Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–199 of 199 posts

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#191

Post by discardorama »

refurb wrote: post #167
discardorama wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. > Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. I hate to say this, but: most Republicans are not pro-competition. They're very happy helping the government put in place monopolies, and milking that monopoly status…

You mean Medicare, not Medicaid. Medicaid already "negotiates" lower drug prices. I think the Republican stance comes from the perspective that you can never really "negotiate" with a body that writes and enforces all the laws.

> I think the Republican stance comes from the perspective that you can never really "negotiate" with a body that writes and enforces all the laws.

OK, Medicare, fair enough. But that's quite an excuse. Why, then the government should be forbidden from negotiating any type of price reductions! Let the government pay $10,000 for a pen, and $100,000 for a flashlight, eh?

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#192

Post by smt88 »

SilasX wrote: post #159
smt88 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several states already do that with legalized marijuana. The federal government has chosen not to get involved, so it's become a de facto state's right.

So, you're against states' rights, except when you agree with the particular policy the state is following in defiance of the federal government. That's not a criticism of states' rights; that's a criticism of not agreeing with you. Join the club :-p

I was stating a fact. I didn't express my opinion of it one way or the other.

My point was that we already have examples where there are exceptions to federal law on a state-by-state basis. What I've been saying all along is that we should codify that system.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#193

Post by kamaal »

mgkimsal wrote: post #175
Someone1234 wrote: post #6

I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…

> you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists Do you think these monopolies just randomly happen? There's a lot of competition to be the monopolist.

And there should competition after you become the monopoly.

If there is something better it should always win.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#194

Post by linksbro »

nickff wrote: post #95
linksbro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 authori…

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…

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

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#195

Post by SilasX »

smt88 wrote: post #192
SilasX wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're against states' rights, except when you agree with the particular policy the state is following in defiance of the federal government. That's not a criticism of states' rights; that's a criticism of not agreeing with you. Join the club :-p

I was stating a fact. I didn't express my opinion of it one way or the other. My point was that we already have examples where there are exceptions to federal law on a state-by-state basis. What I've been saying all along is that we should codify that system.

So "giving up on states rights" = codifying the system, and this:

>It's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights.

isn't an opinion? I'm lost.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#196

Post by toomuchtodo »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #186
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole private prison thing makes me want to vomit. Muckrock (shoutout to @morisey) is doing an investigative piece on private prisons. If possible, please think about contributing $10-20 on it. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/sep/18/justice-s...

What's your affiliation with MuckRock? The founder went to the same school as me.

No affiliation, just a huge fan of their work.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#197

Post by esseye »

nickff wrote: post #53
linksbro wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-sl... [2] Full commission meeting (item was first on agenda) https://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-october-2...

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…

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.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#198

Post by tedks »

simoncion wrote: post #145
hugh4 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is the FCC the correct body?

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…

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.

Re: The FCC has voted to end exorbitant phone fees for prison inmates

#199

Post by simoncion »

tedks wrote: post #198
simoncion wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> As mentioned by nickff upthread...

linksbro has a reply to that comment that you seem to have missed. It's pretty direct: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10439553

Additionally:

The FCC is obligated to determine if a telecommunications service is required to file tariffs:

"Tariffs contain the rates, terms and conditions of certain services provided by telecommunications carriers. The most common tariff filed at the FCC is for interstate local access service. These tariffs are filed by local exchange carriers, or LECs.

Long-distance companies and others pay the rates set out in these tariffs to LECs for access to local networks at the originating and/or terminating ends of a long-distance call. Access services include:

* End User access, which mainly recovers the Subscriber Line Charge, the Access Recovery Charge, and the Universal Service Fund Charge. ...

Except in very limited circumstances, long-distance companies are not permitted to file tariffs for long-distance service because the FCC has determined that the long-distance market is competitive. Like long-distance service, many broadband services have been detariffed. ...

Tariffs must be just and reasonable and may not be unreasonably discriminatory under Sections 201(a) and 202(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended." [0]

(Emphasis mine.)

If the long-distance market for prisoners is not competitive, the FCC is well within its remit to demand that rates for those services be just, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.

> Given that not even the 13th amendment applies to prisoners...

Rights and privileges are severable. This means that loss of one does not imply loss of others.

[0] https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/tariffs

Post reply on HN