www.washingtonpost.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
23.45.108.250
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/20/fcc-cut-call-rates-prison/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_sour...
Submission: On July 24 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Submission: On July 24 via api from BE — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
<form class="wpds-c-gRPFSl wpds-c-gRPFSl-jGNYrR-isSlim-false">
<div class="transition-all duration-200 ease-in-out"><button type="submit" data-qa="sc-newsletter-signup-button" class="wpds-c-kSOqLF wpds-c-kSOqLF-uTUwn-variant-primary wpds-c-kSOqLF-eHdizY-density-default wpds-c-kSOqLF-ejCoEP-icon-left">Sign
up</button></div>
</form>Text Content
Accessibility statementSkip to main content Democracy Dies in Darkness SubscribeSign in Advertisement Democracy Dies in Darkness NationalClimate Education Health Innovations Investigations National Security Obituaries Science NationalClimate Education Health Innovations Investigations National Security Obituaries Science FCC SLASHES COST OF PHONE CALLS FOR INMATES, CAPPING DECADES-LONG EFFORT Under the new rules, the cost of a 15-minute call to or from large jails will drop from as much as $11.35 to $0.90. 4 min 183 Sorry, a summary is not available for this article at this time. Please try again later. In 2012, Martha Wright-Reed sits in her Washington, D.C., home near a photo of her grandson Ulandis Forte, who spent 18 years in prison. She, Ulandis and other families of inmates fought to lower the cost of phone calls from prison. (Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post) By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff July 20, 2024 at 9:59 p.m. EDT The cost of phone calls will drop dramatically for incarcerated people under new rules that federal regulators approved Thursday, concluding a decades-long effort to provide relief to the nation’s 2 million inmates and their families. Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend. A 15-minute call to or from large jails, which now costs as much as $11.35, will cost 90 cents beginning next year. In small jails, the cost will fall from as high as $12.10 to $1.35. Video call rates will decrease to less than one-quarter of current prices, according to rules passed unanimously by the Federal Communications Commission. An FCC draft order estimated the caps would save incarcerated people and their families, friends and legal teams about $386 million. Story continues below advertisement “It is no secret that the market for communication services for incarcerated people has long been plagued by predatory fees and practices,” FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starkssaid in a statement Thursday. “Today’s actions put an end to these abuses.” Advertisement Advocates for incarcerated people and their families praised the decision, saying it was ending a “cruel” practice. “The FCC’s order is a massive victory for incarcerated people, their families, and their allies who have spent decades fighting the exploitative prison telecom industry,” the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit organization that opposes mass incarceration, wrote in a published briefing. Story continues below advertisement Opponents expressed concern that the rate cuts could prove costly for telecommunications companies serving smaller jails and stress state budgets. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who approved the decision, wrote in a statement that he nevertheless worried that the caps weren’t high enough to offset some security costs for the companies and feared some companies might stop serving smaller facilities as a result. Advertisement The push for lower rates began about two decades ago, when a retired nurse in D.C. filed a petition asking the FCC to address the expense. Martha Wright-Reed, who died in 2015, wrote that she had to spend hundreds of dollars each month to call her incarcerated grandson, Ulandis Forte. She thought it was wrong that Forte had to pay more than non-incarcerated people to keep in touch with family, she told The Washington Post in 2012. Share this articleShare “She was right,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement celebrating the decision Thursday. “For those who are incarcerated and their loved ones, talk does not come cheap.” Story continues below advertisement Rosenworcel added that the price of one call could cost as much as an unlimited monthly plan for people who are not incarcerated. She also noted that regular contact with relatives can also reduce recidivism among inmates, a conclusion that several studies corroborate. Advertisement Correctional facilities often have an exclusive agreement with one company, meaning incarcerated people and their relatives must use that provider regardless of how much it charges. Those companies then share a portion of the revenue with the facilities, known as “site commissions,” which some local officials say helps fund staff to monitor the calls. Thursday’s FCC vote also prohibited most of those payments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had reversed similar rate caps in 2017, finding that the FCC had exceeded its authority in implementing them. But the bipartisan Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, signed by President Biden last year, broadened the FCC’s authority to cap call rates, and set the stage for this week’s vote. Story continues below advertisement In statements backing the decision, FCC commissioners recounted stories they had heard from family members of incarcerated people. One father had said he couldn’t afford to call his young children during his first two years in a Colorado correctional facility, a commissioner wrote. An incarcerated mother in Illinois recounted taking a job cleaning bathrooms so she could collect bits of soap to save money on hygiene and use more of her funds to call her children, according to another commissioner. Advertisement Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who championed the Martha Wright-Reed Act, applauded the FCC’s decision as one that would “end the predatory status quo.” “For far too long, too many families were forced to spend outrageous amounts of money simply to speak on the phone with their incarcerated loved ones, denying children the comfort of hearing their parents’ voices and preventing spouses from being able to say a simple ‘I’m here for you’ to their partners,” Duckworth said in a statement Thursday. Story continues below advertisement The federal-level change follows the implementation of several state laws slashing the cost of talking to incarcerated family members and friends, including in Connecticut, California and Colorado. In Denver, Colorado state Rep. Mandy Lindsay (D) told a state House committee last year that she learned about the high cost of prison phone calls when one of her relatives became incarcerated. Because of the rates, Lindsay testified, “the amount of time that we talked was based on money.” Share 183 Comments NewsletterAs news breaks Exclusive Alerts Breaking news email alerts and investigative journalism you'll only find in The Post. Sign up Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan → Advertisement Advertisement TOP STORIES World news Essential reporting from around the world Netanyahu’s history of clashing with U.S. presidents spans decades Alleged rape of Australian rattles Paris days before Olympics Ukraine confronts labor shortage as need for soldiers drains workforce back Try a different topic Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences Advertisement Advertisement Company About The Post Newsroom Policies & Standards Diversity & Inclusion Careers Media & Community Relations WP Creative Group Accessibility Statement Sitemap Get The Post Become a Subscriber Gift Subscriptions Mobile & Apps Newsletters & Alerts Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store Books & E-Books Today’s Paper Public Notices Contact Us Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Contact the Opinions Team Advertise Licensing & Syndication Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a Vulnerability Terms of Use Digital Products Terms of Sale Print Products Terms of Sale Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service Ad Choices washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * washingtonpost.com * © 1996-2024 The Washington Post * About The Post * Contact the Newsroom * Contact Customer Care * Request a Correction * Send a News Tip * Report a Vulnerability * Download the Washington Post App * Policies & Standards * Terms of Service * Privacy Policy * Cookie Settings * Print Products Terms of Sale * Digital Products Terms of Sale * Submissions & Discussion Policy * RSS Terms of Service * Ad Choices WE CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY We and our 43 partners store and/or access information on a device, such as unique IDs in cookies to process personal data. You may accept or manage your choices by clicking below, including your right to object where legitimate interest is used, or at any time in the privacy policy page. These choices will be signaled to our partners and will not affect browsing data. If you click “I accept,” in addition to processing data using cookies and similar technologies for the purposes to the right, you also agree we may process the profile information you provide and your interactions with our surveys and other interactive content for personalized advertising. If you do not accept, we will process cookies and associated data for strictly necessary purposes and process non-cookie data as set forth in our Privacy Policy (consistent with law and, if applicable, other choices you have made). WE AND OUR PARTNERS PROCESS COOKIE DATA TO PROVIDE: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Create profiles for personalised advertising. Use profiles to select personalised advertising. Create profiles to personalise content. Use profiles to select personalised content. Measure advertising performance. Measure content performance. Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources. Develop and improve services. Store and/or access information on a device. Use limited data to select content. Use limited data to select advertising. List of Partners (vendors) I Accept Reject All Show Purposes