y ago

I’m all for successful businesses operating within the parameters of the law, but is it not also correct to expect some adherence to a minimum ethical standard? Exploitation is what it is. Legal or not, it’s gross and it’s what these companies have been doing for years without consequences. The rates aren’t even really accurately reflected in those per-minute tables. There are also a lot of service charges and other fees, blocks of time must be purchased with minimum amounts ($20 minimum is not uncommon), and then fees are taken from the prepaid funds as they are used, causing the balance to decline much faster than one might expect, and allowing the service providers to further conceal their deceptive billing practices. Actual average rates can easily exceed $0.50/min, and it shouldn’t be surprising that the folks who depend on these services to maintain family and relationships are frequently not the most flush with cash. This has been a brazen redistribution of funds from those who have the least resources, to those who have the least conscience. Somewhat relevant, video calls have been hailed as improving the ability for incarcerated individuals to keep in touch with their loved ones. This is also a cynical lie. Video calls have been used nearly across the board as an excuse to end in-person visitation. It’s cruel, and should be stopped. Some minimum visitation should be afforded to inmates, particularly since many of them are pre-trial and presumed innocent, and in any case their families and loved ones deserve to maintain contact with them, not to mention it’s a positive reinforcement towards rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.

zeroCalories 2y ago
??? So what do you wanna do, make it illegal to be immoral?
- mannykoum 2y ago
  Isn't that the definition of the rule of law? When operating a society under the rule of law, morality is meant to define the framework of rules and regulations by which we live our lives. If the law is immoral then there should be a mechanism to change it—as is the case here.
- jchw 2y ago
  Clearly not, since that's unenforceable and a bad idea anyway. Instead we pretty much have to play whac-a-mole by smacking regulation onto things when the industry can't or doesn't self-regulate itself. Just allowing competition isn't a fix. It might be better than not allowing competition, but that's not even guaranteed anyways, nothing is a panacea.

alfalfasprout 2y ago

How are you supposed to have competition for something like this? Ultimately the prison will only go with one carrier.

MikeTheGreat 2y ago

I think you missed step zero: 0. Rent-seeking private company/ies realize that prisoners could be a literal captive audience, and successfully lobbies governments (state and federal) to require prisoners to use only a single, prison-approved phone operator. Also, step 2 is now redundant, and replace step three with "Profit!!!"

gumby 2y ago

> I would say the government is at fault here for prohibiting competition, not the companies. We should be naming and shaming the companies that choose the immoral path. That does happen sometimes, but over the last 40 years the US seems to have shifted to "if you can get away with it, that's fine", especially for corporations. That attitude has waxed and waned over the history of the country, but the progressive era (from the late 19th century) was notably one where doing the right thing (or "doing well by doing good") was considered proper.

FredPret 2y ago

Capitalism works really great when there's competition. When there's a government-sanctioned monopoly like this, you get all of the efficiency and speed of a for-profit corporation, but it all goes in the wrong direction. I once read a game-theory study somewhere that showed you need four or five operators minimum to avoid monopolistic cooperation.

standardUser 2y ago

> I would say the government is at fault here It's always the government that is at fault for either poor/ineffective regulation or lack of enforcement. Unless a company is flagrantly breaking the law, blame the government. Companies are just doing what we know they will always do - engaging in every lawful (or gray area) tactic they can to turn a buck. When we don't like the way a company is turning a buck, we have precisely one recourse - government regulation.

casperb 2y ago
I don’t think this is universally true. At least not here in the Netherlands, but even in visiting the US it does not feel like that everywhere. I think it is very sad the moral standards are so low. I find that even harder when mixed with “why does the government get involved in everything?” attitude. I also don’t lead my company of 27 people that way.
- standardUser 2y ago
  Too often I see the attitude of "I can't believe a company would do that". Personally, I always believe it. We know companies will do everything within the law to make money, as is their purpose for being, and we also know they will break the law if they think they can get away with it. Not all companies all of the time, but we are fools if we don't expect it from some companies some of the time and on a consistent basis. It actually reminds me of a Dutch policy (which may be apocryphal, please correct me) wherein prisoners in the Netherlands do not face further penalties for escape attempts because they are simply engaging in the only natural behavior we can expect from a person in a cage.
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    >It actually reminds me of a Dutch policy (which may be apocryphal, please correct me) wherein prisoners in the Netherlands do not face further penalties for escape attempts because they are simply engaging in the only natural behavior we can expect from a person in a cage. This is my philosophy as well, which is why I as a juror would be soft on "crimes against law enforcement" because being a cop is part hunter, and do you expect all your game to not attempt evasion?

jmward01 2y ago

Companies are evil when they lobby to change laws in their favor, not when they take advantage, to the maximum extent possible, of the law. Just taking advantage of the law is rational, it is changing it that makes them evil. In this case the companies are pure evil and should be dissolved.

marricks 2y ago

We really don’t need innovation in every corner of our lives. It could have just stayed as normal landlines phones with a fix cost paid by the prisons. I don’t think the free market has a ton to offer for basic services that should be guaranteed. Look at American internet, plenty of supposed options but terrible rates and performances compared to Europe. Yes we’re more spread out but that doesn’t begin to explain service sucking in a city with limited options.

imroot 2y ago

Don't forget, the telecom operators usually send large amounts of money in kickbacks to the prison in exchange for the 'privilege' to run these systems. While Prisoners have no expectations of privacy, most do not know that all of their calls are listened to, transcribed, and shared with prison officials. There is some speech-to-text sentiment analysis that will prioritize a call that has certain phrases spoken. It's just...a mess. When I was a public defender, I had prosecutors and jail staff hint to me about things that were said during the calls. A few years later, they had to drop the charges in a few cases because it was discovered and reported that the calls between attorneys and clients were being monitored and recorded.

mywittyname 2y ago

> 3. The government is surprised with the outcome. No, they are not. We keep giving officials a pass by making their malicious behavior out to be incompetence. The entire goal of the prison system in the USA is to extract as much money out of each prisoner from the tax payers, the prisoners, and the prisoner's families.

Terr_ 2y ago

Vendor competition helps, but it might not be enough depending on how the incentives are set up, especially with a literally-captive customer base. If all costs are passed to the inmates, then the prison doesn't have much of an incentive to pick a cheap vendor, compared to a convenient one or the one that takes prison officials on free golf trips. Worse, hyphies may be considered a feature if the institution is trying to pressure inmates into to "work" programs which are profitable for the institution.

mrkeen 2y ago

> with an appropriate license and government approval What exactly would the prisons have to comply with here... Not overcharging for phone calls?

tssva 2y ago

The government is not a single entity. In this case the federal government is limiting what the state and local governments can do. The federal government can limit what federal prisons and those servicing federal prisons can do directly but not state and local governments directly, so they place the limits on the companies because that is what they have the power to do. The state and local governments are partners with these phone companies and the outrageous rates are not a surprise outcome but an intentional one. In exchange for allowing such rates the prisons get free surveillance services and some combination of a fixed and percentage of revenue payment from the companies. In other words a legal kickback.