Prison Phone Justice

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823
T: (415) 433-6830 ▪ F: (415) 433-7104
www.rbgg.com
Krista Stone-Manista
Email: kstone-manista@rbgg.com

March 25, 2013
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-B204
Washington, DC 20554
Re:

WC Docket No. 12-375: In the Matter of Rates for Interstate Inmate
Calling Services
Comments on Paragraph 42: “Disabilities Access”

Dear Commissioners:
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP (RBGG) hereby submits its comments in
Proceeding No. 12-375, in the matter of rates for interstate Inmate Calling Services (ICS).
On December 28, 2012, this Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) granting two petitions for rulemaking and seeking comment to refresh the
record before it on the issue of whether regulatory changes are necessary “to ensure just
and reasonable ICS rates . . . .” In paragraph 42 of the NPRM, the Commission requested
particular comments regarding the present impact of ICS rates on inmates with hearing
impairments.
RBGG has actively represented the interests of California prisoners and jail
inmates in numerous class action suits for many years. In particular, RBGG represents
California prisoners with disabilities in Armstrong v. Brown, a statewide class action
under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. As a result of our
advocacy for prisoners and jail inmates with disabilities across California, RBGG is wellinformed as to the disproportionate burden that high ICS rates have upon these
individuals, and thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment upon it.
As the Commission observed in paragraph 4 of the NPRM, “regular telephone
contact between inmates and their families is an important public policy matter.” As the
evidence before the Commission reflects, enabling inmates, including those with
disabilities, to maintain contact with their loved ones during incarceration reduces
recidivism and facilitates successful reintegration into the community. Inmates must also
be enabled to maintain contact with their attorneys in order to protect their constitutional

[768923-1]

Federal Communications Commission
March 25, 2013
Page 2

and statutory rights. Unfortunately, most California prisons allow Deaf and hearingimpaired inmates only limited access to outdated and poorly maintained TDD/TTY
machines. As a result, Deaf and hearing-impaired persons cannot communicate with
family, friends and counsel on anything like an even basis with other persons. A
practical and cost-effective solution is to provide inmates with access to videophone
technology in addition to use of TDD/TTY machines. This would both dramatically
decrease the disproportionate cost burden associated with use of TDD/TTY technology
and would greatly facilitate communication between Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
and other individuals who use American Sign Language rather than written English.
RBGG is engaged in active advocacy efforts to improve access to videophone technology
in California prisons and jails.
In the interim, however, inmates are reliant upon often cost-prohibitive use of
TDD/TTY machines. RBGG urges the Commission to adopt the following new
regulations regarding ICS provision to Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in order to
mitigate the burdens placed upon them by current rate-setting practice.
1. ICS Rates Must Account for the Extra Time Necessary to Complete a
TDD/TTY Call
Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are particularly harmed by the exorbitant ICS
calling rates identified in the NPRM for two reasons. First, conversations held using
TDD/TTY machines, or using relay services, take significantly more time than voice
calls. Because ICS generally charge on a per-minute basis, Deaf and hard-of-hearing
prisoners must pay significantly more than other inmates to conduct similar
conversations. A call placed using a TDD/TTY devices can take several times longer
than an identical voice call. Current ICS rates do not account for this disparity, which
unfairly discriminates against inmates restricted to use of TDD/TTY devices. RBGG
therefore urges the Commission to adopt regulations requiring ICS providers to discount
their rates for inmates placing calls using TDD/TTY devices.
2. ICS Providers Must Account for Inmates’ Limited Access to TDD/TTY
Devices
Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are also disproportionately burdened by the
relative rates charged by ICS providers for daytime telephone usage as opposed to night
and weekend usage. Where hearing inmates may often access a telephone at any time,
and thus take advantage of ICS night and weekend discounts, Deaf and hard-of-hearing
inmates must generally use a TDD/TTY machine that is only available at the convenience
of prison staff during regular working hours. Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates thus not

[768923-1]

Federal Communications Commission
March 25, 2013
Page 3

only have fewer opportunities to contact their loved ones, but do not have the ability to
take advantage of cheaper ICS rates during off-hours. RBGG asks the Commission to
adopt a regulation requiring ICS providers to charge only their lowest per-minute cost to
users of TDD/TTY devices, regardless of the time at which calls using such devices are
placed.
3. ICS Providers Must Permit the Use of Relay Services
Many Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates cannot communicate using TDD/TTY
devices, which require a degree of literacy in standard written English, because either the
inmate or his family member lacks such proficiency. Increasingly widespread use of
relay services has ameliorated this difficulty for many Deaf families, but this technology
is generally not available to inmate callers because prisons and jails block access to tollfree numbers without exception for relay numbers. Even in prisons where a relay service
may be called, the additional fees charged by ICS providers for use of a relay provider
often make doing so prohibitively expensive. The Commission should adopt regulations
requiring that ICS providers facilitate access to relay services and prohibiting them from
imposing additional fees for connecting to relay operators, as envisioned by section
276(b)(1)(A).
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,

ROSEN BIEN
GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

By: Krista Stone-Manista
KSM:KSM

[768923-1]