Prison Phone Justice

Before The
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of:
Rates For Interstate Inmate
Calling Services

)
)
)
)
)

WC Docket No. 12-375

OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO HOLD
FURTHER RULEMAKING PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE
Martha Wright, Dorothy Wade, Annette Wade, Ethel Peoples, Mattie Lucas, Laurie
Nelson, Winston Bliss, Sheila Taylor, Gaffney & Schember, M. Elizabeth Kent, Katharine Goray,
Ulandis Forte, Charles Wade, Earl Peoples, Darrell Nelson, Melvin Taylor, Jackie Lucas, Peter
Bliss, David Hernandez, Lisa Hernandez, Vendella F. Oura, along with The D.C. Prisoners’ Legal
Services Project, Inc., Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, the Prison Policy Initiative,
and The Campaign for Prison Phone Justice (jointly, the “Petitioners”) hereby submit this
Opposition to the Petition to Hold Further Rulemaking Proceeding in Abeyance filed by Securus
Technologies, Inc. (the “Petition”). 1
The Petition requests that the FCC suspend its efforts in connection with the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted on August 9, 2013, and released on September 26,
2013, in the above-captioned proceeding. 2 The sole basis for this request is the submission
“forthcoming appeal” of the Report and Order adopted contemporaneously with the FNPRM in

The Petition was filed on October 22, 2013. Pursuant to Section 1.45(d) of the FCC’s
rules, this Opposition is filed within 7 days of the submission. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.45(d)
(2013)(“Oppositions to a request for stay of any order or to a request for other temporary relief
shall be filed within 7 days after the request is filed. Replies to oppositions should not be filed
and will not be considered.”) (emphasis added).
1

Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13-113, rel. Sept. 26, 2013 (2013)(the “FNPRM”). As discussed in
more detail infra, the FNPRM has yet to be published in the Federal Register.
2

1

this proceeding. 3 The Petition notes that this “forthcoming appeal” will succeed on the merits,
and therefore, the FCC should not expend its resources with respect to the FNPRM. Id. As
discussed herein, the Petition must be dismissed.
First, the Petition is premature. As of the submission of this Opposition, the FNPRM has
yet to be published in the Federal Register. As such, the dates for submitting comments and
reply comments have not been established. Therefore, what the Petition seeks to “hold in
abeyance” has yet to occur.
In fact, the Petition is based on two additional actions that have yet to occur as well.
First, the Petition indicates that a court appeal of the Report and Order will be forthcoming. As
with the FNPRM, the Report and Order adopted on August 9th has yet to be published in the
Federal Register, and there the Petition failed to provide any evidence that an appeal of the
Report and Order has been filed. While there have been press releases alleging that appeals may
be filed, 4 it is premature to ask the FCC to hold a proceeding in abeyance before the actual
FNPRM is published in the Federal Register and an appeal is filed.
Second, the Petition states that the FNPRM will become moot because (1) once the
Report and Order is released and (2) once an court appeal is filed, the court will either remand
or vacate the Report and Order. While the Petitioners can appreciate the confidence articulated
in the Petition as to the ultimate success of this future court filing, there is simply no basis for
issuing an order holding this proceeding in abeyance before any of the predicate actions have
occurred.

3

Petition, pg. 1.

See Press Statement, dated August 13, 2013 (“This drive by the FCC to reduce what
inmates pay for calling at any cost may lead to deaths of inmates, witnesses, friends/family
members of victims, and of officers…I lay that responsibility directly at the feet of the FCC…and
believe that we will defeat it in the Courts.”)(http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fccseeks-to-implement-below-cost-inmate-calling-rates-eliminate-interstate-facility-commissionsand-remove-programs-to-provide-inmate-welfare-and-victims-assistance-programs-the-endresult-will-be-weaker-prisonjail-security--219469231.html) (emphasis added).
4

2

Instead, the purpose of the FNPRM, or, indeed, of any rulemaking proceeding, is to
develop a record that will allow the FCC to adopt appropriate rules. In fact, one of the issues on
which the FCC seeks comment is the very question of whether the Commission has legal
authority to adopt appropriate rules governing intrastate ICS calling rates, and what the sources
of that legal authority might be. As a result, the Petition’s assertion that the FCC should refrain
from developing such a record essentially represents a challenge to the FCC’s underlying
rulemaking authority.
Moreover, the cases cited in the Petition are wholly inapposite. These cases merely
demonstrate that the FCC has, in its discretion and where the balance of interests warranted
such action, held applications, petitions or waiver requests in abeyance pending the outcome of
a rulemaking proceeding that would change the rules governing those applications. 5 However,
the Petition fails to cite any case where the FCC has held an entire rulemaking proceeding in
abeyance pending the resolution of an appeal that has yet to even be filed, let alone docketed,
briefed, argued or decided.
Further, there is no public interest justification for the FCC taking such action. Any
party opposing further reform will have every opportunity to participate in the next phase of this
proceeding, and influence the rules eventually adopted by the FCC. The appropriate approach is
not, however, for this important proceeding to grind to a halt before even the FNPRM is
published in the Federal Register, and a court appeal is filed.

5
See Donald J. Elardo, Esq. and Stephen C. Garavito, Esq., 9 FCC Rcd 7912 (1994)(direct
correlation between determination of liability and determination of amount of damages); See
American Communications Services, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 21,579, 21,581 (1999)(declining to apply
new rule before FCC “resolves certain outstanding issues regarding the operation” of the new
rules); See Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market,
Opinion, 12 FCC Rcd 7847, nt.2 (1997)(delaying action on petitions for reconsideration in one
proceeding while FCC conducts rulemaking proceeding that may render the petitions moot); See
Amendment of Parts 15 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Additional Frequencies
for Cordless Telephones, 10 FCC Rcd 5622, 5627 (1995)(holding petitions for reconsideration in
abeyance while FCC adopted rules to render petitions moot).

3

Finally, it bears mentioning that the same parties that seek to hold the instant
proceeding in abeyance at the FCC have submitted similar requests in state dockets requesting
that state commissions hold their proceedings in abeyance.6

This stacking of petitions of

abeyance, each pointing to the other, and both relying on a filing that has yet to occur, is both
logically unsound, and unsupported by any applicable legal precedent.
Therefore, it would not serve the public interest to delay this proceeding based on the
speculative claims asserted in the Petition. Instead, further delay of this proceeding after more
than decade of waiting for the FCC to act on the Wright Petition will only serve to perpetuate the
great harm caused to millions of incarcerated persons and their families. Thus, Petitioners
oppose the Petition, and respectfully request that the FCC deny the request as both premature,
and legally unsustainable.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

Lee G. Petro
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1500 K Street N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-1209
(202) 230-5857 – Telephone
(202) 842-8465 – Telecopier
Lee.Petro@DBR.COM
Counsel to the Petitioners

October 29, 2013

6

See Exhibit A.
4

EXHIBIT A

Before the
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls from
Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in
Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the
Unjust and Unreasonable Cost of such Calls

)
)
)
)

D.T.C. 11-16

MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE
Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”), by its attorneys and pursuant to 220 C.M.R. §
1.04(5), respectfully moves the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable
(“Department”) to hold this proceeding in abeyance pending resolution of similar matters before
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Specifically, GTL requests that the
Department stay the current filing deadlines and any further action on the appeal filed by
Petitioners as well as any further action on the Department’s planned investigation.1 In support
of this Motion, GTL states:
1.

On August 31, 2009, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts (“PLS”) and

several “family members, loved ones, legal counsel, and others residing in Massachusetts who
receive and pay for telephone calls from prisoners” (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a petition
seeking relief from what they claim are unjust and unreasonable rates for inmate calling service
(“ICS”) in Massachusetts (“Petition”). Petitioners amended their Petition on May 18, 2010 and
again on April 27, 2011. GTL and Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) (collectively,
“Respondents”) requested that the Department dismiss the Petition.
2.

On September 23, 2013, the Hearing Officer issued an Interlocutory Ruling2

1

Pursuant to the Hearing Officer’s October 16, 2013 ruling, responses to the appeal are now due by October
28, 2013. To date, no filing deadlines or other timelines have been established for the Department’s investigation.
2

D.T.C. 11-16, Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls from Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in
Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust and Unreasonable Cost of such Calls, Hearing Officer Interlocutory
Ruling (Sept. 23, 2013) (“Interlocutory Ruling”).

1
12559795v3

opening an investigation into: the per-call surcharge assessed by ICS providers; the tariffed
service and other fees assessed by ICS providers; the telephone service quality provided by
Respondents, including the frequency of dropped calls and line noise; and Respondents’ billing
practices. The Interlocutory Ruling dismissed Petitioners’ request to investigate: the usage rate
component of the ICS rate-setting mechanism; the frequency and content of recorded warning
messages; and the availability and upkeep of telecommunications equipment at correctional
facilities.
3.

On September 26, 2013, the FCC issued a Report and Order and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) in its ongoing proceeding to review the reasonableness of
current ICS rates and the steps needed to ensure reasonable ICS rates going forward.3 The
decision was the result of the FCC’s 2002 request for comments on ICS rates, commissions, cost
and revenue data, and proposed methods to lower ICS rates, as well as a 2003 petition filed by
families of inmates asking the FCC to establish nationwide rate caps for ICS.4
4.

The Report and Order establishes interim rate caps and safe harbors for interstate

ICS rates and requires a mandatory data collection from ICS providers. The new rules adopted
by the Report and Order will be effective 90 days after the Report and Order is published in the
Federal Register.
5.

The FNPRM seeks additional data to allow the FCC to establish further and

permanent reforms for interstate ICS rates, as well as reforms for intrastate ICS rates. The FCC
finds in the FNPRM that “intrastate reform is necessary” and the FCC “has the authority to
3

WC Docket No. 12-375, Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13-113 (rel. Sept. 26, 2013) (“Order and FNPRM”).
4

Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 17 FCC Rcd 3248 (2002); CC Docket No. 96-128, Petition for Rulemaking or, in
the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in a Pending Rulemaking, at 3 (filed Nov. 3, 2003); CC Docket
No. 96-128, Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal Regarding Issues Related to Inmate Calling Services
(filed Mar. 1, 2007).

2
12559795v3

reform intrastate ICS rates.”5 In addition to addressing intrastate ICS rates, the FNPRM seeks
information on the adoption of unified interstate and intrastate ICS rates, ancillary charges,
quality of service issues, and billing issues. Comments on the FNPRM are due 30 days and 45
days after the FNPRM is published in the Federal Register.
6.

PLS was a participant in the FCC’s proceeding. It argued that FCC action was

needed to “provide national leadership for state regulatory agencies in Massachusetts,” “to
encourage states that have not yet acted, such as Massachusetts,” and to “establish guidance as
our state regulatory agency evaluates intrastate rates.”6 PLS requested that the FCC take action
on many of the same issues PLS has raised before the Department. In prior filings to the
Department and the FCC, PLS has emphasized that the FCC’s ultimate actions regarding ICS
rates and services are important and influential to the Department’s review of these same issues.7
7.

Petitioners’ recent appeal further supports holding this proceeding in abeyance

pending action by the FCC.8 Petitioners’ appeal is based on data submitted as part of the FCC’s
ongoing ICS rates proceeding, and they urge the Department to follow the lead of the FCC.
They note that the FCC is considering adopting a “flat, distance-insensitive ICS rate”9 and rely
on the FCC’s proposed action to support their position in this proceeding that the per-minute ICS

5

Order and FNPRM ¶ 129.

6

WC Docket No. 12-375, Comments of Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, 1, 12, 19 (filed Mar. 25,
2013) (“PLS FCC Comments”).
7

See generally PLS FCC Comments; see also D.T.C. 11-16, Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls from
Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust and Unreasonable Cost of
such Calls, Letter from Counsel for Petitioners (filed Apr. 26, 2013) (noting the “relevant findings” in the FCC’s
ICS proceeding).

8

D.T.C. 11-16, , Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls from Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in
Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust and Unreasonable Cost of such Calls, Petitioners’ Appeal (filed Oct.
16, 2013) (“Petitioners’ Appeal”).
9

Petitioners’ Appeal at 1.

3
12559795v3

rates for Massachusetts should be revised.10 At the same time, the Petitioners concede that the
FCC is continuing to collect data in order to develop a permanent rate structure,11 but ask
Department to rely on the FCC’s analysis, which is still being formulated in the FNPRM.12
Thus, Petitioners’ recent appeal filing further demonstrates the interplay between the FCC’s
ongoing ICS proceeding and the issues set for investigation here.
8.

The Department, therefore, should hold the instant proceeding in abeyance,

including any filing deadlines or action associated with Petitioners’ appeal, pending the outcome
of the FCC’s ongoing review of ICS rates. The issues set for review in the FCC’s FNPRM are
the same issues raised by Petitioners and set for investigation by the Department in the
Interlocutory Ruling.
9.

As the Hearing Officer recognized in the Interlocutory Ruling, the Department

previously has “stayed proceedings pending the outcome of FCC proceedings when it would be
unreasonably onerous for the Department to issue a decision without preceding action by the”
FCC.13 In this case, the Department runs the risk of adopting rules governing ICS that
subsequently may be deemed inconsistent with the FCC’s determinations, which would require
the Department to conduct additional proceedings. This type of “administrative inefficiency
would not benefit the Department, the parties, or the public interest.”14

10

Petitioners’ Appeal at 4-5.

11

Petitioners’ Appeal at 7.

12

Petitioners’ Appeal at 8.

13

Interlocutory Ruling at 13 (citing D.T.E. 01-20, Investigation by the Dep’t of Telecomms. & Energy on its
own Motion into the Appropriate Pricing, based upon Total Element Long-Run Incremental Costs, for Unbundled
Network Elements & Combinations of Unbundled Network Elements, & the Appropriate Avoided Cost Discount for
Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Mass. Resale Servs. in the Commw. of Mass., Interlocutory Order on Part
B Motions (Apr. 4, 2001) (“01-20 Interlocutory Order”)).
14

01-20 Interlocutory Order at 8.

4
12559795v3

10.

In addition, while the FCC’s Report and Order provides some indication of the

“general approach contemplated by the FCC,” the Department cannot be sure that the FCC will
not “alter that approach in its to-be-issued rules” or as the result of court proceedings in response
to the Report and Order.15 The Department previously has stayed proceedings in light of
possible action by the FCC or the courts that would affect the proceeding, and has let those
“[e]vents . . . inform [its] course of action.”16 It should do so here.
Accordingly, GTL respectfully moves the Department to hold the instant proceeding,
including the current filing deadlines and any further action on Petitioners’ appeal, in abeyance
pending the outcome of the FCC’s ongoing review of ICS rates.
Respectfully submitted,
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION
/s/ Chérie R. Kiser
Dated: October 17, 2013

Chérie R. Kiser
Angela F. Collins
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
1990 K Street, N.W., Suite 950
Washington, DC 20006
202-862-8900 (telephone)
ckiser@cahill.com
acollins@cahill.com
Its Attorneys

15

01-20 Interlocutory Order at 8.

16

D.T.E. 03-60, Proceeding by the Dep’t of Telecomms. and Energy on its own Motion to Implement the
Requirements of the Federal Comms. Comm’n Triennial Review Order Regarding Switching for Mass Market
Customers, Interlocutory Order on Motion to Stay of Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts, 15,
17 (Apr. 4, 2004).

5
12559795v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela F. Collins, certify that on this 17th day of October 2013, I served a copy of the
foregoing Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance on the following via the method indicated:
Catrice C. Williams, Secretary
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: catrice.williams@state.ma.us
Email: efiling.dtc@state.ma.us
Via Federal Express and Electronic Mail
Kalun Lee
Hearing Officer
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: kalun.lee@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail
Betsy Whittey
Hearing Officer
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: betsy.whittey@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail
Paul Abbott
General Counsel
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: paul.abbott@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail
Karlen Reed
Director, Competition Division
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: karlen.reed@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail

1
12559795v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ben Dobbs
Deputy Director, Competition Division
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: benedict.dobbs@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail
Joseph Tiernan
Competition Division
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
Email: joseph.tiernan@state.ma.us
Via Electronic Mail
James Pingeon, Esq.
Leslie Walker, Esq.
Bonita Tenneriello, Esq.
Lizz Matos, Esq.
Prisoners’ Legal Services, Inc.
10 Winthrop Square, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Email: jpingeon@plsma.org
Email: lwalker@plsma.org
Email: btenneriello@plsma.org
Email: lmatos@plsma.org
Via Electronic Mail
Patricia Garin, Esq.
Stern, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin
90 Canal St., 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Email: pgarin@sswg.com
Via Electronic Mail
Curtis Hopfinger
Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs
Securus Technologies, Inc.
14651 Dallas Parkway, 6th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75254
chopfinger@securustech.net
Via Electronic Mail

2
12559795v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Paul C. Besozzi
Counsel for Securus Technologies, Inc.
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington D.C. 20037
Email: pbesozzi@pattonboggs.com
Via Electronic Mail
Ken Dawson
VP Contracts & Regulatory
Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC d/b/a ICSolutions
2200 Danbury Street
San Antonio, TX 78217
Email: kdawson@icsolutions.com
Via Electronic Mail

/s/ Angela F. Collins
Angela F. Collins

3
12559795v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on October 29, 2013, the forgoing Opposition was served via
electronic mail on the following persons:
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Marlene.Dortch@fcc.gov

Sean Lev
General Counsel
Federal Communications Commission
Sean.Lev@fcc.gov

Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn
Federal Communications Commission
Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

Julie Veach, Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Julie.Veach@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Federal Communications Commission
Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov

Stephanie A. Joyce
Arent Fox LLP
1717 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Stephanie.Joyce@arentfox.com

Commissioner Ajit Pai
Federal Communications Commission
Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

By:
Lee G. Petro