Prison Phone Justice

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 1 of 18

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
No. 15-1461 and Consolidated Cases
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GLOBAL TEL*LINK,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission
BRIEF FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
James R. Williams
Acting County Counsel
Danny Y. Chou
Assistant County Counsel and Counsel of Record
Cara H. Sandberg
Deputy County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor
San Jose, California 95110-1770
P: (408) 299-5900
F: (408) 292-7240
FOR AMICUS CURIAE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 2 of 18

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), amici County of Santa Clara and
City and County of San Francisco submit the following Certificate of Parties,
Rulings, and Related Cases.
A.

Parties and Amici
These cases involve the following parties:
1. Petitioners
No. 15-1461:

Global Tel*Link

No. 15-1498:

Securus Technologies, Inc.

No. 16-1012:

Centurylink Public Communications, Inc.

No. 16-1029:

Telmate, LLC

No. 16-1038 :

National Association of Regulatory Utility

Commissioners
No. 16-1046:

Pay Tel Communications, Inc.

No. 16-1057:

State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Joseph M. Allbaugh, Interim

Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; John Whetsel, Sheriff
of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; The Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association, on
behalf of its members.
2.

Respondents

Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America
i

USCA Case #15-1461

3.

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 3 of 18

Intervenors and Amici Curiae

No. 15-1461:

Intervenors for Petitioners: Centurylink Public

Communications, Inc.; Indiana Sheriff’s Association; Lake County Sheriff’s
Department; Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

Intervenors for Respondents: Campaign for Prison Phone Justice; Citizens
United for Rehabilitation of Errants; DC Prisoners’ Project of the
Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Dedra
Emmons; Ulandis Forte; Human Rights Defense Center; Laura Lamancusa;
Jackie Lucas; Darrell Nelson; Earl J. Peoples; Ethel Peoples; Prison Policy
Initiative; United Church of Christ; Office of Communication, Inc.; Charles
Wade; Network Communications International Corp.

Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents: County of Santa Clara, City and
County of San Francisco, State of Minnesota, State of Illinois, State of
Massachusetts, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of
Washington, and Washington, D.C.

ii

USCA Case #15-1461

No. 16-1057:

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 4 of 18

Intervenors for Petitioners: State of Arizona, State of

Arkansas, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of
Missouri, State of Nevada, State of Wisconsin.

B.

Rulings Under Review
These consolidated appeals challenge the Federal Communications

Commission’s Order, In the Matter of Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services,
“Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 30
FCC Rcd. 12763, FCC 15-136, WC Dkt. No. 12-375 (released November 5, 2015),
published December 18, 2015 at 80 Fed. Reg. 79,136.

C.

Related Cases
The cases consolidated in this action are Case Nos. 15-1461, 15-1498, 16-

1012, 16-1029, 16-1038, 16-1046, and 16-1057.

iii

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 5 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ............. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................v
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................vi
STATEMENT OF IDENTITY, INTEREST IN CASE, AND SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY TO FILE............................................................................. vii
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ..... viii
ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................1
I.

EMPIRICAL DATA FROM THE COUNTIES DEMONSTRATES
THAT LOWERING INMATE CALLING RATES INCREASES
THE NUMBER AND TOTAL MINUTES OF PHONE CALLS
MADE BY JAIL INMATES.........................................................................1

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................6

iv

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 6 of 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Administrative Rulings
Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Third Report and Order and Second
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
30 FCC Rcd. 12763 (2015) ................................................................................ 1
Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services
28 FCC Rcd 14107 (2013) ................................................................................. 2

v

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 7 of 18

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
2013 Order:

Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd.
14107 (2013)

2015 Order:

Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Third Report and
Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC
Rcd. 12763 (2015)

FCC:

Federal Communications Commission

GTL:

Global Tel*Link

San Francisco:

City and County of San Francisco

Santa Clara:

County of Santa Clara

vi

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 8 of 18

STATEMENT OF IDENTITY, INTEREST IN CASE, AND SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY TO FILE
The County of Santa Clara (“Santa Clara”) is located at the southern end of
the San Francisco bay and is the home to 1.9 million residents. Encompassing
“Silicon Valley,” Santa Clara spans 1,312 square miles and contains San Jose, a
major metropolitan area and the Nation’s tenth most populous city. Santa Clara
operates the fifth largest jail system in California and one of the 20 largest jail
systems in the country. That system currently houses over 3,500 inmates.
The City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) encompasses 46.9
square miles and is the home to over 850,000 residents. The San Francisco jail
system is comprised of five County Jail facilities and has an average daily
population of 1,300 inmates.
As their jurisdictions’ primary providers of services to incarcerated persons,
their families, and offenders on probation, Santa Clara and San Francisco (the
“Counties”) have a strong interest in supporting the Federal Communications
Commission’s rate caps for inmate calling services. Inmate calling data from the
Counties demonstrates that reductions in inmate call rates increase the number and
total minutes of inmate calls.
This Court granted the County of Santa Clara’s motion for leave to
participate as amicus curiae on August 23, 2016.

vii

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 9 of 18

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara authored this brief in whole.
No party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing
or submitting this brief and no person contributed money intended to fund
preparing or submitting the brief.

viii

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 10 of 18

ARGUMENT
Like other counties across the country, the County of Santa Clara (“Santa
Clara”) and the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) (collectively,
the “Counties”) make phone services available to inmates in the jails that they
operate. In recent years, the Counties have reduced their rates for inmate calling
services, resulting in an increase in the number of phone calls made by their jail
inmates. Based on data from the Counties demonstrating the impact of reduced
inmate calling rates on inmate phone calls, it is clear that the lower rate caps for
intrastate inmate calls established in the Federal Communications Commission’s
2015 Inmate Calling Services Order (“2015 Order”) will increase communications
between inmates and their family and friends. See Rates for Interstate Inmate
Calling Services, Third Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd. 12763 (2015).
I.
EMPIRICAL DATA FROM THE COUNTIES DEMONSTRATES THAT
LOWERING INMATE CALLING RATES INCREASES THE NUMBER
AND TOTAL MINUTES OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY JAIL INMATES.
Data from the Counties show that inmate call activity increases when the
rates for inmate calls are reduced. This is clear from the rise in inmate calls that
occurred after Santa Clara reduced interstate calling rates in response to the
Federal Communications Commission’s 2013 Order lowering the rate caps for
interstate inmate calls. This is also clear from the upturn in inmate calls that
1

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 11 of 18

occurred after Santa Clara and San Francisco voluntarily reduced their intrastate
calling rates in 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Until February 2014, the rates for interstate calls in Santa Clara’s jails were
set by contract.

County of Santa Clara Finance and Government Operations

Committee, Status Report on Reduced Inmate Telephone Call Rates (No. 79437),
2.1 In 2013, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued an order
lowering the rate cap for interstate inmate calls (the “2013 Order”). See Rates for
Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 28 FCC Rcd 14107, 14147–53 ¶¶73–81 (2013).
As a result, the rate cap mandated in the 2013 Order replaced Santa Clara’s
contractual rate and lowered the cost of interstate calls for inmates in Santa Clara’s
jails from an average cost per minute of $1.25 to the capped rate of 21¢ per minute
for debit and prepaid interstate calls and 25¢ per minute for collect interstate calls.
Following this reduction in interstate calling rates, Santa Clara witnessed an
upswing in inmate calls. As illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 1, the monthly
average number of interstate calls and the average monthly interstate call minutes
increased after the FCC’s 2013 Order went into effect in February 2014.
///
///

1

Available at http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=
6779&Inline=True (last accessed Sept. 7, 2016).
2

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 12 of 18

Table 1: County of Santa Clara Data Regarding Interstate Inmate Calls
2012
2013
2014
2015
Cost per Minute for
$1.36
$1.35
22¢
21¢
Interstate Calls
Average Monthly Number
579
596
4,668
7,007
of Interstate Calls
Average Monthly
4,874
5,088
49,194
73,319
Interstate Call Minutes

Santa Clara and San Francisco saw a similar increase in inmate phone
activity after they reduced the intrastate calling rates for inmates in their jails. In
June 2014, San Francisco voluntarily reduced the rates for intrastate inmate calling
services. Effective July 2014, the cost of a local call in the San Francisco jail was
reduced to a $1.25 surcharge and 10¢ per minute and the cost of an intrastate call
3

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 13 of 18

was reduced to a $1.50 surcharge and 17¢ per minute. City and County of San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, Resolution: Contract Amendment – Global
Tel*Link – Inmate Telephone Services. After implementing these lower rates for
intrastate calls, San Francisco observed a rise in both the number and total minutes
of calls placed by inmates in its jail.
The same was true for Santa Clara when it reduced its local and intrastate
calling rates in 2015. Following the lead of San Francisco, Santa Clara negotiated
a reduction in the intrastate calling rates charged to its jail inmates that became
effective in August 2015. For local calls, charges were reduced to $1.35 for the
first minute and 10¢ for each additional minute. For intrastate calls, charges were
reduced to $1.67 for the first minute and 17¢ for each additional minute. Id. at 3.
Santa Clara also reduced administrative fees for account setup and closeout. Id.
As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 2, when local and intrastate call rates
were reduced by Santa Clara beginning in the middle of 2015, the number and total
minutes of local and intrastate calls by its inmates grew. 2
2

The average cost per minute for intrastate and local calls for the period of January
through May 2016 included the connection cost for the first minute of the call. In
accordance with the FCC’s 2015 Order, this connection charge was eliminated
from the Inmate Calling Services for the County of Santa Clara jails on June 20,
2016. County of Santa Clara Finance and Government Operations Committee,
Report Relating to the Status of Inmate Telephone Services (No. 82423), 1.
Available at: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=Split
View&MeetingID=7335&MediaPosition=2698.655&ID=82423&CssClass
(last
accessed Sept. 19, 2016). As a result, local calls by Santa Clara inmates will now
cost 10¢ per minute, and intrastate calls will now cost 17¢ per minute.

4

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 14 of 18

Table 2: County of Santa Clara Data Regarding Intrastate Inmate Calls
Calendar
Calendar Calendar Jan. – May
Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015
2016
Average Cost per Minute
46¢
45¢
38¢
30¢
For Intrastate Calls
Average Monthly Number
13,984
16,336
17,920
26,535
of Intrastate Calls
Average Monthly Minutes
149,252
177,177
197,160
300,023
Intrastate Calls
Average Cost per Minute
34¢
34¢
28¢
21¢
for Local Calls
Average Monthly Number
47,022
45,514
45,117
58,513
of Local Calls
Average Monthly Minutes
503,885
495,510
505,315
668,859
Local Calls

5

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 15 of 18

These data illustrate that when the cost of phone calls is reduced, the number
and total minutes of inmates calls increase. Thus, the FCC’s 2015 Order – which
reduces the rate cap for intrastate inmate calls – will undoubtedly result in a rise in
inmate call activity. This, in turn, will improve inmate connectivity with friends
and family.
CONCLUSION
The Counties have experienced an upturn in inmate call activity after the
implementation of the FCC’s 2013 Order reducing interstate call rates and their
voluntary reduction of intrastate call rates in 2014 and 2015. Thus, the Counties
have no doubt that the reduction in rate caps for inmate calling adopted by the FCC
in 2015 will increase inmate call activity nationwide. This increase in inmate call
activity will increase inmate communications with friends and family, resulting in
benefits to inmates, their family and friends, and the criminal justice system.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/
Danny Y. Chou
James R. Williams
Acting County Counsel
Danny Y. Chou
Assistant County Counsel and Counsel of Record
Cara H. Sandberg
Deputy County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor
San Jose, California 95110-1770
P: (408) 299-5900
F: (408) 292-7240
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA
6

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 16 of 18

Dennis J. Herrera
City Attorney
Christine Van Aken
Chief of Appellate Litigation
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

7

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 17 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(c), the undersigned hereby

certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(i).
2.

Exclusive of the exempted portions of the brief, as provided in Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) and Circuit Rule 32(a)(1), the brief contains 1,083 words.
3.

The brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using

Microsoft Word 2010 in 14 point Times New Roman font. As permitted by Fed.
R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B), the undersigned has relied upon the word count feature of
this word processing system in preparing this certificate.
By:

/s/
Danny Y. Chou

8

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1638294

Filed: 09/28/2016

Page 18 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on September 28, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing BRIEF FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on
counsel of record for all parties.
By:

/s/
Danny Y. Chou

1400084

9