Prison Phone Justice

~~,

,

.

"

..._

)

M E S S E R CAPARELLO & SELF, P.A.
.... . .".... .

"

"

.

"

."

""

x_,,l

"

""

,

.

.

.

r

"

.

."

"

,

_.

",.

A t t o r n e y s A t Law
www. 1awfla.coru

September 10,2007

BY HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Ann Cole, Director
Commission Clerk and Administrative Services
Room 110, Easley Building
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Re:

Docket No. 060614-TC

Dear Ms. Cole:
Enclosed for filing on behalf of TCG Public Communications, Inc. is an original and 15
copies of the Offer of Settlement in the above referenced docket.
Please acknowledge receipt of these documents by stamping the extra copy of this letter
"filed" and returning the same to me.
Thank you for your assistance with this filing.
f?

COM
i-1

CTR

t-

r:

C J

r.
3X
Se;R

=A

SEC

ol-I4

_
_ I

cc:

-_y_

5
2
0

"
I

3
"

Ms. Beth Salak
Patrick Wiggins, Esq.
Lee Eng Tan, Esq.

J

'n
.r

" N E

?-.

Z .C x 3 &
- (3 m
c-I

0
t
;

-

-

0

s

..- e 2
; & $ 2
tf3
,

FRS/amb
Z Lnclosures

ow

to

I-____
_
I
_
-

Regional Center Office Park / 2618 Centennial Place / Tallahassee, Florida 32308
M a i l i n g Address P 0 Box 15579 / Tallahassee, Florida 32317
M a i n Telephone ( 8 5 0 ) 222-0720 / Fax ( 8 5 0 ) 224-4359

____

a
LL.

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Compliance investigation of TCG Public
Communications, Inc. for apparent violation of
Section 364.183(1), F.S., Access to Company
Records, and determination of amount and
appropriate method for refunding overcharges
for collect calls made from inmate pay telephones.

)
)
)
)

1

Docket No. 0606 14-TC
Filed: September 10,200E.

)

1

Lc3

cn
(r
Il
a
L

r--8
- 1

fel=:
L<
?

c,
.
.

cd-

2

c
’

.
r

A
-

*.

_-

N

--

.-.i

‘-a
.- . .

I

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
TCG Public Communications, Inc. (“TCG’) (for itself and its present and past
corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates) files this Offer of Settlement with the Florida
Public Service Commission (“Commission”) for the purpose of resolving the above captioned
docket in a constructive and positive manner. In support of its Offer, TCG states as follows:
I. Introduction and Background
1.

This docket was formally opened by the Commission Clerk at the request of the

Commission Staff on September 13, 2006, by Document Number 083 15. As is reflected by the
title of this docket, this is a prosecutorial proceeding involving both allegations that TCG has
violated Commission statutes regarding access to company records and allegations of overcharges
to be refunded to customers. The substance of the docket pertains to the inmate phone service
provided pursuant to a contract between TCG and Miami-Dade County, Florida dated August 1,
2000, and allegations that some phone calls were improperly terminated prematurely.
2.

TCG is certificated by the Commission to provide pay telephone service,

1

3.

The opening of this docket comes after an informal investigation of TCG’s inmate

phone service at the Miami-Dade County Correctional Department (“Department”).

This

informal investigation dates back to approximately March, 2004. During the time of the informal
investigation the Commission Staff conducted certain tests at the Department’s facilities and
otherwise received data requested from TCG.

In addition, representatives of TCG and the

Commission Staff have met on multiple occasions to discuss the Staff investigation. Since the
opening of this formal docket, TCG has continued to work cooperatively with the Commission
Staff. TCG and others have responded to Commission Staff discovery requests on several
occasions.
4.

As a part of the Commission’s investigation, in October and December of 2005,

TCG and the Commission Staff cooperatively participated in two separate tests of the equipment
at the Miami-Dade Pretrial Detention Facility in which the Commission Staff did not find any test
calls terminated early. On July 17 and 18, 2007, the Commission Staff conducted two days of call
testing from the Miami-Dade Pretrial Detention Facility and determined that all calls were
properly terminated as they should have been. Finally, and in general, TCG has used its best
efforts to cooperate with the requests of the Commission Staff to the extent TCG was in
possession of the data requested by the Commission Staff. As a part of the cooperative effort to
be of assistance, when TCG was not in possession of requested data, TCG has worked with the
Commission Staff in order to have the appropriate third party provide the necessary data and
documentation.
5.

TCG believes that there has not been any violation of the Commission’s statutes

2

or rules at any time during the term of the Miami-Dade contract with TCG. Based upon records
available from TCG and the Commission, the total number of complaints associated with early
call disconnects for the inmate phone service at the Department’s inmate facilities from the
beginning of the contract in August 2000 through June 2007 is less than 40, and the most recent
complaint was filed in July 2006. These complaints represent an extremely small percentage of
the total call volume, which in some months are in excess of one million calls and over the life of
the entire contract is in excess of 100 million calls. It is TCG’s policy to promptly respond to any
customer complaint, especially those involving claims of early call terminations, and TCG will
certainly be responsive to any customer who provides documentation regarding early call
disconnects, TCG believes that all known customer complaints pertaining to inmate phone usage
at the Miami-Dade County Correctional Department have been satisfactorily resolved.
6.

Over the last three years, TCG has expended significant company resources in

supporting the Commission Staff investigation into this matter. Based upon the current status of
the matter, including the deminimus number of customer complaints, TCG believes that it is in
the best interests of TCG, the Commission, and especially the public to now conclude this matter.
Accordingly, TCG hereby provides the following Offer of Settlement to resolve this docket.
11.
7.

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

The August 1, 2000, contract and operational requirements between Miami-Dade

and TCG has several important characteristics which make it unique among inmate telephone
service contracts.
8.

As an initial matter it is important to understand that inmate pay telephones and

3

the services provided are not like regular pay telephones at airports, restaurants, stores, and other
public locations. Rather, inmate pay telephones provide limited services in a specialized manner
through a central system. So, for the Miami-Dade Correctional Department, all of the inmate
phones are linked into a system that is controllable by a central hardware and software system that
manages the types of calls permitted, the time of day calls may be made, and which provides other
management, security, and control features. The actual telephone instruments accessible to the
inmates are hardened; these “bare bones” instruments do not have coin slots and are designed for
extreme abuse and wear and tear. Inmates are only allowed to make collect calls, with the called
party hearing a prerecorded message approved by the Department which explains the options
available to the called party. Because of the nature of managing an inmate system with thousands
of inmates, the policies, procedures, equipment, hardware, and software requires constant
attention, repairs, and adjustments in order to meet the requirements established and enforced by
the Miami-Dade Correctional Department and the limited Commission rules governing inmate
phone services.

9.

With respect to the actual implementation of the Miami-Dade contract, TCG

contracted with a separate third-party vendor to actually provide the hardware, software, telephone
instruments, and supporting personnel to install, maintain, and operate all of the equipment and
services provided to Miami-Dade. This meant that TCG employees did not and do not run or
otherwise operate the equipment and systems used to provide the inmate phone services.
10.

The contract between TCG and Miami-Dade County did not require, and the

decision was made to not make, a live recording of each inmate call as is done in many other

4

inmate phone systems. The effect of this decision is that after the fact it was not possible to listen
to a recording of the call to independently veri9 whether a 3-way call attempt was made.

11.

The Miami-Dade County Correctional Department manages nine different

facilities which were served by TCG utilizing three different inmate pay telephone systems: (1)
the Pretrial Detention Center, which served only the Pretrial Detention Center; (2) MetroWest,
which served the MetroWest, Women’s, North Dade, and Jackson Hospital Ward D facilities; and
(3) TGK, which served the Turner Gilford Knight facility, the Stockade, and the Boot Camp. The
hardware and software associated with each of the three systems could be and was independently
set, which means that the settings for the three systems were not uniform. Thus, the settings for
the phone service serving one facility could be, and sometimes was, different than those at another
facility on a different system.
12.

Miami-Dade County Correctional Department has a policy that requires its inmate

telephones to block calls to certain telephone numbers - usually the blocked numbers are to
protect victims, judges, witnesses, and prosecutors as well as to prevent inmates from calling
known associates. Inmates, however, figured out that blocked numbers could be reached by
calling an accomplice not on the blocked list and having that person make a 3-way call to the
prohibited number. In addition, 3-way calling and call forwarding can be used to commit
fraudulent calling in the furtherance of committing other crimes.
13.

To address the 3-way calling situation and related fraudulent calling, Miami-Dade

adopted a policy to prohibit 3-way calling. Many inmate facilities have a prohibition against 3way calling and the operational characteristics of the 3-way call detection systems vary by vendor.

5

The equipment for the three Miami-Dade systems utilized proprietary computer software
technologies in order to determine whether a 3-way call attempt was being made. The software
itself is not as precise as if the telephone network switches had signaled the inmate phone system
of a 3-way call, but there is no available technology that will guarantee the termination of only a
3-way call attempt. Consequently, the inmate phone system for the Miami-Dade Correctional
Department utilized algorithms and other proprietary software in order to determine when a 3-way
call attempt was being made and, when such a determination was made by the system, the call
was immediately terminated.
14.

Because this is a software based solution, it is not a precise or exact solution for

detecting 3-way call attempts. In order to strike an appropriate balance between terminating 3way call attempts and other fraudulent usage while allowing legitimate calls to continue
unimpeded, the system utilized the proprietary software already described as well as other
operational approaches to try to strike that balance. Since the software was sensitive to called
parties who had call waiting and other custom calling features, customers were advised to
disconnect such features. Similarly, cordless phones, because the frequencies they utilize and
their susceptibility to interference both from other electronics and the distance from the base
station, could also trigger false 3-way call attempts to the systems, and so customers were advised
to use hardwired telephones. The message that a called party received for collect calls from
Miami-Dade Correctional Department facilities was adjusted several times over the years in an
attempt to help address both the prohibited 3-way calling and the fraudulent calling issues. As for
the inmate phone system, it was possible to adjust the 3-way call attempt sensitivity settings in the

6

software in order to also find a proper balance and to ensure the prevention of 3-way call attempts,
15.

Within this context, it is vital for the Commission to understand that while the

Department has certain legal obligations with respect to providing telephone access to inmates,
the Department has other vital public purpose responsibilities to ensure that inmates are not able
to use those phones for the perpetuation of crimes or other improper purposes.

As the

Commission’s own rules recognize, pay telephones in the inmate context are exempt from most of
the other requirements for pay telephones as the inmate phone system is a tool used by the
Department to fulfill its legal and custodial responsibilities to the inmates and the public.

16.

Prior to October 2003, the 3-way call detection software for Miami-Dade appears

to have operated as it should without any major problems or unusually excessive complaints.
Again, while it is possible that a call may have been prematurely terminated as a 3-way call
attempt when in fact the call was not a 3-way call attempt, the information available establishes
that this was a rare occurrence and that the associated customer complaints were few but resolved.

17.

Beginning in late 2003 and continuing through 2004, there was a very serious

fraud problem that escalated over time associated with the use of inmate telephones in the MiamiDade Correctional Department facilities, most of which originated in the Pretrial Detention
Center. The basic situation involved inmates who would call an innocent third party and by
deception get that person to engage the call forwarding of their telephone to some accomplice of
the inmate. When the victim of this scam would hang up, the inmate would then dial the victim’s
number again which would then be automatically call forwarded to the inmate’s accomplice, who
would accept the collect call, which would result in the charges for the telephone call being billed

7

to the innocent third party. Variations of this scheme also involved hacking into PBX systems
outside of regular business hours and calling other law enforcement agencies around Florida and
the United States. The situation became so bad that personnel in the Miami-Dade Correctional
Department received calls even though they were otherwise being blocked by the system.
18.

The severity of this situation eventually became the subject of the media in

Miami-Dade County as well as national news organizations, and there were numerous television
and print stories regarding these problems. The situation with the inmate fraud was so serious that
there was at least one meeting involving security department representatives of BellSouth,
Verizon, TCG, Miami-Dade Corrections Department officials, and the equipment vendor in an
attempt to address and stop the problem.
19.

One aspect of the solution to the fraud problem was to change the sensitivity

settings for the 3-way call detection software. In October 2003, there was a meeting with
representatives of the Miami-Dade Correctional Department, TCG, and the equipment vendor.
During this meeting, the equipment vendor recommended that under the then present conditions
the appropriate maximum level for the settings that balanced the prohibition against 3-way calling
and other fraudulent calling with the potential for early call termination of non-3-way calling was
in the range of 30% to 35%. Based upon this discussion, on November 7, 2003, the Department
directed the equipment vendor to set the settings at 25% effective November 17, 2003, for each of
the three systems and for the parties to review the settings in 30 days.
20.

On November 25, 2003, the Department communicated directly with the

equipment vendor to increase the settings to 35%. TCG was never consulted about this change

8

before it was made, and TCG did not learn of this increase until December 3,2003.
21.

On December 16, 2003, the equipment vendor advised TCG that the maximum

setting had been increased yet again, this time to 43% for the Pretrial Detention Center and to
38% and 39% for the other two Miami-Dade inmate telephone systems by the express directive of
the Department. These changes were not approved by or ever discussed with TCG in advance.
After the fact, when TCG attempted to ascertain what happened and to remind the Department of
its decision to increase the settings only to a maximum of 35% and the potential customer
problems at settings the maximum any higher, a Miami-Dade Correctional Department official
told TCG in an email that in view of the continuing and escalating fraud problems that “43% is
exactly what is needed at this time for PTDC and we will evaluate all the facilities again for the
New Year.”
22.

Over the next 14 months, the Miami-Dade Correctional Department, TCG, and

the equipment vendor actively worked on and implemented several different software changes and
other policies to further address the fraudulent calling originating with the inmates from the
Miami-Dade inmate phones.
23.

During 2004, in response to a customer complaint regarding early call

terminations originating on the inmate phone system of the Miami-Dade Correctional Department,
the Commission Staff began an informal investigation.

Pursuant to that investigation, on

September 22, 2004, the Commission Staff made its first test calls from the Pretrial Detention
facility with none of the four calls reaching their full duration. On October 27, 2004, the
Commission Staff made four additional test calls from the Pretrial Detention Facility, two of

9

which were terminated early.
24.

The sensitivity settings for the 3-way call detection equipment remained at the

levels dictated by the Miami-Dade Correctional Department until January 2005. At that time,
TCG advised the Department that it would reduce the settings to 30% by February 1,2005, unless
the Department directed otherwise. The Department responded to TCG request in an email by
stating that it would defer to TCG’s technical judgment but that the County hoped that the script
changes and other actions taken would reduce, not increase, fraud. TCG then directed the
equipment vendor to reduce the settings to 30% no later than January 3 1, 2005. On February 2,
2005, the equipment vendor confirmed to TCG in an email that the 3-way call detection software

system was set at 30%.
25.

On June 28, 2005, the Commission Staff conducted a timing test at the Miami-

Dade Correctional Department facilities. In this test, two of the three test calls were terminated
early, TCG believed that at the 30% setting none of the calls should have been terminated
prematurely, In following up on the test results with the equipment vendor in July and August
2005, TCG was advised by the equipment vendor that the 3-way call detection sensitivity settings
were actually at 35% and not the 30% requested and confirmed by the equipment vendor in
February. It is unknown whether the system was set to 30% and later changed to 35% or whether
the change to 30% was misreported. The equipment vendor acknowledged that the request for the
change on February first was for 30% and that it had reported that the settings were lowered to
30%. As TCG continued to review the test results and system settings, the equipment vendor in
August 2005 advised TCG that because the actual sensitivity level at any one moment can be

10

dynamic, based upon several different factors, it was possible that there was some fluctuation in
the effective sensitivity level, sometimes varying above 30% and sometimes being below 30%. In
response to this information, TCG advised the equipment vendor that the settings needed to be
monitored and adjusted as necessary to make sure the maximum settings always remained below

30%.
26.

Working with TCG, a timing test was attempted in September 2005, but because

of various hurricanes impacting both TCG’s parent corporate offices and Miami-Dade County, the
test was not made until October 19, 2005. For this test, only one call was made, which was not
terminated early.
27.

Continuing to work with the Commission Staff, a timing test was conducted on

December 22, 2005. For this test all four of the four test calls were for the full duration and none

of them were terminated early.
28.

During the fall of 2005 while the Commission Staff continued its informal

investigation into this matter, TCG became concerned regarding whether its actions to implement
and comply with the directives of the Miami-Dade Correctional Department could potentially lead
to a conflict between those Miami-Dade County requirements and the rules of this Commission,
Accordingly, on November 22, 2005, TCG’s parent corporation filed a petition for declaratory
statement with this Commission seeking to address several questions regarding any potential
conflict between the Commission’s rules and the requirements of Miami-Dade County. This
petition was docketed in Docket No. 050892-TP.
29.

The specific substance of the declaratory statement petition was to address

11

subsections (21) and (22) of Rule 25-24.515, Florida Administrative Code, and the potential
conflict between them. Rule 25-24.5 15(21) states that, “[plroviders serving confinement facilities
shall provide for completion of all inmate calls allowed by the confinement facility.” Rule 2524.5 15(22) states, in pertinent part, that
[play telephone stations in confinement facilities , , . shall also be
exempt from the requirements of subsection (9),’ except that
outgoing local and long distance calls may not be terminated until
after a minimum elapsed time of ten minutes.
The petition requested that the Commission declare that Rule 25-24.5 15(22) does not require the
connection of outgoing local and long distance inmate calls for a minimum elapsed time of ten
minutes when doing so would violate the practices and procedures of a confinement facility and
would allow inmates to complete calls that are not allowed by the confinement facility.

30.

In Order No. PSC-06-01 16-FOF-TPY
issued February 14, 2006, the Commission

granted the declaratory statement petition. This Order found, based upon the facts set forth in the
petition, that under Rule 25-24.515(22) the inmate phone service provider is not required “to
connect outgoing local and long distance calls for a minimum elapsed time of ten minutes when a
confinement facility requests the company to terminate a call not authorized by the confinement
facility.”
31.

With this declaratory statement from the Commission, TCG continued to work

with the Miami-Dade Correctional Department to address the fraud and 3-way calling problems.
Through such efforts, in the last year there has not been a single complaint of early call
Rule 25-24.5 15(9) applies to pay telephone service in general. It sets forth the information that must appear on the
pay telephone station and states that “[flor pay telephone stations that will terminate conversation after a minimum
elapsed time, notice shall be included on the sign card as well as an audible announcement 30 seconds prior to

12

termination. However, there have been complaints regarding fraudulent calling, with customers
receiving bills for collect calls from the Miami-Dade facilities that the customers did not
authorize. TCG continues to work with these customers and the Department to satisfactorily
resolve their complaints and to implement blocks and other actions to stop all unauthorized calls.
32.

Most recently, in July 2007, the Commission Staff conducted two days of testing

at the Miami-Dade Correctional Department Pretrial Detention Facility. In this testing, where 37
test calls were made, the Commission Staff found that all calls were properly terminated (some
calls were terminated before the full duration because additional keys were pressed in an attempt
to simulate a 3-way call; such calls were considered terminated properly).
33.

In this light, it is also important to note that at the time the Commission Staff

performed its 2004 test calls that the sensitivity settings were at their “highest” setting pursuant
to the specific directive of Miami-Dade officials consistent with the 2006 declaratory statement
ruling, When the Commission Staff performed its timing test on June 28, 2005, the maximum
settings were supposed to have been at 30% but subsequent investigation determined that they
were set at 35%.
34.

After the June 2005 test, the sensitivity settings at all Miami-Dade facilities were

reduced to 30% or less. For the final tests by the Commission’s Staff in 2005, on October 19,
2005, and December 22, 2005, as well as the July 2007 testing, none of these test calls were
terminated improperly. Said differently, all the data indicates that any problem with respect to
premature call termination had been resolved at least since the latter half of 2005. It should be
noted that at no time after July 2005, when TCG instructed its equipment vendor to maintain
termination of the phone call.”

13

sensitivity settings at or below 30% has TCG requested an increase to the sensitivity settings and
as far as TCG is aware, there have been no changes to the settings by the equipment vendor nor
has the Miami-Dade Correctional Department requested a different setting.
35.

In analyzing all of the data assembled over the course of this investigation, the call

data consistently shows that approximately 3% of calls were terminated early for 3-way call
attempts. While that percentage range may seem high, the key is that notwithstanding the
changes to the sensitivity settings and other actions taken, that the number of disconnects is not
out of line with the settings before or after the peak in the settings.
36.

This information on 3-way call disconnects is likewise consistent with the data

regarding actual customer complaints for early call termination, which total less than 40
customers over seven years. In an ideal world, there would be no false 3-way calls detected
resulting in no one being disconnected prematurely. However, given the available technology,
some calls were disconnected that should not have been. The total number of people with such
early terminations that were not 3-way call attempts is very limited, especially recognizing that
there have been more than 100 million calls from the Miami-Dade Correctional Department
facilities, with approximately 2.2 million calls being reported by the system 3-way call attempts.
Given these call volumes, TCG believes that if the problem was more widespread, the number of
complaints would have been significantly higher than it was. Indeed, while recently there have
not been any complaints regarding early call terminations, there have been a number of fraudrelated complaints, suggesting that the current setting may be permitting 3-way calls. Based
upon all of the available information, any person who has had a problem with early call

14

terminations has already been refunded and made whole.
111.
37.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

In making this Offer of Settlement, TCG believes that if the issue of early call

terminations at the Miami-Dade Correctional Department facilities was to be litigated that the
Commission would ultimately determine that no Commission rules, orders, or statutes were
violated by the settings associated with the 3-way call detection software and that there would be
no outstanding refunds or credits due to customers for early call terminations for collect calls
made from the Miami-Dade Correctional Department inmate phone system. TCG believes that
under existing Florida law that the actions taken with respect to the early termination of inmate
phone calls due to 3-way call attempts and other fraudulent and prohibited calling has been carried
out with the full knowledge and at the express direction of the Miami-Dade Correctional
Department and that such actions have been consistent with Miami-Dade's polices and the rules
and regulations of this Commission as verified by the Commission's 2006 declaratory statement.
38.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, TCG, for settlement purposes only, recognizes

that there may have been customers who received collect inmate calls from the Miami-Dade
Correctional Department facilities that may have been terminated prematurely and not in violation
of any of the prohibited 3-way calling or fraudulent calling policies. In order to grant every
reasonable consideration to these customers, TCG is prepared to make available a settlement pool
of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000.00) in order to address these potential
early terminated calls.
39.

To the extent that a customer had a collect inmate call terminated prematurely and

15

without violating the 3-way call prohibition or other fraudulent calling policies of the Miami-Dade
Correctional Department, the presumed response in such a situation would be that the inmate
would make a second or return call to the same number that was terminated in either the same
clock minute in which the first call was terminated or the next clock minute. Given the jail
policies, inmates would have to make an immediate call upon the termination of the first call as
they are not permitted to hold the phone without making a call. Likewise, if a legitimate call was
terminated early, it is highly unlikely that the caller would dial a different party than the person
that was just disconnected. The only customer billing information available to TCG confirms that
the return call was indeed made within the same or next clock minute.
40.

If a collect call was prematurely terminated without cause, the party accepting a

local call would experience an additional call cost of $2.25, reflecting an additional local call
charge of 50 cents and an additional surcharge $1.75, over the original call’s cost. If the collect
call prematurely terminated early was a long distance call, the called party would only experience
an additional charge of $1.75 since the per minute charges applied only for each additional minute
consumed, Thus, the proper amount for any local call refund would be $2.25 and for any long
distance call would be $1.75.
41.

TCG believes that any customer that was in fact terminated prematurely in error

has already sought compensation from the appropriate parties.

However, in order to give

customers the benefit of the doubt, TCG will hereby make available a settlement pool by which a
customer may obtain a refund in either of two ways:
a.

If the customer has copies of phone bills, the customer may submit copies

16

of the bills to the settlement address with the requested successive calls highlighted or otherwise
indicated on the bill copy. For each call, the calling party number must be one of the MiamiDade Correctional Department pay telephones and the called party number must be a collect call.
If the calls are indeed successive calls within 2 clock minutes of each other (within 2 minutes of
the termination of the first call the return call is made from the same number to the same
telephone number without any intervening calls), the customer will receive a refund of $2.25 for
each return local call and $1.75 for each return long distance call. The refund amount will
include interest calculated in accordance with Rule 25-4.1 14(4), Florida Administrative Code.
The customer will be asked to sign a statement that the calls for which refunds are requested did
not include any 3-way, fraudulent, or other prohibited calls.
b.

If the customer does not have copies of the telephone bills, the customer

will have to state that collect calls were received to the telephone number and the customer had
calls terminated early that were not 3-way, fraudulent, or other prohibited calls. For these
customers, a default check in the amount of four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) will be issued.
The customer will be asked to sign a statement that the calls for which refunds are requested did
not include any 3-way, fraudulent, or other prohibited calls.
42.

TCG recognizes that the Commission’s preferred method of returning revenues to

customers is by a direct refund to the affected customers. In this particular situation, it is simply
not possible to identify which calls may have been terminated early and which were not a 3-way,
fraudulent, or other prohibited call. First, there are no call detail records available reflecting the
called party number and the billed calls. Second, even if call detail records were available, such

17

records alone do not identify whether the two successive calls to the same number were
terminated as a 3-way call prematurely in error. Thus, it is incumbent upon customers to notify
TCG of their situation.
43.

In order to make this information available to customers, TCG shall run notices in

local newspapers and other media outlets in Miami-Dade County providing information regarding
the potential refund. These notices shall be run for a period of 30 days starting within 60 days of
the issuance of a final agency action order approving this Offer of Settlement. TCG shall provide
customers with a 90 day window after the conclusion of the public notice for customers to make
claims. The customer checks shall be issued within 60 days of the conclusion of the 90 day
refund claims request window. The customer checks shall include a release that will release TCG
and its past and present corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates for any claims associated
with early call terminations for collect calls from any of the Miami-Dade County Correctional
Department facilities for the period August 1, 2000, through September 10, 2007. Any checks
issued shall be valid for 90 days. A final and complete accounting will be made to the
Commission within 90 days of the expiration of the 90 day window in which customs may present
checks for payment in order to provide customers with the opportunity to receive and cash the
check.
47.

Any amounts from the settlement pool remaining after the refunds are completed

shall be a voluntary contribution to the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida, less the
costs of the refund itself. Any such net payment to the State shall be made within ninety (90)
days of the date the final report to the Commission addressing the refund process and the

18

determination of the final net balance outstanding. This period of time is necessary to provide
customers with the full opportunity to receive and cash their checks and for those checks to clear
the banking system and permit the settlement administrator to perform a final accounting and
close out report.
IV.

48.

CONCLUSION

TCG mslr\es this offer solely. in connection with LS effort to settle and resolve 1 .s

investigation for itself and its present and past corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and
it may not be used for any other purpose. TCG, for itself and its present and past corporate
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, does not admit to any wrongdoing, and submission of this
proposal and its acceptance by the Commission shall not be construed as any admission of
liability on the part of any of TCG or any of TCG’s present and past corporate parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, employees, or officers. TCG, and its present and past corporate parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, fully reserves each and all of its rights, positions, and arguments if
this proposal is not accepted and approved by the Commission and incorporated into a final order
in accordance with its terms.
48.

This proposal shall be valid and binding upon TCG, and its present and past

corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, only to the extent it is adopted in its entirety as
presented to the Commission. If this proposal is accepted by the Commission, then the
investigation would be resolved as it relates to TCG, and its present and past corporate parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates. In addition, if this proposal is accepted by the Commission, then
TCG, and its present and past corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, shall not request

19

reconsideration or appeal of the order of the Commission approving this proposal in accordance
with its terms.

49.

TCG appreciates the Commission’s consideration of this offer. If you wish to

further discuss this matter or require any additional

_..--

I

/

Messer,
Tallahassee, FL 323 17
(850) 222-0720 (voice)
(850) 558-0656 (direct facsimile)
Email: fself@lawfla.com
Counsel for TCG Public Communications, Inc. and its present and
past corporate parents,subsidiaries, and affiliates

20