Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!

Go Back   Prison Talk > FOR FAMILY & FRIENDS > General Prison Talk > GPT Phones, Mail, and Visitation Discussions
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

GPT Phones, Mail, and Visitation Discussions Please post topics or discussions here that do not fit in the appropriate state or federal forums.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2006, 10:28 AM
egs's Avatar
egs egs is offline
...over easy
Donation Award 

Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,743
Thanks: 16
Thanked 551 Times in 358 Posts
Thumbs up Fed. Bill would force FCC to regulate state prison phone rates!!! BACK THIS BILL!!!

NY Times Editorial
Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006

A bill introduced in Congress by Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois, would help end this shameful practice* by requiring the Federal Communications Commission to set fair rates for interstate phone calls made from prison.

To read the remainder of this editorial go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/opinion/14sat3.html

*NOTE: This "shameful practice" is described in the opening paragraph of this NY Times Editorial as the States reaping enormous profits from the prison phone systems!!!
This Bill would pertain to ALL state prisons b/c the FCC would be charged with regulating all states' rate setting of prisoner phone calls. I have not yet read the bill but I'm thinking that it would also affect county/city jails, too!!!

Read this NY Times editorial online now for free...after 1/21/2006 it will cost you money to access the article!!!

And yeah....LET's get this party started and BACK THIS BILL!!!
egs [aka...Elaine]


...if i know anything at all,
it's that a wall is just a wall
and nothing more at all,
it can be broken down.

---assata shakur
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Techno1's Avatar
Techno1 Techno1 is offline
3 mnths and back again :(

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Missouri USA
Posts: 305
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Question Can't see article

It wouldn't pull up for me does anyone have a copy of it they could post here?
The waiting will end for me Sept 28, 2008 !!!

Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 12:42 PM
MrsBenji's Avatar
MrsBenji MrsBenji is offline

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: We are in KY.
Posts: 10,938
Thanks: 0
Thanked 519 Times in 85 Posts

It pulled up fine for me, but we can't post the full article because of copyright.

Try again?? Or copy and paste the web address into a new browser window.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 09:35 AM
SandC4E's Avatar
SandC4E SandC4E is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

Thank you for sharing this information - I wonder if there is a petition anywhere to show our support.


Christopher's was Released & Back in My Arms in August 2007!!!
Nobody deserves your tears, but whoever deserves them will not make you cry...


My Honey Came Home on August 8th, 2007!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 10:29 AM
MiniMe's Avatar
MiniMe MiniMe is offline
His Nickname for me

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 290
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

I was wondering the same thing. Is there a petition anywhere that we can sign, so show our support?
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 10:46 AM
mrsdragoness's Avatar
mrsdragoness mrsdragoness is offline
Very Much Missed Administrator
Donation Award 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 31,059
Thanks: 0
Thanked 240 Times in 97 Posts

Sending individual letters to your congressmen will carry more weight than anything... additionally send a letter to Rep. Rush and thank him for introducing this bill!
We got a Dog, Named him Odin
The cats got mad
The kid rolled his eyes....
But they all get along and
EVERYONE is happy!

R.I.P. Sally! This Dragon is Flying High Again.. WE LOVE YOU & Will Never Forget!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 02:03 PM
LeesFree LeesFree is offline
Here to help.

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FL USA
Posts: 376
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

The Federal Bill is HR 4466. It's sitting in committee right now. I faxed the Florida/Washington connection for support. We need everyone to let their congress-people know that there are millions out here that need justice. Please, just email your Federal Senator and/or your Federal Represantative and ask for their support. If enough of us speak up maybe someone will listen!!!!!!
Proud Member of the Florida LOLITS
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 04:48 PM
whatheck whatheck is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Be careful what you wish for (the article states rates for INTERSTATE calling, not intrastate)- The FCC is the same agency that approved the tariff rates for AT&T which is what many of the companies use. 3.95 connect and .89 cents a minute for Interstate.
This could be a loophole for those states that do not get a high commission, or commission at all and have low rates. Missouri is currently 1.00 and .14 a minute. Even if the FCC has control, the lobbyist will be all over them petitioning for higher rates to cover the costs of specialized equipment required by the states Request for Proposals (RFP).
If the FCC was to limit commission rates the states can then put more on the companies to supply personnel to handle the investigation and monitoring which could increase the costs putting us back in the same place we were before.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 04:54 PM
dazzler's Avatar
dazzler dazzler is offline
Account Closed

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

I've post the entire text in the Illinois Forum - News. There are additional posts I made giving the address of the committee on Energy and Commerce. It's such an excellent bill and Rep. Rush has a grasp on our problems... Everyone paying money to talk to an inmate needs to support this bill and send some feedback....
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2006, 04:56 PM
dazzler's Avatar
dazzler dazzler is offline
Account Closed

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,321
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

If enough people are willing we could send individual e-mails to our representatives and also a petition from us collectively. It probably isn't a popular piece of legislation but we can draw attention to it....
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 01:09 PM
tinkr30's Avatar
tinkr30 tinkr30 is offline
Kevins Princess Bride

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Louisville Ky
Posts: 407
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

Also, I called and found out by calling one of my members of the US congress that this bill has been sent to the House Subcommitte on Telecommunications and the Internet. Here is a link that has the members of that committe


I also found a very good place to track any bill that may be introduced


The problem with the HR 4466 is that it has no ( 0 ) co sponsors. My senator said that that is not a good sign and we the people need to call and write OUR OWN STATE Reps to try and get them co sponsor the bill. Also, write and call your state rep that is on the committe so it doesn't die on the vine right there.

I guess we could get a petition together and get everyone we know to sign it. Get as many people involved as possible.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 01:27 PM
Marsea Marsea is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Me-NY Him- FL
Posts: 101
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Inmate Phone Calls (HR 4466 IH)

This is long but thought it might help someone out if you need a copy of this I will be glad to email you the whole article...hope it helps

HR 4466 IH

1st Session
H. R. 4466
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules regulating inmate telephone service rates.
December 7, 2005 Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe rules regulating inmate telephone service rates.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that:
(1) The telephone is the primary method by which individuals correspond and maintain contact with family members who are incarcerated in correctional institutions.
(2) Except for emergency purposes, family members are not allowed to call people incarcerated in correctional institutions; incarcerated persons are typically allowed to call family members and other pre-approved individuals only through payphones physically located on the premises of correctional institutions.
(3) Inmate telephone service in correctional institutions often is limited to collect calling.
(4) Regardless of whether the prisoners' calls are placed collect or through a debit account, the prisoners' family members typically pay for the calls, either through their telephone bills, in the case of collect calls received from prisoners, or by making deposits directly into prisoners' debit accounts.
(5) Innocent citizens are paying excessive telephone charges simply due to having a family member or loved one who is incarcerated.
(6) The rates for calls from correctional institutions are some of the highest rates in the United States, with some per-minute charges reaching $1 and service or connection charges of $3.95 per call.
(7) Information compiled by the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission shows that the high rates are due in part to the lack of competition between telephone companies that provide long distance inmate telephone service to correctional institutions.
(8) There are no competitive forces providing incentives for those carriers to lower prices or operate efficiently because, unlike the mass market, only one carrier is typically permitted to provide long distance inmate telephone service within each correctional institution.
(9) High calling rates also are due in part to commissions that carriers pay to correctional institution administrators for the exclusive right to provide long distance inmate telephone service in a correctional facility. In some cases, such commissions account for 50 percent or more of the total charges.
(10) The collection of such commissions by correctional institution administrators and state departments of correction based upon interstate telecommunications revenues is a burden on interstate commerce.
(11) Due to the lack of competition for telephone services within correctional institutions, families of people in prison, many of whom have low incomes, cannot choose the long distance carrier with the lowest calling rates and must pay the excessive rates charged by the carrier having the exclusive right to provide long distance service to the correctional institution from which the call originates.
(12) It is the policy of the United States to ensure that all Americans are afforded just and reasonable communications services, including those families that pay rates for inmate telephone service.
(13) It is clear from various studies that maintaining frequent and meaningful communications between people who are incarcerated and family members is key to the successful social reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals. Such contact reduces recidivism and facilitates rehabilitation, which in turn reduces crime and the future costs of imprisonment.
(14) Frequent communications between incarcerated persons and family members is burdened, and in some cases, prevented, by excessive inmate telephone service rates. Excessive inmate telephone service rates thus weaken the family and community ties that are necessary for successful reentry into society by persons who were formerly incarcerated and the reduction in crime resulting from successful reentry.
(15) The Commission has the expertise and authority to regulate inmate telephone service. Because parties to Commission rulemaking proceedings have raised issues regarding its authority to implement meaningful relief for excessive inmate telephone service rates, Congress finds it necessary and appropriate to reaffirm that the Commission has the authority to implement the types of relief set forth in this Act.
SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROVISION OF INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE. (a) Definitions- Section 226(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 226(a)) is amended adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
`(10) The term `collect' or `collect call' refers to a telephone call from a person incarcerated in a correctional institution that is billed to the subscriber receiving the call.
`(11) The term `commission' refers to a fee or other payment by a provider of inmate telephone service to an administrator of a correctional institution, department of correction, or similar entity, based upon, or partly upon, inmate telephone service revenue.
`(12) The term `debit account' refers to the payment of inmate telephone service through a prisoner's prepaid card or other account, which can be accessed only through an access code, personal identification number, or similar identifier.
`(13) The term `inmate telephone service' includes the provision of telephone service enabling persons incarcerated in correctional institutions to originate interstate calls at payphones or other telephones that are designated for prisoners' personal use, regardless of whether the calls are collect, paid through a debit account, or paid through any other means.
`(14) The term `provider of inmate telephone service' means any common carrier that provides inmate telephone service or any other person determined by the Commission to be providing inmate telephone service.'.
(b) Regulations- Section 226 is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (k); and
(2) inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsections:
`(i) Regulation of Inmate Telephone Service-
`(1) RATES- In order to ensure that charges for inmate telephone service are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, the Commission shall consider, either in a rulemaking proceeding that is pending as of the date of enactment of the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2005 or in a new rulemaking proceeding, the following types of regulation of inmate telephone service, all of which are within the Commission's jurisdiction and authority:
`(A) prescribing a maximum uniform per-minute compensation rate;
`(B) prescribing a maximum uniform service connection or other per-call comp ensation rate;
`(C) prescribing variable maximum compensation rates depending on such factors as carrier costs, the size of the correctional facility served, and other relevant factors identified by the Commission;
`(D) requiring providers of inmate telephone service to offer both collect calling and debit account services;
`(E) prohibiting the payment of commissions by providers of inmate telephone service to administrators of correctional institutions, departments of correction, and similar entities; and
`(F) requiring administrators of correctional institutions, departments of correction, and similar entities to allow more than one provider of inmate telephone service to provide interstate inmate telephone service at a correctional institution in order that prisoners have a choice of such providers.
`(2) SCOPE- The regulations adopted by the Commission shall be technologically neutral and shall not jeopardize legitimate security and penelogical interests. To the extent the Commission regulations reduce or eliminate the revenue derived by administrators of correctional institutions, departments of correction, and similar entities from the receipt of commissions, such effects of Commission regulations shall not be considered as jeopardizing or otherwise affecting legitimate security or penelogical interests.
`(3) DEADLINES AND PERIODIC REVIEW- The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the provisions of this subsection within one year after the date of enactment of the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2005. The Commission shall review, on a triennial basis, the regulations promulgated under this subsection, including whether any Commission-established compensation rates should be modified.
`(4) STATE PREEMPTION- To the extent that any State requirements are inconsistent with the Commission's regulations affecting or pertaining to interstate inmate telephone service, including restrictions on the payment of commissions based upon interstate inmate telephone service revenues or earnings, the Commission's regulations on such matters shall preempt such State requirements.
`(j) Inmate Telephone Service Fully Subject to Sections 251 and 252-
`(1) Inmate telephone service is fully subject to the requirements of sections 251 and 252 of this Act.
`(2) No provider of inmate telephone service may block or otherwise refuse to carry a call placed by an incarcerated person on the grounds that the provider has no contractual or other arrangement with the local exchange carrier serving the intended recipient of the call or other common carrier involved in any portion of the transmission of the call.'. END
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics