I am a volunteer working with 106 men at BCCF, an Alabama Med. Security prison. We are helping
them prepare for release back to society. Their ability to communicate with family, halfway houses
and potential employers is severely hampered with the exorbitant phone charges they are required to
pay. I support the recommendation to reduce charges prisoners pay to use the telephone. Using
prisoners, who are generally impoverished to generate funds for the general fund seems an
inappropriate and foolish policy.
Thank you for your consideration.

Secretary Dortch:
I implore you to consider upholding the Wright Petition for all of the reasons stated therein. As the
mother of an incarcerated son, I have seen the effects on those inmates whose family cannot afford
the phone calls. At one point, I was paying $17 for a 15 minute phone call on my cell phone which
had free long distance rates. This greatly limited the number of times I could afford to speak with my
son. It also put pressure on him as calling me caused him to feel guilty about the amount of money I
had to pay. Our whole family suffered as a result. We write letters weekly as well; however, I live
with the anxiety that something may happen to him and it will take several days for the letter to arrive
before I know of his situation.
Our prison system recently changed companies. The process of registering to be able to receive a
call was done on computer. I have a Master's Degree and had so much trouble with this process, it
took me hours to complete it.
I question how many families just gave up in dispare. The prices continue to go up. This is an
outrageous abuse of power.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Tracy

Or\) ~Q... ~ S~ tOr"l

Recetved & Inspeeted

\

S e.c,- -1!-I5'? ~ tl3

~ox 2.7J
CI ;(-/-c:.,,) >7",,> ~f!"2S

po.

SEP 282012
FCC Mail Room

~p+ . I L.{ I 10 I 'l..e.h~~ \, Q.t") ~c..h\\ ~<5ld

G

~~

t=c.c.
t-!.{~

h\S \~ ~ ~~b\\c... ;t..o(n~J
to tk \tJr,C1~'\ Pd\tov-,)

) j)+~ <;-1-.. yU hJ

W~<;~.

DC.

().o';".;~

DOGW

~C\IQ-\d~

Received & Inspected

OCT - 52012

't!

..

!

, I

frI
i

".

I

~-

~

--

•

TO:

CHAIRMAN JULIUS

FEDERAL
PUBLIC
445

COMMUNICATIONS

WASHINGTON,

SEP - 52012

DC

DEAR CHAIRMAN

WRITING

INMATE

Received &Inspected

COMMISSION

COMMENT

12se STREET,

11M

GENACHOWSKI

SW

FCC Mail Room

20554

GENACHOWSKI:

TO

ASK

TELEPHONE

THAT

RATES

YOU

ACT

AND

ON

STOP

THE

THE

WRIGHT

PETITION

EXPLOITATION

OF

TO

CAP

PRISONERS

AND THEIR LOVE ONES.

AS

A

PRISONER

HOW

WHO

HARMFUL

FAMILIES.

THE

FOR

EXPLOITING

HUGE

PROFITS

THE

US

FOR

COMPANY

COST

OF

SERVING

TIME

TELEPHONE

YEARS

BEEN

TELEPHONE

IS

THE

RATES

STATE

THROUGH

ARE

$10

MAKING
THE

ON

PHONE

ACTUAL

KNOW

PHONE

RATES

MICHIGAN,
MILLION

I

FIRST

PRISONERS

PREDATORY

EXCESSIVE
IN

MICHIGAN,

ARE

AND

THEMSELVES.

PROVIDING

IN

THE

AND

ORDER

STATES

TELEPHONE

THEIR

COMPANIES

IN

ANNUALLY

HAND

TO

AND

OVER

REAP

INMATE

AND

SERVICE.

HAVE

ABOVE

THIS

IS

OUTRAGEOUS.

IT
IT

IS

TIME

FOR

THE

FCC

TO

SEEMS

THAT

THE

CONSUMERS

FROM

PREDATORY

THE

RIGHT

THING

BXPLOIT

AND

TO

CAN LEAST AFFORD

AND

MAIN

CAP

ACT

PROHIBIT

FUNCTION

OF

BEHAVIOR.

I

THB

DISCRIMINATB
IT.

AND

I

THE
M

THESE
FCC

HOPING

INMATB

TBLBPHONE

AGAINST

ANYONE,

OUTRAGEOUS
SHOULD

THE

~fTO

RATES.
PROTECT

COMMISSION

RATBS.

IT

ESPECIALLY

IS

DOBS

UNFAIR

THOSB

WHO

PLBASB ACT.111

SINCBRBLY,

~~~

(R. /J~/dlA/,n#:23~6' 73)
p",fe,' .9-;1. r-)"'iP/"Z

.
r)

neceived &
August 30th, 2012

Inspected

S[P 052012
FCCM·
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, South West
Washington, District of Columbia 20554

all Aoorn

RE:Public Comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket No. 96-128)
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
Neither my family nor I am able to afford the high cost of my
prison phone calls to my very loving family and my good friends.
Thus the purpose of this letter to you for prison phone billing
financial relief.
Most of my family members are elderly. Moreover, they receive
a monthly fixed income.
As such, they cannot afford to pay the
high cost for my prison phone calls.
As an inmate, I'm paid about $20.00 per month for my work.
Needless to say, I'm unable to afford the hi~h cost to buy minutes,
on the prison phone, to calls my family, friends and/or others.
In New Jersey, the phone company (GTL) and prison officials
have clearly engaged in [abusive prison phone call cost practices]
solely to make a substantial
profi t for the phone company and
"kickbacks" for prison officials at the inmates' expense.
Several years ago, the former Governor of New York ordered a
substantial rate reduction regarding the cost for all prison phone
calls by inmates.
Likewise, such substantial prison phone calls
rate reductions should be immediately implemented in the State of
New Jersey and at all other prison, too.
In conclusion, I would appreciate whatever assistance, if any,
you would timely provide me regarding this request for relief as
stated in the aforementioned.
Thank you, Chairman Genachowski.
Respectfully submitted,

By:~~~

Scott Wayne Harris
SBI#309836A / SP#55662
South Woods State Prison
215 S. Burlington Road
Bridgeton, NJ
08302-3479

SWH/swh
CC:File

This is a public coument for the WRIGHf PETITION (CC Docket 196-128)
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comment
445 12th Street, South West
Washington, DC 20554

fteeeiveJ &. inspected

neT - 22012

September 25, 2012

FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I'm writing to ask that you act on the WRIGHT petition to cap inmate telephone
rates and stop the expoloitation of prisoners and my loved ones.
I am a Michigan prisoner, serving life. Since coming to prison, I have tried to
remain in close contact with my family and friends, but with each passing year it
becomes more difficult thanks to the MDOC.
While they publicly trumpet the
benefits of prisoners remaining in close contact with their families, their
actions' and self serving policies continue to tear at these bonds.
The one most important and critical way for myself to keep in contact with my
family comes through telephone calls.
But, rather than making this critical
service more convenient. The MDOC has chosen instead to expolit this service for
profit. They, along with predatory telephone providers', has colluded to extort
and target us who can least afford it. Of the average $3.25 charged for a 15
minute call, $2.50 goes directly into the pockets of the MOOG and telephone
providers.
After years of advocacy, in August 2008, inmates' in Michigan were finally
rewarded, with lower telephone rates. Until this year, rates remained low and the
MDOC never collected any funds for a special equipment fund.
The new contract with PCS includes a special equipment funds that is to be used to
purchase and implement equipment that will detect contraband cell phones in the
system. Although, the MDOC does not know the seize of the contraband cell phone
problems. They admit few contraband cell phones have ever been discovered. Nor,
has anyone ever been charged with committing a crime using a contraband cell
phone.
The MDOC claims it needs its share to shore up its budget. I nor my family should
not be charged outrageous rates to support prisoner budgets, that burden should be
borne by the entire tax base.
It seems one of the functions of our Federal Communications Commission is to
protect the consumer from predatory behavior, and if this doesn't qualify for that
protection, then what would? So, please put a stop to this. Cap the rates!
Finally, no one should have to pay 30% for someone to manage their funds, as being
paid to PCS. Making matters worse, PCS is collecting taxes on top of the base
per-minute rates for debit and prepaid calls.

Sincerely,

CW(]~~
~m12a~ ~0&n ...
Donaenne har son #179923

Kinross Correctional Facility
16770 South Water Tower Drive
Kincheloe, Michigan 49788-1902

Received & Inspected
Ramon Vicente
AH5857 / A2-112
P.O. Box 4430
Lancaster, CA 93539

OCT 02 2012

FCC Mail Room

September 22, 2012
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 - 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: Cost ot prison calls
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to express how we are being youged by the california Departu~nt
of Corrections and the phone company GTL. The prison system chooses its
contractual phone partnership by the hiyhest kickback to theIn, unlike any
other taxpayer system or democratic entity. One call can cost as much as
$10.00 or more dollars, while calls to other countries in the free worlo cost
pennies.
In addition, we are part of that "poorest of the poor," who are systematically
youyed in like manner. We are askiny for an investigation into these
un-American practices ana intervention on your part to uake t~nilies ties, not
gouging families, the main tenent of rehabilitation as their own studies find.
Thank you for this opportunity.

Best regards,

Ramon Vicente

Irma Her

WAYNE M. PARSONS #1022667
Buckingham Corr. Ctr.
P.O. Box 430
Dillwyn, Virginia 23936

Received & Inspected

OCT 022012

September 26, 2012

FCC Mail Room
Mr. Julius Genachowski, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am a Virginia Inmate housed in the Virginia Department of
Corrections.
I have been incarcerated for more than 17 years dating
back to 1996.
I am writing to you in regards to my experiences with
the high cost of prison inmate phone services, and the drastic impact it has had on my family, and our ability to communicate effectively over the years.
During my first few months of incarceration I spoke with my
then wife, and daughters almost daily. This is common amongst first
time offenders. The down side to it is that in being first time offenders
we are not aware of the cost of utilizing the prison phone system, and
the high costs associated therewith. At the time, I only had to dial
the number as a local call, collect. Not knowing that we were being
charged long-distance rates.
In a few weeks my wife's phone bill
sky rocketed without her knowledge because the calls were not showing
up on her current bills. She lived in Ameila County, Virginia at the
time.
Amelia is a rural county with it's own telephone company.
Any
calls outside of the County were considered long-distance calls. Much
to our dismay, her bill rose to more than $1,000 in one month, and her
service ultimately cut off due to her inability to pay the bill at that
time. MCI was the service provider to Virginia prisons at the time.
Over the years we have had brief stretches where I was able to
call home.
However, with todays multi-media services and phone providers (many of which do not bill through MCI or what is now Global
Tel Link) it is vertually impossible to find a way to maintain a link
to my family through the phone services.
Even with the advancements
in our ability to call our family on their cell phones, the process
they have to go through, and up-front down payments that are required,
make it a constant hassle for our families to stay in touch. Even
then, the end result costs are far more expensive than our families
can afford in todays economy.
In my opinion, particularly in Virginia,
the prison phone system is nothing more than a money making scheme for
both the service provider and the Virginia DOC. They know that our
sole means of contact with the outside is primarily the phones, and
they have systimatically taken advantage of that at every turn!!!
Sincerely Yours,
Wayne M. Parsons

Received & Inspected

fieEiJEhC£ JOJlIJ l>AWS
S·t,I. 80NrAseIi Jt Gr'f4B 31
tbOO vJA~ MtLL ~M
fp\.t~e;T i"PA, l5S'LO
(SI'-{) It'io - t~oo
If SePf 2-Dtt-

SEP 1 6201Z
FCCMaU Room

CHAtR.MAN Jut.lLtS ~AttldWSK1
ffbfML ~UJ.JtunokiS ~~tPN

'-:PUlbuC

6JJ..t~rs

t-z.u.. Br~/3.W.
1U4~ti h~~1J ( b .~. UJ 55" 4

ift~

~£1\tu)f\!

(tc, "boel(€:r-l\.9lo - lz..S)

CONc.6UJUJ&-

(t{~ 6~ll~

))tsA£GMb fO~ [He HARMl<-\lP ~ 13t Ttl£; elJo~ -rOLl-.
U,~a fDA. ~£ COAJb~ of Tt~PH(}#J~ CJJIJJWA)tLATWN5 u.kJI-J
1'R\SO~tA$ yAMilueS AlJb ''PQ.t<&OIJfR.S

-tH4l FI\R..

6X:~J)S

TIle; -roLL

tMAtRMA~ -'\Ul...lU,S C:r€NA.WOvJ5K.\

ReceIved & Inspected

fEhElU.L. <:DuJv\~LeAno~S tOMJAtSJ\OI4

~: W~~ 1'61Yt\Ot-!

SEP 182012

eeL1lotkLT~C(~ f-\l;~)

FCC Maif Room

U Sq>\ W\I-

~~2. Of-3

~t:h fOR.. \t\E.- QJJAJbu.Cr OF \E;l£c.oM~lCATWI\\S

uPoJ.J 1Me:.

~~~L­

~UJbu~.

1>Rt<;O~e4.£ fA"·\lLlt,S A/Jb ~SOIJ€R.S A~6

A MWOA.l1'l WAI

A~ SW(,{.~ out' ~ SAlb AfDUSES {sa:. ~ tq-nt AMeuM·/llS~.A I

1lVX

--re\£~~«)~f.. c..oAA\lIJle.At1ON~

AR£ ~a::£SSAR.t 1b srt<.rn@U;(EN

fAMlLlAL t?YJNhS/1t\~\O ?P-oM,orr. 1\EtlA51 L.rrATCoJJ I A GOAL nl4f
l~ )Jet£~~AR.'(

-roRposm\le:, K£1~OIJ

'WoE.
€XJe~\Mt£ OF

fA.cx -rb\~l

turo

~O<:A8"~

Of H'U$O/V6lQs ..

St.ttH A5U5eS AR~ 'j>R.6VALt:lJr fS

A(,lE"JW4nV~ MEASu.k.ES 1li4T

FO~ ~At-SQe.u,"~jl\{(',- ~uNb Sltut

1HG

~JJ't lD<l.$lnJ6~S (s OFF~

A8use BV OfF€AJruG-

~

CDbl!!:i

W~N6 ~UM~eAs fOR. tA~ 1*iSIUNER5 ~AiLeAL t..O~·t'lON I AN1 fAIL

'TV A6t)~~S 1"~ AlllllSt / AJJh 1l{~~/ '8e:c..ofv\£ APA/tr Of· Tlile

OO~P\~oRlAL €HO~ ,5tE. t~ tLS<.:A~Z.ttt/2..'tz..1 u.:&& 'B'i tH6
OA{,ANl?AllOl-l~ 1ll4r off8t tNFLA~~ ~MotJl(:; SeR.Vte€.
c'ltAAEN(L't CACli O~k!(l:A\(,OrJ
1

WJfoRtLUJAT~

VltnMS AlJb 1"H€ll<.

MAJ.!Qj)OLlUS UPON THE-

fAMlLt~S. WtTtiO({T OOIJSlbEA..tlJ6-

1"~e, "DAW&t SUL~ AIQu..s€ eAu..s€S

1lr 'PRl'~ON€As F4M lLte& I I\kI.D

Gt-tA \~J.-\AI\\ J\ll-tuS ~At.1iOvJ5K \
f'fbEltt\L OOMMMJJlCfitWr{S c..DMMl5~tOJ

~: WRl~m- '{>€'T\1lC~

Received & Inspected

S[P 1 a201Z

(tc; bocj~~iltq(o,~,~)

FCC Mail Room

\\ S6\y( 2Dl2..-1>~-\\. 0

Or 3

~ coo~t:ft5 W\-\OM, ARf.. '&6Ik}b- UNJLl<j\L~ ATTA ~eb

vJ rme\.(! ~

~~ Of L4\~. SE:.E, 412!J )1M/bT!,lLtTH A4€7J~S·/u'·~··G.A-

--r\rlE. 6CJ:)NoM.~ A"-\h b6f!lvtT H~S c.RPA.Tt8 ~A~SHLP5
1\\A-r lS ~L'l 'DPlMLJ~()- G{J::V Of- COi\tt(WL-. u.po~ A("'l- OOIUWJ\\~

'PA~\~~ I nlA.T 11\e AhhtT\P~ Q~ MJ ~~1R.J\ f6€. IMPos~ UPOIJ THE"

'\>A1c,£lNEAs fAM,\u~~ AtJb ~Al'50tJER.:s I tS A. 1?>u.A.bEJ~ T6E~k\h
Of CfjUItf CJ)'i>t'S, rllJ6S ) f~$IAtJh ~~trllllON t,MPos~

mE, 6cnP6

Ar sWrVJLU\l~

i""J\\ tAt-l ~6 COfo.J3 thEREb A . . cJ)S\ FOR Rtl)fttSS upolJ tt~e: J~lC.IAL,
~'(~\Ov\ ,t>uJLSUAN-r 101'H£ ~ o~ ~~j lAAlTUM ~L{AIJTl.ll{_

S(

PAA~

11lAt Mot L-61TeJ< CAl\[

AI\\ Q.,lc. a...l. 'P6ttrvo~ ,OR. tIJ Lte:U., 'BE:
RfP~'{

A

~t<.. ~ fDA..

BE:;

U$E"h fOR. J.tt A~t)iTWN A5

1'"At<eJ St~lOl.lSLX ~

you.R..

'lQUA.liM£ / ~Mf€S~).ANt) ANt'/uPArEl:l

~pOJJSE"

1)\\€b: so~~~ I

tl

sm WlL

PA"

<l?~5P~~Y I

~p.~
~tK J)~ bA.V'lS

5.v~ .so~6rl tf.~Y4837
((,00 w~U'w ~U...L Mb

;j)~l<:.r I

PA, \5Sto

(~t~qll~ ~1%OO

Received & Inspected
Kaseem Ali-x #260516
N.J.S.P. - 3EE
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, N.J. 08625

SEP 1 82012

FCC Mail Room
September, 12, 2012

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: COST
"This is a public comment for the Wright Petition
(cc Docket #96-128)"
Dear Chairman:
I, Kaseem Ali-X, a citizen of the United States and by birth
a citizen of the state of New Jersey Petition the overbearing
and abusive high cost of phone services being imposed unfairly
upon prisoners.
There is no fair reason to over-charge the outrageous amount
of cost for prisoners phone usage. Only by abusive discretion
for the sole purpose of profit is it being done without decency
and respect to have prisoners remain in contact with there
parents, children, friends, etc.
With today's technology the cost for phone calls are
approximately .05¢ (five cents) per minute yet the prisoners,
at least at the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Cubberly
Building, Wittlesey Road, P.O. Box 863, Trenton, New Jersey
08625, are being unfairly over charged .34¢ (thirty four cents)
per minute. This is a financial burden which hinders
communication between friends and love ones.
This Petition is being filed to place a cap upon the amount
of profit that can be earned by these phone companies who are
providing their services and the prisons who are bound by Federal
law to care for its prisoners not rob them or their family and
friends by over charging cost for phone services.

Yours truly,

i(~

d--,(

Kaseem Ali-X

('t

l-\ C'S

tS A

\70[J L{:C

(Dv"V"'tNr FoR T1it-

w Rr-G 1+T

Pt-rrtro~

II

eLC O()UcE-T tt-QC::,-l2£1,)

Received &Inspected

SEP 1a2012
FCC Mal! Room
MrCH-AE-L W. OWt-N~ :ttl~q34-4 C-5 13-3\

P() W M- A-1Ft- r--.\

CD R.ll t-CJTD N ALetN i1-,'Z

stA-n- FA-Kv-t

~[)lGo..lm 13l~O

)

K:-DtilA-L CPV1MuI\..lrCA-n-oNS (aM~nsmN (FCc)
A-rrN', MR. \yUl "[uS GE-t-..I ACJ--\ CW S KL (Pc> D~MA-N
I

pu\jlCC (OIMMf:1'--tTS

44 b \ '2 \~ StRt-€:'Tf S.W.,

OfAl"t IMR. c,E-~I\CJ+aW5\("r
\

G(H:-crt"NG.S. \H-~

~LV+LE:-\)

n

1J'-,.\ \))l.. CSDN L"E:-G(-\l

A-DD\l£-~VVl~q1~1)N01)

A- \l~rONS(-- 10 A\'0. At) nfl\-IWAS

Cpu..() TN

Nt.-WS

~E:-G~R.\)S \D ffiE-

~tn..(G LAUN(.t+~()

CAIJ.--tPATGN fl+A-\ 0

Gj mE:- t:.c.Cv
T/+ E:- \t cn.G t}...\ [A- D~-y A-I<-11Mt N \

() F- (0 I<. R t-c iLl.) N

A- (ON,rRAC, WITH· GlO\~f\l Ttt..- Ln. .n, (Gil), TH<:TE:-'l(-fH-DNE:- \{~N D6 1t. W/~S MCT /,
bLDi3>~L \li.",~rN\' HA-S f+

S V\ It S
pllt\1COuS

l(

fULtc...y

rN J<..t-~t4RI)S 'It:>

l=-A-MtLj 1ft8Ml)h1.S pAy tNc.. $ ill.OD to 5t~{<.\ A~'

-1A-CWU!'-t,\ W tTl-t rl+~ Q\ t)i<...O t1<-- ~~

M.t-- Tt') CP,Ll M i-

t.

ff.r1J.Avt:l~ 1M.('-M\~t-itS. W~IA--\
r:S ~n+A-\ Tl-\t ~ lC).DO

ll1i

U"-.' FA-fA.. Mau,T\+rs

[s

)~rE:1Z R~L~lILy- ~ALD

\t)

EOL-:<..Y
GTL

WrLL N.o' ~~l'\ti=-rr (-tt:l\' A-S A- Ca~<;ulr1.t-R. if.-tol\.t"O\!tiL,
D~f)tTt:- nt(:-

10 GIL,

fAc., tk-AT SI-\{:- Prctur.-LLf l~ II+CS -$lD.DO

Sl+~ lvfLL S iTLL HA-\((- )D

c..t)-Ll ~rLl

lD GTL fo(<..

PA-i Tli-t--'\3 rLl,

JEi<.I.{[C€:-).

G'rL wrLL

pAj

A COL(K,

Pltot--IE-

-rr- SI+(:- \)oes NoT

-tH-(-

nlDC~(' il-H:~ ~ttoN~ -H"lOIf--\

tkt SILn:nuNAL ?t+o,,(~ .<?NrrL Tr\t- ~tL~( ts

FAro.

rVE- HAl') SD CA-ll~ [YtLLINC:, tS'SLJts IN"[Tl-l- GIL fvr<....

N.a \l~~'3 6 N.

A- \) H~ IT ':>1 ~ RIM

V4-LloW f'l.rsoNt\1..~

10 J:\-DD

iJ..1.ot:-..(~

r-N. ()iL\)h-z... m lMA-\Cl- P1U--~?_r.cn
t tl+L\(E1~ \b

1M.

i

S LS 1hZ.

Lv A-S CJ(E-A n--o ~1 G TL t""D

(rN

tb A- I)E:-GIT MCDUNI

P(-toNE- CALLS. 11-+(:-- Lrt-SI JIlt-'LENh.-J

y-u R. ~ ')

W l\-S \)UR.. ~ G

II+\:- D+A-N\c..s,G.tV[Nc:' l1\)LL""OA-iS, rlJ)~~ 1lit- DE-IsLT s,!-SIf-lM.

tD R~n-\( (.-

w~ r

l-\-("'""R DI=

Ft4tP--{(, \\tt-rR Jt-LE-PH-oI'J.t- IJrLlS.

A-~ I) l1:1") 10 CALL tfu--z. 'S t-\.f h'2 Al T1:"V'-1 t-') f+ t2·rn<...

it*- 20\' II~i\J.\(S GnlJ:Nb l+tJLtTJfj', Gil
pl-IDNt-, ClA-ru---t U-.l G \\;.-A-t

nm1.~

BlaC\C(--1) n-t~

W M P- ~CllQ\.(c:'

nsu (-.

~

iJ..1i sn ftll ID pA-t TI-\E-D"t ~ ?,,0,00
feE:- eN. r,.CC.oI<"'O ANC(:- ~ t]l-l- iH·Ei:l<... p'LlltCj.
fu CoI'J.CLuSrDN. 1 rr ts D[3\JrDLJ<;, AS to WH--i

,\\+CS ~s Wl-tf:+l f6llC.~)

I'

1/

Co\\r0[l~::-- A-lKH<.tCp< LDi;)l3i~ Tt+{~ pOLrnLm~s tD Ml4tG'tl~ L~ws t::-\(~l tDLSG~fR tD \c...E:C;--~ u S D--~ P(l!l"()~ lOl'-l~tlz..,

t\!~ D"-lS rRUL\H)

MY. )

0> rtJ<.. rD

(DNrn L'\

D+~ nHn-i"\..

-1~\J<.)L~\ t-)S

lSua.t-w

()...l ~ru 'jOl'tK

to

Il~[S,rtR. t+Foi'tJHc4L-

tOlM,~LA-D-.\ I 1\f:,~t:l"\'5~ G. TL. ~~wrLL '~l50 foWA-RD iOUl\

Lt-J fVl't\M A-iLDN t4N \) W~ srnll-\))0T P--ITb \\-r-fS, MAI!hl.
tOIKM.{:-r-liS Th~

R(;-50lrrNc,

n-+ J:)

L

to

iltsp~-(TfuLli

ttof(.- t\~r It-ty

LHtLl{. wTlL l-I-A-\{l~ ~N tMfAtT,

n..., TItE- E11.A-DtC.A\tl)N

R-bA-Th1S\U~ Th.\

K-h1. r(\.\ SH1+tlL:N c:, \ff-K

O~

Ttj-rs tNTbSTTLE:-

Yi<..nON/ AND OUK- PA-lt--1tL~ wd-o A--(Lt-

\1~(G S0~)E::-ci1::-1)

iD Tl-tt-)C- AGuST'lE:- ))aLtCrt-S .__.,

IMI'--\\<- YDU fol<"10U \\.

f

CoD fiLA- rr:-Dl\{ f.\N

/--

"A-S 5> ~ m!\.( ((:-

t't--.\ n+~ tvtA t11:!l.

.llJJ~f-1:t--T/--'-'····'

........-......

Received & Inspected

fieEiJEhC£ JOJlIJ l>AWS
S·t,I. 80NrAseIi Jt Gr'f4B 31
tbOO vJA~ MtLL ~M
fp\.t~e;T i"PA, l5S'LO
(SI'-{) It'io - t~oo
If SePf 2-Dtt-

SEP 1 6201Z
FCCMaU Room

CHAtR.MAN Jut.lLtS ~AttldWSK1
ffbfML ~UJ.JtunokiS ~~tPN

'-:PUlbuC

6JJ..t~rs

t-z.u.. Br~/3.W.
1U4~ti h~~1J ( b .~. UJ 55" 4

ift~

~£1\tu)f\!

(tc, "boel(€:r-l\.9lo - lz..S)

CONc.6UJUJ&-

(t{~ 6~ll~

))tsA£GMb fO~ [He HARMl<-\lP ~ 13t Ttl£; elJo~ -rOLl-.
U,~a fDA. ~£ COAJb~ of Tt~PH(}#J~ CJJIJJWA)tLATWN5 u.kJI-J
1'R\SO~tA$ yAMilueS AlJb ''PQ.t<&OIJfR.S

-tH4l FI\R..

6X:~J)S

TIle; -roLL

tMAtRMA~ -'\Ul...lU,S C:r€NA.WOvJ5K.\

ReceIved & Inspected

fEhElU.L. <:DuJv\~LeAno~S tOMJAtSJ\OI4

~: W~~ 1'61Yt\Ot-!

SEP 182012

eeL1lotkLT~C(~ f-\l;~)

FCC Maif Room

U Sq>\ W\I-

~~2. Of-3

~t:h fOR.. \t\E.- QJJAJbu.Cr OF \E;l£c.oM~lCATWI\\S

uPoJ.J 1Me:.

~~~L­

~UJbu~.

1>Rt<;O~e4.£ fA"·\lLlt,S A/Jb ~SOIJ€R.S A~6

A MWOA.l1'l WAI

A~ SW(,{.~ out' ~ SAlb AfDUSES {sa:. ~ tq-nt AMeuM·/llS~.A I

1lVX

--re\£~~«)~f.. c..oAA\lIJle.At1ON~

AR£ ~a::£SSAR.t 1b srt<.rn@U;(EN

fAMlLlAL t?YJNhS/1t\~\O ?P-oM,orr. 1\EtlA51 L.rrATCoJJ I A GOAL nl4f
l~ )Jet£~~AR.'(

-roRposm\le:, K£1~OIJ

'WoE.
€XJe~\Mt£ OF

fA.cx -rb\~l

turo

~O<:A8"~

Of H'U$O/V6lQs ..

St.ttH A5U5eS AR~ 'j>R.6VALt:lJr fS

A(,lE"JW4nV~ MEASu.k.ES 1li4T

FO~ ~At-SQe.u,"~jl\{(',- ~uNb Sltut

1HG

~JJ't lD<l.$lnJ6~S (s OFF~

A8use BV OfF€AJruG-

~

CDbl!!:i

W~N6 ~UM~eAs fOR. tA~ 1*iSIUNER5 ~AiLeAL t..O~·t'lON I AN1 fAIL

'TV A6t)~~S 1"~ AlllllSt / AJJh 1l{~~/ '8e:c..ofv\£ APA/tr Of· Tlile

OO~P\~oRlAL €HO~ ,5tE. t~ tLS<.:A~Z.ttt/2..'tz..1 u.:&& 'B'i tH6
OA{,ANl?AllOl-l~ 1ll4r off8t tNFLA~~ ~MotJl(:; SeR.Vte€.
c'ltAAEN(L't CACli O~k!(l:A\(,OrJ
1

WJfoRtLUJAT~

VltnMS AlJb 1"H€ll<.

MAJ.!Qj)OLlUS UPON THE-

fAMlLt~S. WtTtiO({T OOIJSlbEA..tlJ6-

1"~e, "DAW&t SUL~ AIQu..s€ eAu..s€S

1lr 'PRl'~ON€As F4M lLte& I I\kI.D

Gt-tA \~J.-\AI\\ J\ll-tuS ~At.1iOvJ5K \
f'fbEltt\L OOMMMJJlCfitWr{S c..DMMl5~tOJ

~: WRl~m- '{>€'T\1lC~

Received & Inspected

S[P 1 a201Z

(tc; bocj~~iltq(o,~,~)

FCC Mail Room

\\ S6\y( 2Dl2..-1>~-\\. 0

Or 3

~ coo~t:ft5 W\-\OM, ARf.. '&6Ik}b- UNJLl<j\L~ ATTA ~eb

vJ rme\.(! ~

~~ Of L4\~. SE:.E, 412!J )1M/bT!,lLtTH A4€7J~S·/u'·~··G.A-

--r\rlE. 6CJ:)NoM.~ A"-\h b6f!lvtT H~S c.RPA.Tt8 ~A~SHLP5
1\\A-r lS ~L'l 'DPlMLJ~()- G{J::V Of- COi\tt(WL-. u.po~ A("'l- OOIUWJ\\~

'PA~\~~ I nlA.T 11\e AhhtT\P~ Q~ MJ ~~1R.J\ f6€. IMPos~ UPOIJ THE"

'\>A1c,£lNEAs fAM,\u~~ AtJb ~Al'50tJER.:s I tS A. 1?>u.A.bEJ~ T6E~k\h
Of CfjUItf CJ)'i>t'S, rllJ6S ) f~$IAtJh ~~trllllON t,MPos~

mE, 6cnP6

Ar sWrVJLU\l~

i""J\\ tAt-l ~6 COfo.J3 thEREb A . . cJ)S\ FOR Rtl)fttSS upolJ tt~e: J~lC.IAL,
~'(~\Ov\ ,t>uJLSUAN-r 101'H£ ~ o~ ~~j lAAlTUM ~L{AIJTl.ll{_

S(

PAA~

11lAt Mot L-61TeJ< CAl\[

AI\\ Q.,lc. a...l. 'P6ttrvo~ ,OR. tIJ Lte:U., 'BE:
RfP~'{

A

~t<.. ~ fDA..

BE:;

U$E"h fOR. J.tt A~t)iTWN A5

1'"At<eJ St~lOl.lSLX ~

you.R..

'lQUA.liM£ / ~Mf€S~).ANt) ANt'/uPArEl:l

~pOJJSE"

1)\\€b: so~~~ I

tl

sm WlL

PA"

<l?~5P~~Y I

~p.~
~tK J)~ bA.V'lS

5.v~ .so~6rl tf.~Y4837
((,00 w~U'w ~U...L Mb

;j)~l<:.r I

PA, \5Sto

(~t~qll~ ~1%OO

Received & Inspected
Kaseem Ali-x #260516
N.J.S.P. - 3EE
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, N.J. 08625

SEP 1 82012

FCC Mail Room
September, 12, 2012

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: COST
"This is a public comment for the Wright Petition
(cc Docket #96-128)"
Dear Chairman:
I, Kaseem Ali-X, a citizen of the United States and by birth
a citizen of the state of New Jersey Petition the overbearing
and abusive high cost of phone services being imposed unfairly
upon prisoners.
There is no fair reason to over-charge the outrageous amount
of cost for prisoners phone usage. Only by abusive discretion
for the sole purpose of profit is it being done without decency
and respect to have prisoners remain in contact with there
parents, children, friends, etc.
With today's technology the cost for phone calls are
approximately .05¢ (five cents) per minute yet the prisoners,
at least at the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Cubberly
Building, Wittlesey Road, P.O. Box 863, Trenton, New Jersey
08625, are being unfairly over charged .34¢ (thirty four cents)
per minute. This is a financial burden which hinders
communication between friends and love ones.
This Petition is being filed to place a cap upon the amount
of profit that can be earned by these phone companies who are
providing their services and the prisons who are bound by Federal
law to care for its prisoners not rob them or their family and
friends by over charging cost for phone services.

Yours truly,

i(~

d--,(

Kaseem Ali-X

('t

l-\ C'S

tS A

\70[J L{:C

(Dv"V"'tNr FoR T1it-

w Rr-G 1+T

Pt-rrtro~

II

eLC O()UcE-T tt-QC::,-l2£1,)

Received &Inspected

SEP 1a2012
FCC Mal! Room
MrCH-AE-L W. OWt-N~ :ttl~q34-4 C-5 13-3\

P() W M- A-1Ft- r--.\

CD R.ll t-CJTD N ALetN i1-,'Z

stA-n- FA-Kv-t

~[)lGo..lm 13l~O

)

K:-DtilA-L CPV1MuI\..lrCA-n-oNS (aM~nsmN (FCc)
A-rrN', MR. \yUl "[uS GE-t-..I ACJ--\ CW S KL (Pc> D~MA-N
I

pu\jlCC (OIMMf:1'--tTS

44 b \ '2 \~ StRt-€:'Tf S.W.,

OfAl"t IMR. c,E-~I\CJ+aW5\("r
\

G(H:-crt"NG.S. \H-~

~LV+LE:-\)

n

1J'-,.\ \))l.. CSDN L"E:-G(-\l

A-DD\l£-~VVl~q1~1)N01)

A- \l~rONS(-- 10 A\'0. At) nfl\-IWAS

Cpu..() TN

Nt.-WS

~E:-G~R.\)S \D ffiE-

~tn..(G LAUN(.t+~()

CAIJ.--tPATGN fl+A-\ 0

Gj mE:- t:.c.Cv
T/+ E:- \t cn.G t}...\ [A- D~-y A-I<-11Mt N \

() F- (0 I<. R t-c iLl.) N

A- (ON,rRAC, WITH· GlO\~f\l Ttt..- Ln. .n, (Gil), TH<:TE:-'l(-fH-DNE:- \{~N D6 1t. W/~S MCT /,
bLDi3>~L \li.",~rN\' HA-S f+

S V\ It S
pllt\1COuS

l(

fULtc...y

rN J<..t-~t4RI)S 'It:>

l=-A-MtLj 1ft8Ml)h1.S pAy tNc.. $ ill.OD to 5t~{<.\ A~'

-1A-CWU!'-t,\ W tTl-t rl+~ Q\ t)i<...O t1<-- ~~

M.t-- Tt') CP,Ll M i-

t.

ff.r1J.Avt:l~ 1M.('-M\~t-itS. W~IA--\
r:S ~n+A-\ Tl-\t ~ lC).DO

ll1i

U"-.' FA-fA.. Mau,T\+rs

[s

)~rE:1Z R~L~lILy- ~ALD

\t)

EOL-:<..Y
GTL

WrLL N.o' ~~l'\ti=-rr (-tt:l\' A-S A- Ca~<;ulr1.t-R. if.-tol\.t"O\!tiL,
D~f)tTt:- nt(:-

10 GIL,

fAc., tk-AT SI-\{:- Prctur.-LLf l~ II+CS -$lD.DO

Sl+~ lvfLL S iTLL HA-\((- )D

c..t)-Ll ~rLl

lD GTL fo(<..

PA-i Tli-t--'\3 rLl,

JEi<.I.{[C€:-).

G'rL wrLL

pAj

A COL(K,

Pltot--IE-

-rr- SI+(:- \)oes NoT

-tH-(-

nlDC~(' il-H:~ ~ttoN~ -H"lOIf--\

tkt SILn:nuNAL ?t+o,,(~ .<?NrrL Tr\t- ~tL~( ts

FAro.

rVE- HAl') SD CA-ll~ [YtLLINC:, tS'SLJts IN"[Tl-l- GIL fvr<....

N.a \l~~'3 6 N.

A- \) H~ IT ':>1 ~ RIM

V4-LloW f'l.rsoNt\1..~

10 J:\-DD

iJ..1.ot:-..(~

r-N. ()iL\)h-z... m lMA-\Cl- P1U--~?_r.cn
t tl+L\(E1~ \b

1M.

i

S LS 1hZ.

Lv A-S CJ(E-A n--o ~1 G TL t""D

(rN

tb A- I)E:-GIT MCDUNI

P(-toNE- CALLS. 11-+(:-- Lrt-SI JIlt-'LENh.-J

y-u R. ~ ')

W l\-S \)UR.. ~ G

II+\:- D+A-N\c..s,G.tV[Nc:' l1\)LL""OA-iS, rlJ)~~ 1lit- DE-IsLT s,!-SIf-lM.

tD R~n-\( (.-

w~ r

l-\-("'""R DI=

Ft4tP--{(, \\tt-rR Jt-LE-PH-oI'J.t- IJrLlS.

A-~ I) l1:1") 10 CALL tfu--z. 'S t-\.f h'2 Al T1:"V'-1 t-') f+ t2·rn<...

it*- 20\' II~i\J.\(S GnlJ:Nb l+tJLtTJfj', Gil
pl-IDNt-, ClA-ru---t U-.l G \\;.-A-t

nm1.~

BlaC\C(--1) n-t~

W M P- ~CllQ\.(c:'

nsu (-.

~

iJ..1i sn ftll ID pA-t TI-\E-D"t ~ ?,,0,00
feE:- eN. r,.CC.oI<"'O ANC(:- ~ t]l-l- iH·Ei:l<... p'LlltCj.
fu CoI'J.CLuSrDN. 1 rr ts D[3\JrDLJ<;, AS to WH--i

,\\+CS ~s Wl-tf:+l f6llC.~)

I'

1/

Co\\r0[l~::-- A-lKH<.tCp< LDi;)l3i~ Tt+{~ pOLrnLm~s tD Ml4tG'tl~ L~ws t::-\(~l tDLSG~fR tD \c...E:C;--~ u S D--~ P(l!l"()~ lOl'-l~tlz..,

t\!~ D"-lS rRUL\H)

MY. )

0> rtJ<.. rD

(DNrn L'\

D+~ nHn-i"\..

-1~\J<.)L~\ t-)S

lSua.t-w

()...l ~ru 'jOl'tK

to

Il~[S,rtR. t+Foi'tJHc4L-

tOlM,~LA-D-.\ I 1\f:,~t:l"\'5~ G. TL. ~~wrLL '~l50 foWA-RD iOUl\

Lt-J fVl't\M A-iLDN t4N \) W~ srnll-\))0T P--ITb \\-r-fS, MAI!hl.
tOIKM.{:-r-liS Th~

R(;-50lrrNc,

n-+ J:)

L

to

iltsp~-(TfuLli

ttof(.- t\~r It-ty

LHtLl{. wTlL l-I-A-\{l~ ~N tMfAtT,

n..., TItE- E11.A-DtC.A\tl)N

R-bA-Th1S\U~ Th.\

K-h1. r(\.\ SH1+tlL:N c:, \ff-K

O~

Ttj-rs tNTbSTTLE:-

Yi<..nON/ AND OUK- PA-lt--1tL~ wd-o A--(Lt-

\1~(G S0~)E::-ci1::-1)

iD Tl-tt-)C- AGuST'lE:- ))aLtCrt-S .__.,

IMI'--\\<- YDU fol<"10U \\.

f

CoD fiLA- rr:-Dl\{ f.\N

/--

"A-S 5> ~ m!\.( ((:-

t't--.\ n+~ tvtA t11:!l.

.llJJ~f-1:t--T/--'-'····'

........-......

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

ftS6iNIO • \fl&l386tti6

S(P == 7 t01!
Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

FCCMaURoom

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-l28)

ReceNed &\Ospected

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 lih Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

~!~ ... 7 to'!

fCC Malt Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income fanlilies but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely.

GLL (;) -U-

vj ~

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 lih Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Received &Inspected
SE? .. 7 Z01Z,

FCC Mall Aool'T'

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.

I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
pes to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income fanlilies but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

W+ 7J~inCerelY'

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

Received &Insp~ed
SEP ... 7 "~:2

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 1i h Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
pes to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.

This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being pennitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOe operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

ReeeWed &\nspected

SE? -72017.

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

FCC Man Aoom

Dear Chainnan Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
pes to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undennine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

;

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

.,

Reeeivod &'n~peetfl)l

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, De 20554

stfil -1 fOIl

FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MOoe.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOe operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCe is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

Received &Inspected
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

SEP -72012
FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.

It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

jJ.J- ~

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Received & Inspected

SEP -7 Z01Z

FCCMaURoom

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.

I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the fv1DOC.
1bis predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the .
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income fantilies but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
1bis fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-l28)

Received & Inspected
Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

SEP -72012
FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the 1vp.chigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this per~on on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income families but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-128)

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Received & Inspected

SEP -72012
FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income fanlilies but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

\

Received &Inspected

SEP -72012
FCC Malt Room

1h:6 'j ~ ct pLib VI c. CoMl\t~N{. -\loR +b
pA; t-l t> IV ( c. L k)oc.~~ \- ~ qb- i"2. '&' )

W~JIA-t

tct \

~".rt\c to My -Bt (VI,/ t y 0 rkt/lJ ~u S-e. ~
Cost. 01- \~\f\ Vu ; s· Sv ~j~ Q/\)d.. -it> p~ f'Y/.;>/lJey
0.1\) +k ph,oA.>e ~ ~ is,, eK.~~ 5"; ~
Cr.-v
Cc.t J t

:r:

I

My k,'dS

(G\,VL5e

+

t~ ~s toc.d~y ~~y ~R.

~~ 00+, q,0J
("1- CZ!YO~~i'J beNet-i"k,. \ hctppeAJ (eJ- ~

'od :f0

S

So eX{> Q.AJ lve.,

U.l\JVW P'~~<2..

p(e5t5e

i

Sf '() esvu:JI

you.es

'S~vV ~f'oN

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket-#96-l28)

Chainnan Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to ask that you consider the Wright Petition that I understand would put a
cap on inmate telephone rates.
I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and in order to speak with this person on the telephone I am
charged outrageous rates. It is my understanding that the telephone provider, Public
Communication Services (PCS) charges $0.05 per minute to provide the actual inmate
telephone service, and an additional $0.15 is added to support a "special fund" created by
PCS to generate additional profits for themselves and the MDOC.
This predatory telephone provider collects 30% of the money generated for this fund.
They actually make more money from this fund than from providing the actual telephone
service. For its part, the MDOC claims it needs this extra money to plug holes in the
state's prison budget. Shouldn't that budget funding come through taxes equally spread
across the entire tax base? It seems prisoners and families are being permitted to
maintain their relationships through telephone calls only if they make a contribution to
the MDOC operating budget. Their option is to not use the phone.
Excessive phone fees not only unfairly burden low-income fantilies but also undermine
the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the MDOC. Taxpayers should not
have to subsidize prisoner phone calls, but neither should the state and predatory phone
companies make millions of dollars on the backs of some of the state's poorest people.
This fund is generating over $9 million annually. Keep in mind, this fund has nothing to
do with the necessary cost of providing the telephone service; it's strictly pure profit and
greed.
It seems the main function of our FCC is to protect consumers from predatory behavior,
and if this doesn't qualify for that protection, then I don't know what would. Please cap
these rates and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

~

Received & Inspected

SEP 172012
Olivia V. Thomas
6101 Peggy Ann Court
Suitland, Maryland 20746

FCC Mail Room

September 13, 2012-09-13

/

Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
Attention: Chairman Julius Genachowski
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Mr. Genachowski:
I am writing to you regarding the impact of the high cost of prison phone calls
have and still has on me and my family. The Securus Phone Company which
our phone calls goes through has limited us from seeking other sources of less
expensive phone companies for less money stating that it is illegal and so forth.
Please see if there are other alternatives that can be taken to lessen this burden
and it will be greatly appreciated.
Thanking you in advance for all that you can do for us.
Sincerely,

t0t$]/,~
Olivia V. Thomas

Dortell Williau~
H-45771 / A2-206
P.O. Box 4430
Lancaster, CA 93539

Received & Inspected
~:P

1 72012

FCC Mail Room

September 2, 2012
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
4451 - 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: The cost of prison phone calls
Dear Mr. Genachowski:
I am writing to express the hardships me and my family have endureo due to the
exorbitant rates we are charged to maintain contact ouring my incarceration. I
am absolutely flabbergasted that in an era where international calls can be
made for pennies, we are charged, with little or no choice, to pay nearly a
dollar or n~re a minute for the lowest quality service. In addition, several
suits have been tiled against some of the largest phone providers ana luany
times they were forced to give refunds for cheating us. But they are never
formally chargeo, nor 00 they have to admit to wrong doing so the potential
for profits and the small risk of conseyuence serves as an incentive to
continue gouging-type practices.
As a result, and excerbated by the economic downturn, we siml:>ly cannot afford
to communicate. Other than letters, which many on the outside have no time to
resi:>Ono to, I am virtually excommunicated. 'I'he paradox is that prisons are
supi:>Osed to promotel:>ublic safety. family ties is a proven methoo of
post-release success. But the system as it is destroys tamilies, and has the
opposite affect on public safety. Further, in today's technoloyical age, there
is no way to convince me that prison authorities cannot monitor our calls much
more cheaply than they claim. The fact is, during the bioding process, the
companies that offer the largest kick-backs to the prisons are rewarded the
contract. This practice flies in the face of stanoard fair I:>ractice traditions
and takes advantage of the most vulnerable sub-groups in the country; the
poorest of the poor.
Finally, the current I:>ractice of oefacto prohibitions on phone use incentivize
prisoners to utilize more desperate measures to luaintain family ties, such as
the use of illegal cell phones. What's ironic here is that the California
legislature has declared that I:>rison staff are the most I:>revalent source of
these phones into the institutions, yet the guards and their union, the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association, vehemently fought against
being searched upon entering the institutions, placing us in a most I:>recarious
situation; tantamount to entrapl:>ing those who enter into the teml:>tation.
In a word, the entire setup is evil.
Sincerely,

iJ~?U~\

Dortell WilliafilS

Received &Inspected

SEP 17 201Z

FCC Man Room

, I

,

~

9-g-ld-.

:

·,
I

,;

I

~("\

O-f\

I(\{Y1Ot~ Ot~ fY\ov.lTt O\~\)e., Co('rec.+io(\~ CO~\e( ~(\

>Wes+ \li~~r\\o.. ~f\~ ~e. ~\J~ ~~ ~ p~O\\~ c..~\\s \~M\-\.s Me ~ro('l\
! ,+171\ k\f'\3 +0 My I;o..M~\y. I
or-.\y c.<A\\ My ~cd O-f\~ (~ro.(\6.p<A. 0(\(..<2. 0..
,.\..Je2\<. CAf'\~ (Y\~ w\~e I ffi\\ t~~ tiMe..:> a. wee-\(. The ~O()~ G4-ts
;:M~ ·oW MlA\1:~p\e.. ··h\Y\~ -+hrolA~~ Ollt-+ +~ c..c;\\ O-f\~ My ~a.~~\y nC'"j
• ~ :+roV\~\e.. (A(\~€..C5~6.\~ fYle be.cMW'e +~y 50y :r sow-A \d(e I~
-iLAf\~rw~-\-er. My w~~e, prepo..y5 'ner p~Of'l~ (Af\ci SOt'Yle-hM~ ·+k
· ~cc~M WI\\ 'te (Yl\S5\':J M.oC\f(..Y. 'They 00.\Y .\ \\JCL O(\e. hoW' <A~
.10. ho.\~ (Awc-.y -trof"\ fV1.e. \1'\ ~lI\n+\('\S-to(\ <Af'\~ ·~Ct~~ <Af\c\ e<Ac..~
.:c.M\\ c-o.s+ +~M <Abol-1+ ~ 3,5-0 a.~ I -t~\I\\z. +~A+ '15 +0
_;MW:~ espe-c.\~\'y tOI +k bvJ.: 5~('v'\u<- +ht;+ Gomes \.J'I~\ '1+
_+hco.C\\' yo""- -ro,.. yo~r ··hcY'Q. \r'\ +hI.! rnc:1+e.r.
.
· i

Si(\Ler\y

i:u-:k::

3b

b?

"This is a public canrnent for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96 128)."
SEPTEMBER 3, 2012

BARTON R. GAINES
TDCJ # 01139507
HH COFFIELD UNIT
2661 FM 2054
TENN. COLONY, TX 75884

Rece\\Jed & \nspected

SEP 17 l011.

CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PUBLIC COMMENTS
445 12TH STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20554
www.phonejustice.org
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload
/display.action?z=whn8 (enter
docket #96-128)

FCC MaU Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski,
using the phone is very expensive in prison.
My grandmother
recently was diagnoised with pancreatic cancer.
This is her third
bout with cancer.
She also had a stroke.
She probably will not
live longer than 6 months.
When I first got locked up and my grandmother was diagnoised
with breast cancer, I called every night.
Her phone bill was
astronomical as a result, but we love each other very very much
and she accepted and paid the bill.
She is my most loved and
favorite person in this whole wide world.
Seven years later she got thyroid cancer and her phone bill
spiked yet again -- in ajdition to my usual calls.
A little over a year later she had a massive stroke that
left her unable to speak, write, and pretty much use her left
side.
Presently she was diagnoised with pancreatic cancer -- some
two years later~ i.e., after the stroke -- and I am calling
every night to console her and get her ready for the after life
__ just basicly trying to help her not be scared.
She has got
to be offully scared.
I cry a lot, but I don't let her hear
it.
I don't want her to be scared.
Because I can't be there
in person, once again, I call and call often.
I don't want
to miss a minute, and I want to stay posted.
As you can imagine, over the months and years and sicknesses,
we have spent several several several thousand dollars.
It
is madness for the phone companies to profit off human suffering
especially in today's time; people communicate to the other
side of the world for nothing.
I can't even call within the
state without paying dearly for it.
Something should be done
about it, and hepefully the FCC can step in to do something
-1-

about this massive profiteering at the expense of human suffering.
Sincerely,

Barton R. Gaines

-1-

ffh's is a public comment for the WRIGHT PETITION * (CC DOCKET 196-128).

Chairman Julius Genachowski,
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Received & Inspected

SEP 1 72012

FCC Maif Room

Dear Chairman Genachowski,
I am writing to express my concern over the outrageous cost
of telephone calls made from the prisons in the state of Wisconsin system and from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Our family includes three children who are now teenagers and
have had limited verbal contact with their father for the past 6
years because of the high cost of collect calls and of calls that
are pre-paid at alarming rates which include surcharges beyond a
price per minute structure. This system must change.
Our family is made to suffer with the loss of a
to criminality, but it should not be made to further
the financial benefit of corporations whose industry
usion with the prison systems to take advantage of a
tive market and of vulnerable families.

parent due
suffer for
i s in colltruly cap-

Our family as a whole is forced to go without personal need
items on a monthly basis for the ability to maintain verbal contact, which is already a poor substitute for contact visits in
person, which are entirely too cost prohibitive given thB vast
distances the prisons are from our home.
Please recognize that some regulation must be enacted to
stop these companies and prison systems from taking advantage of
inmates and their families for the sake of profits and benefits.
Thank you for your time and consi.deration.

Recetved & Inspected
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128)

SEP 17 2012
Fr~

Mail Room

I am writing on behalf of the Prison Phone Justice Campaign. The high cost of prison phone caflS'has
impacted the life of my family and I am sure the life of many others with loved ones in the prison
system. This is a nationwide issue, but my concern concentrates in Michigan.

Three years ago my uncle was sentenced to many years of prison time. A devastated man went to prison
and sought the loving support of many friends and family in his time of correction. However, he had to
write many letters and use almost an entire weeks pay to call his daughter twice a week. That means
that as his niece I didn't get a call for my birthday this year, no goodbye and safe travels wished before I
left for a long vacation in Europe, and have to compete in a whole room of family at Christmas as we
play hot potato with the phone trying to all say hi and merry Christmas before the time on the call is up.
There is no opportunity to verbally love on my uncle and continue to help him in his recovery and
correction in prison under these circumstances.
How is a man or women who are stripped from the physical outside world expected to keep on good
behavior and truly change their lives for the better when they are stripped from the emotional outside
world as well. Without being able to talk to family, they get too depressed to care. And why can't they
talk to their family and friends on the phone again? Because of the high cost of phone rates. The rates
are actually abusive when you think of the financial and emotional burden they place on the prisoners
and families. I would greatly appreciate you looking into this matter and considering an approach to
lowering the phone call costs.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,

Nina Fader

September 11, 2012

Received & Inspected

SEP 17 Z01Z

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communication Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street SW
Washington DC 20554

FCC Mail Room

Re: Public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128)
Dear Chairman Genachowskl:
This letter addresses my concerns about the excessive cost of
prison inmate initiated phone calls. I am speaking for California prisoners,
as well as California inmates housed In out-of-state private facilities. The
high cost of these phone calls impacts not only the inmate, but also his
family and friends on the outside.
The vast majority of these prisoners do not have a substantial
source of income to pay for calls to their homes and families. Often, these
phone calls could be the only source of family contact they have. Trying
to keep a connection to those incarcerated is a major effort for both the
inmates and their families. Sometimes, a phone call is the only personal
touch they get and frequently it allows them a sense of hope and a
connection to the outside world.
My complaint regarding the cost of these prisoner initiated phone
calls is that the cost is excessive. The phone companies contracted for
the various prisons often charge a disproportionate amount to place these
phone calls. Tremendous charges for Federal taxes are always added on
the charges issued by the contracted phone company.
A charge of nearly $9.00 for a less than thirty minute call is entirely
too much. These excessive charges present a hardship on both the
inmates and their families.
In all due respect, I ask that your commission examine the costs of
prisoner phone calls by the various contracting phone services. Someone
needs to provide some insight into prisoner's rights regarding the
excessive charges for their phone services.
Yours truly,

~

Joyce Clevenger
720 Wendt Terrace
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (Cr Docket
August 29th, 2012
Karen

~g6-1?8)

Received &Inspected

c:r.p 1 72012

Peevey
12:;25 ,"Uri nak Circle
South Lyon, MI. 4817A
\1.

FCC Mail Room

Dear Chairman JuliuR Genachowski, I am writing you ahout the high
phone rates that T have ~een paying over the paRt ten years that my son has
been incarcerated in the Michigan nepartment of Corrections. At the beginning
of his imprisonment the phone calls were as much as eight dollars each. Since
then the prices have come down, ~ut this is still a hig expense. T once read a
newspaper article ahout the Michigan Dept. of r.orrection arining an additional
.---fee onto the phone rates to help pay cost wi thin the derartment. Ille already
pay enough taxes and T feel that t~e 8re getting hit twice to support the
MnnC's budget.

-

Any h8lp that you can provid8 to reduce this hardship would he
greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and effort in this request.

Sincerely,

~:~t~

•

•

September 7, 2012
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Recefved & Inspected

SEP 172012
FCC Mail Room

RE: Complaint, Global Tel*Link (GTL)
Dear Sirs,
Because my complaint is so large and may encompass literally hundreds of families I
decided to write this in letter form and request your immediate intervention to bring this matter
under close investigation without delay.
My complaint is with Global Tel*Link (GTL) who currently provides phone service to the Shasta
County Jail via contract with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors who in my opinion are no
less guilty of illegal acts due to their active participation at receiving 55% of the gross revenues
charged by GTL for calls made by inmates from their jail facility and for other issues complained
herein. I have repeatedly made attempts to bring this matter to their attention without resolve and
I am considering separate legal action against them if it becomes necessary. As a simple matter
of reference the Shasta County Board of Supervisors entered into this contract on or about
August 2007 by vote and I have attached a printed excerpt detailing the event.
LAW AND JUSTICE SHERIFF
AGREEMENT: GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION
EQUIPMENT AND CARRIER SERVICES
JAIL INMATE PAYPHONES
At the recommendation of Sheriff/Coroner Tom Bosenko and by motion made, seconded
(HartmanlHawes), and carried,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Chairman to
sign a Letter of Agency and an agreement with Global Tel Link Corporation to provide, install, and
maintain inmate phone equipment and carrier services for jail inmate pay phones for the period
August 2,2007 through August 1,2012, with two automatic one-year renewals, with compensation
to the County of 55 percent of the gross revenues. Supervisor Cibula voted no as he disagrees with
spreading the costs to the inmates and because a Request for Proposal was not pursued.

As you can see, at least one supervisor was concerned enough with ethics to disagree, citing costs
and properly putting the matter up for bid rather than get caught-up in the greed and the potential
issues which violate State and/or Federal law.
My complaint in brief alleges, among other things, that GTL fails to fully and adequately disclose
certain charges that will be incurred in connection with the use ofGTL's telephone service and
the rates that will be charged for calls made using GTL's telephone service;
GTL's' failure to disclose certain practices followed by GTL in connection with their telephone
service that adversely affect my customer account; and GTL's practice of "crarnming"
unauthorized charges on customer accounts through various un-ethical practices.
I further allege that GTL is attempting to carry out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers
of consumers out of individually small sums of money, because I fmd it highly improbable that
of the hundreds offamilies of those incarcerated in the Shasta County Jail I am the only person to
experience these illegal atrocities.

My first issue of complaint primarily addresses the service fees applicable to GTL's Advance Pay
account, i.e., the approximate 20% fee imposed on credit and debit cards used to fund pre-paid
accounts for receiving calls from the Shasta County Jail. When a customer first establishes an
advance pay account with GTL, you are required to make and initial prepayment of either twenty
five or fifty dollars in order to create an advance pay balance. However, GTL fails to inform their
customers up front that they will be charged a service fee of either $4.75 (for a $25 dollar initial
prepayment) or $9.50 (for a $50 dollar initial prepayment) and that the service fee will be
deducted from their advance pay balance. Defendants also fail to inform their customers that they
will be charged an additional service fee at the rate of $4.75 or $9.50 for any subsequent pre
payments and that those service fees also will be deducted from their advance pay balance.
The ONLY alternative is to send a pre-payment by mail which they warn could take several
weeks to post. Essentially no alternative at all.. Furthermore, these fees of $4.75 and $9.50
respectively are reported to be the cost associated with processing a credit card payment. GTL
does not disclose which merchant service it uses to process a customer's credit card nor do they
justifY why the rate is in excess of 300% higher than the average charged by a merchant service
to process a credit card payment.
My complaint also asserts that GTL has an obligation under California law to maintain a live
customer service operator 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to not route incoming customer
service calls directly into GTL's "call back" queue. In addition, I also allege several federal
causes of action, including failing to provide "just and reasonable" service under the Federal
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201.
GTL charges for calls according to a rate schedule that varies according to the distance between
the customer receiving the call and the incarcerated person making the call, However, GTL does
not disclose the per-minute rate that they will be charged for calls at the time the customer
establishes the account and rarely, if ever, does the per minute rate and connect fee ever match
the actual call. For example; after paying GTL $50.00 one week the wife and I timed our calls
that we got believing that the money was going simply too fast. For that $50.00 payment we got
two calls from our grand daughter and both calls (six minutes and five minutes respectively)
totaled eleven minutes exhausted our account balance. We roughly figured we were charged
more than $3.00 per minute plus connect fees.
Customers of GTL don't learn of the service fees or the per-minute rates until long after they
have already paid them because GTL does not send its customers monthly account statements.
Rather, only if customer requests an account statement will GTL provide one to the customer and
they are extremely difficult to decipher.
In fact it has taken me a couple of angry emails to the County Board of Supervisors before some
of my immediate issues were addressed by Captain Beltrain with the Shasta County Sheriff's
Department. His calls to me was very courteous and he did in fact investigate some of my
complaint, one of the phones not working properly and persistent blatant over charging that GTL
was doing. As of this letter there is no outcome on the over charges.
To summarize my complaint in legal terms I submit the following:

FIRST COMPLAINT
Violation Of The Federal Communications Act, 47 Us.c. § 201
GTL is a common carrier engaged in interstate wireless communications for the purpose of
furnishing communication services within the meaning of §201(a) of the Federal
Communications Act ("FCA").
GTL practices complained of herein constitute unjust and unreasonable charges and practices in
connection with communication service and, therefore, violate §20 1(b) of the FCA. In addition,
GTL's failure to make full and adequate disclosures of these practices to their customers violate
CFR §64.2401 and, therefore, violates §201(b) of the FCA.
As a direct and proximate result ofGTL's violations of §201(b) of the FCA, I and other families
of incarcerated persons at the Shasta County Jail have been damaged monetarily and will
continue to suffer damages without your investigation and/or immediate intervention.

SECOND COMPLAINT
Violation ofthe Sherman Act 15 Us.c. §1
Both the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and GTL are equally guilty here under the law.
GTL's practices complained of herein constitute a violation of the Sherman Act that was further
propagated by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors when, without entertaining any "Request
for Proposal" entered into an agreement with GTL for a 55% kickback of the gross revenues.
Similar law exists in California and the parties knew or should have known that State or Federal
law prohibited such action.

Violation Of The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §1750, et seq.
The CLRA applies to GTL's actions and conduct described herein because it extends to
transactions that are intended to result, or that have resulted, in the sale or lease of goods or
services to consumers.
I and other families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail are a "consumer" within the
meaning of California Civil Code § 1761 (d).
The telephone service that I obtained through GTL comes within the definition of "services" set
forth in California Civil Code §1761(b).
By engaging in the practices alleged herein and by failing to make full and adequate disclosures
to their customers concerning these practices, GTL has violated, and continues to violate, the
CLRA in at least the following respects:
(a) in violation of section 1770(a)(4) of the CLRA, GTL has used deceptive representations in
connection with services;
(b) in violation of section 1770(a)(5) of the CLRA, GTL has represented that services have
characteristics or benefits which they do not have; and

(c) in violation of section 1770(a)(14) of the CLRA, GTL has represented that a transaction
confers or involves rights or benefits which it does not have or involve.
Unless GTL is enjoined from continuing to engage in these violations of the CLRA, I and other
other families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail will continue to be injured by GTL's
actions and conduct.

THIRD COMPLAINT
Violation ofthe Clayton Act 15 Us.c. §§§ 12, 13, 14 et. seq.
As with my second complaint the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, I contend, are equally
guilty and knew, or have known, that state and/or federal law prohibited the actions complained
herein. Thus, violated said law when, without entertaining any "Request for Proposal" entered
into an agreement with GTL for a 55% kickback of the gross revenues.

Violation Of The Unfair Competition Law - California Business And Professions Code § 17200,
et. seq.
GTL has engaged in and continues to engage in the unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business
practices alleged herein and have failed and continue to fail to make adequate disclosures to their
customers concerning these practices.
By engaging in these practices, GTL has committed one or more acts of unfair competition
within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
GTL's practices are unfair because GTL does not fully and adequately disclose their practices to
their customers at the time that their customers establish an advance pay account with GTL and,
therefore, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to me
and other families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail.
GTL's practices are unlawful because they violate, inter alia, §201(b) of the FCA, CPUC §2890,
CFR §64.2401 and §1770 of the CLRA.
GTL has further engaged in an unlawful practice in violation of California Business and
Professions Code §17538.9 (b)(6)(A) in that GTL has failed to maintain a live operator to answer
incoming calls to GTL's toll free number 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Instead, GTL
maintains a toll free number during the hours of 6 AM to 10 PM Monday thru Friday and 8 AM
to 7 PM on Saturday and Sunday. In addition, calls to GTL's customer service center are often
routed directly into GTL's automated call back system.
GTL's' practices are fraudulent because they have deceived and are likely to deceive me and other
families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail.

Unless GTL is enjoined from continuing to engage in these unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent
practices, I and the other other families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail will continue
to be injured by GTL's practices.

FIFTH COMPLAINT
Violation O/California Public Utilities Code §2890
Although simply a State violation, GTL has engaged in and continues to engage in the unlawful
practices alleged herein and have failed and continue to fail to make full and adequate
disclosures to their customers concerning these practices.
California Public Utility Code §2890 "addresses the problem of 'cramming,' a practice in which
consumers are charged for unauthorized services in their phone bills.... Often the charges which
are 'crammed' on the customer's bill are relatively small, less than $10, and inconspicuously
labeled. If one does not carefully scrutinize the telephone bill, the crammed charge could easily
be overlooked."
By cramming unauthorized service charges on their customers' accounts, and/or wildly charging
for their services without recourse GTL has violated California Public Utility Code §2890 which
states, inter alia, that "a telephone bill may only contain charges for products or services, the
purchase of which the subscriber has authorized."
As a direct and proximate result of GTL's violations of California Public Utility Code §2890, I
and other families of the incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail are being and will continue to be
harmed without your investigation and immediate intervention.
Respectfully

J~~~
William Rayburn

William Rayburn
PO Box 442
Long Beach, WA. 98631
360-642-4901 Home
360-642-4993 Office
503-338-9761 Cell
E-mail:
premtech@willapabay.org

~-----

---- ---------------

-----

Received & Insp6cted

~k/kkr-43; 4',fL

OCT ~ 12012

. -- --.-- - -- - ---- - . - FCC Mail--'Ro~~-- -.. -

~~~;J44~·
toP BJ;1e~-/ /liJ/li1Y-

a cdtK .8XJc!

~

~1"e/l6e~

Co _Z?/2??~~g6::':tiJ

. &~r/JtPll c/u/;LtS~WzMsh( - ~. - ~/dd/)JJ/JltIi2~~tIf#zs tJ;n/J1IS5:/;f.y;

/l;/J/;d- d0t'lJud3
!iLlS _/2 Itt~~sJZl

ltAYiy;!;;/l; U.?d§3-/

~ ~llt~ji tJm~ ;{y ~ I~;#IM~(cecItdd#%4

'-

tJ
rn

)

y
~

5'

Y

.~'

:9

3

F

'"7

/1"'4

,-'

:::::0

=

CD

a

o-.!

-0'

o

n

CD

<'
om

-Q.

lilt'

f A. 01. \ \~

\~

't'nnGtiG\n ,-r\n.~

'?\n(J~~

~ "(~~~n. \2)u-t ~~(. A\J~~ \jt 't '\J.\)\j
~\) 01. \ KUeJ \ \ A \>(~ \ ~eJ'0~ ~ ,.yCJn '2- v~n."<
ut~ ?'nG~~ ~A\\
A\()r\- D~ '\\ls
tl0!t:,~ I
D~ \J~AJb\G -rC)
u~s 1--\1.0Y\0CJK~ A~ W'G \ \uu~ to '\-\nG
\(~G 'n C.JY0'~. I ~C)0\~-\v!G0I. A ~tnu
I*G

('-rtG \\

w '0.C0,~

?

t·t.O+

'1- \ n s

\()W (.. \A~~ -\ A0)\ \"{

D(JM.v~

'\'0.~ -\\(JW \)-\ I~C()0\'6

IS

'srr -+ \,yu \
~

~ CJ N- S '{

~'0 01CJ~r\ D\ '-\'n~

A

X~

J" \

\0 c:'A~"(

A(.,(.,CJ\J ~1'-

~~ -\CJ\>1 ,~\) Vl'{ ~A0I.\\"\ ~G~'S r\-'nS
y~ ""~\JI. A 01. ": \ ~ '\CJ 1'\0 '{ ~~!:) ~ ~~\j n ~ --\-'nA'~~\j~

~\2

\0\JN:~'{

'~1G9t GN: -t~.e

\ri.OW~\'l~V! ") ~1-

~KCJ\J~ '0

II'-:+S0.'VGK~
\ N: \ j A -\ \ CJ K

-t y,.~

\~

\jf

. I

KG'V8\>l

A~ \z.

VYlCJKG

~G~0YS

1-hAl-

'Y()u

yV1~'1CK~\'nG

AK:::J

-tCJ
c-'ON:'t-

r\ 'n.L ~

D~G 'n L,\J~,t

~ ~ ~ \ () \ ~ A.1-\ (j K Cy~
-YC)V! ?0 \~(jK ~A \ \~

1

TRULINCS 29149001 - THOMAS, BARRY A - Unit: MON-O-F

FROM: 29149001
TO:
SUBJECT: This is a public comment for the Wright Petition
DATE: 09/24/201206:35:07 PM
September 24, 2012

Received & Inspected

OCT -1 2012
FCC Mail Room

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communication Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
RE: This is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128)
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing in response to the solicitation for public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128. AS a first-time
offender and recently incarcerated, I am shocked at the extremely high costs of phone calls and emails. Currently, I am paid
$.12 per hour in my work assignment. fortunately, I have a full day assignment. Many only work half days. However, a long
distance call to my family costs $.23 per minute or $13.80 per hour. Local calls and emails costs $.04 per minute. In my case, I
work almost the entire month in order to talk with my family for one hour.
The outrageous costs of phone call and emails presents a tremendous amount of undue stress on the family unit. The Bureau
of Prisons and the federal government, in it's infinite wisdom, sees this as a form of punishment for the inmates. This is actually
punishment for the parents, spouses, and children. What the Bureau of Prisons and government fail to recognize is that limiting
our ability to communicate with our families leads to breakdowns of the family unit. these breakdowns translate into higher
divorce rates and increased social costs in the forms of Food Stamps, Medicare, and other assistance programs.
While at home, I enjoyed minimal (if any) costs for local and long distance services. If such services are available for the
individual consumer at such low costs, why can't the government access such services? Physical separation from our families
presents enough stress and anxiety on the overall unit. It is equally as hard for the spouse and children as it is the inmate. My
spouse is currently working two jobs in her efforts to maintain the household. She is unable to send me any support. I do not
see the justification and logic behind the increased pressure on the innocent.
I applaud your efforts in this matter. Keeping my family unit together is paramount. Reducing the high costs of communication
thus, allowing more time with my family would relieve much undue pressure on my wife and children. It is one thing for the
guilty to be punished. Charging guilt and punishment only be family relationship is grossly over-reaching.
Sincerely yours,
Barry A. Thomas
Maxwell Federal Prison Camp

r;:;ct~

Received & Inspected
September 21, 2012

OCT -1 2012

Theresa Torricellas
W#21722 CIW/EA-425L
16756 Chino-Corona Rd.
Corona, CA 92880-9508

FCC Mail Room

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comments
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: Submission of public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket # 96-128)
Dear Chairman,
As a long time prisoner (28 consecutive years in state prison in CA), I wish to
express the need for less expensive phone calls. A situation occurring this
week to me demonstrates the importance of being able to liberally communicate
with family and/or friends on the outside.
I have been married 20 years, and my husband is my only visitor and the main
person I speak with on the phone on a regular basis. He is in his mid 60's
and has undergone several medical crises this year putting him in the hospital~
My husband lives alone and the only person in his vacinity to check on him is
his landlord, who happens to be gone for a month to travel up the coast in an
RV.

I usually call my spouse only once during the weekdays because he says he only
has a phone plan that allows him 450 minut~ a month. If I call collect on
the weekdays, it uses up his minutes which he needs for job searching and
phone interviews. Therefore, other than one mid week phone call, I try to
restrict my calls to the weekend, where his phone minutes aren't used up but
he still gets charged (he has a landline and a cell phone).
When my husband didn't pick up the phone mid-week, I got worried given his
recent medical problems this year and the fact I had no alternative way to
check on him. After several more days of this, I really started to panic.
Although there were several people I wanted to call to see if they could get
an answer on his phone by calling direct, I hesitated to call because it
supposedly costs more to calion the weekdays (at least collect, which is the
only kind of call prisoners can make in CA).
I finally called a friend because I was worrying myself sick over it, and they
were able to call his numbers direct. One #, the one I usually call, wasn't
working, but his cell phone (which I cana't call collect) was working. He
told my friend he was ok and there must have been a problem when he put the
call forwarding on his landline to his cell phone.
It is a good thing she was able to get through because if I hadn't heard he
was ok, my next move was to call someone up to call the local Sheriff to check
on him, and kick the door down if need be, since forAI know he could be dead

O-~

•
2

and no one would know or find out until the landlord showed up weeks later and
went to ask for his mail (which my husband collects for him in his absence).
The point of all this is if the phone rates were cheaper (or made cheaper for
prisoners who are forced to make collect calls only) my husband, and friends
could better afford to take my phone calls/w..c(I wouldn't have to worry needlessly
because the expense of keeping in touch and communicating being cost prohibitive.
Likewise, when~ my husband's emergency medical situations put him in the hosp~al
twice this year, although he had his cell phone with him (and had the sense
to call 911 when he needed it), there was a delay before I found out because
of my "restricted calling schedule" whereby I intentionally seek to limit
my weekday calls to him to once a week to avoid using up his limited cell
phone minutes.
Thank you for conSidering my comnents and

UJ'~(f tK/--/)zhfic~ ._
~1f\(0;1.IL111

:--;-

~b
"M
;tl\ActdoJr

~£;~

yauroCt:lJ/tat!QJttfid1 ~ i6L

J

Received & Inspected

OCT -1 201l
Michael June, #76496
Erie County Holding Center
40 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202

FCC Mail Room

September 25, 2012
Mr. Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
445 12th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
RE: Phone Service Contract
Dear Mr. Genachowski:
I believe that the phone service being provided by the jail
through the phone company ICSolutions is illegal and violates both my
constitutional rights and the Sherman Antitrust Act, by charging exhorbitant
pjones charges and rates to inmates that exceed the costs associated with
maintaining such phone service.
The contract, which I am being denied access to by the jail,
prohibits me or my family from seeking an alternative phone service carrier
that charges less.

If I do not put money into a pre-paid phone account I

am denied making any outgoing calls.

The phone company charges a $9 fee for

every time money is added into the account, plus a $1.50 connection fee and
10¢ a minute for 15 minutes.

This is an anti-competitive contract and it

forces me and my family to cough up the $9 fee or no calls can be made or
accepted.
less fees.

This is wholly unfair because I know of phone companies that charge
Additionally the phone company has denied me the use of making

any collect calls.

Every call must be through ICSolutions and must be pre-

paid.
I request that you please look into this issue/complaint and if
possible, please send me a copy of the contract that the Erie County Holding
Center has with the phone company ICSolutions.

file/mj

Thank you.

-

..

fleeeived &Il'tspeeted

, Use ~ Tucson
,

{

-

c{ji1/a---------------~

~------------------~~~~=-~

(j)

,/ tits u
..

0>-

pvlie

COAft'&t+

-Gr- ~

0rt'j/..{- PdrtlOt'1 (eL

f2,c/:.ef-#Cfb-f:<B)-

.

~~ ~j~5 ffYCes ~ cbAe ~

'"

to Cb So ~r ~fr~ -tz, ~)'
. fWVlilz. cv0 cuJ' ~f-c,.. slo.-k.
~ k 2}'Ac
-Iv eJ ,-ri.e c:-6~/~
4;(\ P'/l/.,A.:€

rev-

. ;r-

. ~CyT ~

.

.7

k: yc

e/tftN U/\f~J ~'ks,

wr- O-Ar hf'7 y::u
~7

prvUrde.
\

(/\

~~~

/2o':;er- ~Jfetr 1's3'10!v

6.Alf ~q- ~
PCAr-~~//hS:

g8738

.,

Received & Inspected
OCT
MR. WILLIAM P. JENKINS
PO. BOX *10
VALHALLA, N.Y. 10595

-32012

FCC Mail Room

TO: FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION,
CHAIRMAN: JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
RE: THE QUESTIONABLE TACKTICK OF GLOBAL-TEL-LINK INC.

DEAR, CHAIRMAN GENACHOWSKI,
I AM WRITING YOU IN REGARDS TO THE ACTIONS OF GLOBLE-TEL-LINK
WITCH ARE EXPLAINED IN THE ATT: LETTER. A COpy OF WITCH HAS BEEN
SENT TO "'THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS" "THE NEW YORK POST .... THE WESTCHESTER
JOURNAL NEWS" AND YOURSELF. ANNEX TO THAT IS A LETTER FROM MY MOTHER
WHO IS TRYING TO BE FORCE TO BUY A SERVICE THAT SHE SHOULD NOT NEED.

'.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER.
<,

MR. WILLIAM P. JENKINS

<,

..

MR. WILLIAM P. JENKINS
PO. BOX 1/10
VALHALLA, N.Y. 10595

TO:
RE: THE UNDERHANDED & STRONG ARM TACTICS OF GLOBAL-TEL-LINK INC.
PHONE PROVIDER FOR THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY JAIL •••

I WILLIAM P. JENKINS AN MY FAMILY AS CONSUMERS
OF THE SERVICES OF GLOBAL-TEL-LINK BY WAY OF VERIZON, ARE NOW EXPERIENCING A PARSHELL SHUTDOWN OF OUR PHONE SERVICE AND ARE BEING
GIVEN THE RUN AROUND BY GLOBAL-TEL-LINK, INORDER TO STORNGARM AND
FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY THERE (PER PAYED PHONE PLAN).
OVER MANY YEARS I HAVE BEEN COMING TO THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY JAIL
AND IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ONGOING PRACTICE THROUGH VERIZON/AT&T TO
ADD THE AMOUNT OF THE CALLS THROUGH GLOBAL-TEL-LINK TO THERE.BILLING WTIH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD FORWORD PAYMENT TO GLOBAL-TEL-LINK.
IF YOU DID NOT PAY THE AMOUNT UNDER GLOBAL-TEL-LINK YOUR SERVICE
WOULD BE BLOCKED FROM GLOBAL-TEL-LINK BUT YOUR SERVICE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME WITH VERISON LESS THE GLOBAL SERVICE.
NOW ALL OF A SUDEN GLOBAL IS BLOCKING PEOPLES SERVICE AN SAY-ING
IF THE INMATE MAKES MORE THEN $40.00 IN CALLS IN A 60,DAY TIME
SPAN THAT THEY BLOCK THE LINE IN WHICH THE CALLS ARE MAD TO.
I FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE, BECAUSE IF AN INMATE MAKES MORE THAN
$40.00 WORTH OF CALLS AND YOUR FAMILY PAYS THE BILL. THEN WHAT
GIVES GLOBAL THE RIGHT TO BLOCK YOUR LINE, THEN TRY TO FORCE YOUR
FAMILY TO BUY A PRE PAYED CALLING PLAN, AT 3 TO 4 TIMES THE COST
THAT OUR FAMILY ARE PAY-IN,G THROUGH VERIZON/AT&T.

(2)

THEY HAVE GIVEN PRIOR NOTISE TO CON SUMMERS AS TO ANY CHANGES IN
REGARDS TO THIS $40.00 BLOCKING SISTEM. I HAVE SPOKEN TO (SGT,S)
AND CAPTENS HERE AT THE JAIL, AND THEY KNOW NOTHING OF THIS SOCALLED $40.00 BLOCKING SISTEM.
SO IF IN FACT THIS IS THE CASE THEN WHEN WAS THE JAIL AND THE INMATE CON SUMMERS AND THERE FAMILYS GOING WHO ARE FORCE TO USE THESE
PHONES HERE AT THE JAIL GOING TO BE TOLD ABOUT THESE CHANGES, IF
IN FACT THESE CHANGES WERE MADE.
SO THE INMATES WOULD BE ABLE TO REGULATE THERE USE OF THE PHONES
AND OR NOTIFY THERE FAMILYS AS TO THE CHANGE. I FEEL THIS IS A
BLANTANT ATTEMPT TO RASE REVENUES AT THE COST OF THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE NO OTHER MEANS TO CONTACT THEIR FAMILYS.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
THAT THIS IS THE SAME GLOBAL-TEL-LINK PHONE SERVICE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM ALL NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION'S JAILS FOR
EXCESSIVE PRICING. SO I APPEAL TO YOU FOR A FORUM IN WHICH TO BE
HEARD ON THIS MATTER, NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF & MY FAMILY BUT ALSO FOR
THE OTHER PEOPLE & THERE FAMILYS WHO HAVE TO PAY THESE OUTRAGEOUS
COST JUST TO TALK TO THERE LOVE ONES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AN CONSIDERATION ON THIS MATTER. I AM LOOKING FORWORD TO HEARING FROM YOU IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER.

MR. WILLIAM P. JENKINS

SEff.

,J ~ ;'01:1..

11/ !10t1sTG;«..'"

"
\ .. 1"..

,

~ ~t.;

"

,

..
'

/CJ)~:2n- . .
-

OCT 11 2012
FCC MaU Roorn

.:z- /l/J'l Jf/7/V~//( ~(fA/fIJ
:;: I

4c3

/t

7lJ

IiY<.. ;)fIlSELf'

r/Htf /l) /leSE ~ r/Hcd£. $T /<'3
M'.J /Jfj mJlll-y: #/ /JItJ71-/o7) /8

Y /ldJ cI1i /J H/ib -~CLY)J£.

£tJE;fl

IH3 /1

7716 Otll~lcS/f ~tees

~,f/So;(t'f-1/ -#J-t/B- ;?J

If 71t7/fJ>Stftf

Mj

- necelveu & Inspectec

jll1iJ

..L

olV't:! IilAfj£ 0# Ibf

iOl'j7Eii'

!i18 ~/C!.£ - 6}ttJtlq/A8; i f ~ouf£1S 1M8 /Z) 8/z!.'/ .L
~NT $7 CLlSToP/-.nfd$ tf;J-135S e:fi. ~~/OGS /l) lja;6 md
it) T1t 1/~/rlfj rjr(,C!E /3.
~/"-EE;43E /;//erSI7fjA-rE 71113 rt#oNE £~1Df77c?~ Ifd
,\5coA /IS r/b&s{ i3f.-RE' / :L C!rJN ,b;fEL-j ~f; 7D 1EE,J //'1'
,--;-Dtl(J1/

dJ 1lf

7l1AtJi(

I

IttY/Jt{/71tE-:/f Itrl~ if {f;ft ~;fffl'6. .

)ttt 60 i/Ur!.H-.

2R~}-~&.aw
"/1776CJ

~J3-C2o-Lt

tLJIftI d;;C;1 ,J]E/J{/s

jAsIU1/{77/

1M,l)

/iII '/JiC; 7

.FCC Me!!.. oom

\J '0e.("\ ""I '\\ 1:)+ o.I\\Ve.c\ -\0
\-\vY"'Oy, \J ev\ \'0..1 torY) P~~ \ +\re ?hone
\)jJ~vQ~ec\ . ~~\)~'~·fYP.-\e.\'-1 tJ\ .~o ~O\
~\~ \DD-~ Cl. c:;\~
'~\.A.-T

15\ 0.

I

00

fY\'v\ Q"00C.-

r

0,

my

\Nacn:-\nf~

rQ-\e.s
\ '5 'f\) 'In ~-k5

-\-'c\\{\G~ be..co",u..~ L
'
.L='...L
,rWI'lCAl\..,
~~\~?~

Ov~urd'

C:.,ou\d
bVl

~

c...Ol.) ld PnO-he .
s~~e_)ro..,\ ~\\~ o,,'<\c\ eQ~\\~ b\"\.d~e-:\ +he.
-\\ ~ O\f'€,r Q
WLt~ 0<" 1-IJ. .:{) '2:>~C\'(\, t'-J\v\
-\Qm~\~ Q..Ou \cJ Q\~ Q-\--\-adi ~~~\ \\\.Amber5.
~o 0 f\e C\-C:J~}2A) (\+ ., \IJ \\-n
~ f'Ye.vv \)Ylooe
I

<J)m~o.'C\,-\ ~'--\ \~IA-\('e
t>el{: () u.mb-e.r

0.>(\ \~

to

'*' \

\~ i+h ~h\ S

Q

\(~?\~ \()

Qc..COU(\,-t

(lew C;::i6Yl pY\\.\

\y\a,~e ~ - \v.:) '\I\\(\L\.-\-e..

cA \AJO-rK vCll...\

new

c...ev\\5

<::?n

~

I,
Q.CAX\

l

",D\o v

I+ i ~ ?:::cl \'\')V',Ch V\CA(C\er
;
Q..O(\c..uo\- ~\J\-\V\ m.~ ;\O\'fY\'\\~) ffiC\ <(\Cj
I

Q..D\,\\~ ou-\ cf XY\~ Q~U()+. ?\eose: Chc~ Irme In
. re\\=) C?Jd +h\s ~lH pG\1:>Sed {or ~ \o~"V ,Ov-r-es, [
\}0ho.:~- \ \ \-c: '(\{\u)"")Cy eL\Ch d "-'\.5 \ " '{\)~ ~~\
:1
k-\,4; c:P .\v...ri-Dex -\0 e.o..--S~ oUr ~S CA. I:
c::>..Y\'(;.\ ()~. k \; \J(S CXM 0 \.)" -W.'('1\ i \ '-\ S II (.yi· ~c\"'11

*

-\~y~~ 1

i

[

'-lH \~

\S 11 ~t~l" \<2- ~ Dt)\))\I~NT t=o~
,\.DK\~\-tl #t~llL;) 00 't~tX'KfT.#:q{P''');!E

'TIff;"
Received & Inspected

ocr 11 2Q12
FCC MaH Room

As ~
t-t1J..("()()

Of)\,--\

\kx.\\e\..\ CoNlp\ex)

Qcmp\ete\'-{ b\ i nd -\erY1C\.\e oJ- \jJO(Y(An''S
j-+ ho.~ been

c..oIYlp\e,te,,'i de\fQ'5to.t\~

\l\'1 {'rierd~ wd'h h~\J\()5 me. phone:
e.o~ -eo \'I'5h . M~ c..hddren Cje+ w t--Lpse.+ beco.u~ •
, ~'-\ dDr\+ \ \\le -\-CCJ~-hler cxnd I am not a.ble -+0
Spfu~ wt\Y\ eo.ch of -\herY\ -for 0.. ~~\\ \~ minuie.5 ,
d\Ae -\-0' high Q.o~-t~ -:l: o"m unab\e 'iC \ Isren -+0
-\10

\"I'e\ m,-\ -{'cm\\,-\, o.rc\

.--we,\

~00b\es o.nc\ \:)e

\'J\,--\ -RG(Y\\ ',\

S\JOl)\c\ t t ;

\'\W~d

"2Uppor +i\fe 0..'6

\ {(-, erc\~ \ C\0C\

0.

I

motr.er

0. re te \

ng

h(A\l'rs ~ ~O~ ,e\Q'-\-,on<snip due ""\0
hi8h ~rone. \o"'-\e-::,. ~ \ \\le. -4-0 -ray- cx'WQ'i -to c..orne
.,Q0C\ \J \s\\ ~ I whi~ I~ -\-he CC~'5e W,'+\l mo~ infY'"'CA.-\;CS, Ho..\Ji II<j
,U5e o~ -\-\'1e \JY""0ne \~ Q.\U.C\CA\\'{ 'I m~6("\-o.'t\ +0 e.veryovre.
\\\\fO\\Rc\

\.:~\,'-\

ct \~
tt

clk'

\Ne. ~ O--\n:_ad~ \XA-" i~ -\0,,- oIJr ~\ me c.), ~
~. Cuv- \o~ o(\es 3\.A-+feV'-i~\-\-oa? be..\~

i

C.Are

'("'\\c\..~es \-\:

d ,,,{\ Cu.\-\ -\0

\A),

\-\e Q\'d 'y)~\J-e.. --\'ne \fficx-5

\e~'e -\o~. \J\,-\ C.~one5

u.:o'-.)0

\O.~r-' heav-

YY\'{

\Io\ce,C\s I LCOu~\ 4re\r5. Mvt do...UCjhttr- VS-'A~ \\,-\5'\er\CD--\ O\f€v-\-he ~\c. deo-..,\-h ~ he.. 'p-:*~. :c QO~l\d C(\\'--\ QO~o'c-\- 'ne" ~ ..-OW\~{"('C\.-\-~\,-\ \s; (Y\\{\\}.:\e'0 c"rG\ rae to o..bnJ..\>t\~ er(.\ ~ Qo..\\. '\=>\ects-e.
~~ '*'\~ b~\\ -\0 ~~ \Ower pr-one ("Q.-\e~\
, ,Ql) \'"

\~Ned O~O

,-tOr ~\~/ VIer

S \(")('c:.A,-\

Q'\'C\ ?r\ ~'\\-e v"3.

0..5 (-\-

~b b::.cJe.-\'{-\- 0.\ ~ of

~ \('\ ('Y"\c;....4re:. ;"b c:h.)..e.\\'-'\ ~ \ (\9

G('\fY\e\ O()(\''\ ('()CA.,\<.e 'u.,s.

I

rn(jfJjlLJi)~~
\'f\C\ fSro 5? \ ~ rc'jt r % 'i(009le \P

~~ ~\...\"r\-h~('-~

-), -

, f

.

~ ~s \~

(\ ~\.A\\~-, OOfv\y)\((v'--\ ~(~-h WK~~ttk knno~
~ (L.'tx~ \«~\ -fq to -I ,,?>

eeT 11 2012
FCC Mall Room

itee(;ivea & loapectj

"r::'"r 11201Z
FCC Mall Room

.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PRISONER STATIONARY

CSJ-110 4/90
4835-3110

TO-

FROM-

NAME

NAM~01~

JftC&65
ILOCK&r.::J .- ){ICN°·.3ZZD40

NO_ AND STREET OR R.R.
CITY

.-'7

STATE

ZIP

INSTITUTION

WHVC

DATE

9··30-/2.-

IN CORRESPONDENCE, USE NAME AND NUMBER ON YOUR LETTER AND ENVELOPE

Received & Inspected

7!i/J /S CI'pt.b/d &/J1/Jltld 1t1~f/!€ !t0jJl-'!nh;t

(!(1

}:erl{t)-#P6 ~/Ag

..

ReceivetJ &Inspected
lAA

712012

L0~CrY'l \ ...\- (Y)Dv.j C.onc'(Rn·~ rCCMal~S0om ..
... mel nOlm~ 'tS~tGrnnoc Gle.nf) '*W/0~ rI a/1
. ,.c...up..P,eJ'i~\y 1(lfull'.ero,-\-ecl oJ t1uUrI v~Jln; tn
-Y,p-of-i \u.rr¥i \Y\:r: chr8 tL\ n ·<ri::t m C()I!/ac
'L/tJu a ktll
.f};. Ie. tai 6r.t 6~h -e.. lho~~calls c.d-ll~.h"I-i, eJ,rt!?1e 'y-+vc,..h9,,,ah,Ic~~I}j. lY\d~~ty)+ ,J:-. lOl\/t 01-+ 61 tnLj LVD,qj( -r-y ....
.w~d'\ "tS <-/o.~ 1A. W'crAh. The t05 of 0\.. 15 rn1nck rlmt.
.. '-"0

1

-If,

I

coiV aJ/vwed--h call)Pmit
..0. r) f1. e.tJ.J!'ItJll'llJ because' my t.h9/rJrM q r( 't.1'1~jkV'rt he
.. ho0'eeholds.1hts. h~h cost ()} -~ne calls 'Is cau']'?,
.JVJt. :/0 . t(J~ -th~ bJj'J~ fJal f ollr!e. 3htlred w1fh rYly
_.Chq/J~I1I' I tls. 00+ 1ct1r ttuJ ..:r have --fa chcse. hdtut~~

. ..full h

3 ,tOG /I 'a tYl

.ij\'e. n.eCL!eS5~~~~~ ·~SLJe..v~\,.'t 'in~"3Cn
,(:all

CO'1d

C-hEe~ O~l

u:.""tth-~\ --\-c.

m~ ~d~.

DnllJ o.t-+-cci

7rr~mt'r5 bc+-th~ 1am5Iq(~ c:1
a:) Lvt:1 L~'€.. ~ n5l1 t{)+~b0S a fe II '+ J'Ot1S\ nj~1 ~

.. '---rftfs f\'l+

t.'nota ~e.s

D'\'

.¥~o. ''In()'tt+es I So ~ Cdtl'~L0~+h oiher5 . J). ('e(tt;IV'<s>{~/3
.. lC<...ve (' V.bent -.('C\~. ~,r' . \0$ :,J: Q.Ctn' Ot\k( ~tLl each .. _

. ... h60sd"u \J L.L-;ht.ct-. n~ c..h~ )c\fe n

one e CL "rtrrl-h I ' I
...dDrit,5etll£sl,b 5D m'f~ l-'lwne. calb <z.-e, ~'f:. U)/~ cc,!1h.(!
~W' \...0'\411 -\:het11. TFun k~oc1cr yo()i2.-\:j1'h~'
Q

re

:r.

.:1\ ~?~+7v (I_~
.

..

.

~t \{tJ'IP{X ~ len
.-ti:::.~/ll

77. :JV'~

~-

:.;

...

Received &inspected

ocr 11 2012
This is a public comment for the WRIGHT PETITION (CC Docket #96-128)

FCC Mail Room

Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Public Comment
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I'm writing to ask that you act on the WRIGHT petition to cap inmate telephone rates and
stop the exploitation of prisoners and their loved ones.
I am serving time in the Michigan Department of Correction. Since coming to prison, I
have tried to remain in close contact with my family and friends, but with each passing
year it becomes more difficult. Despite publicly trumpeting the benefits of prisoners
remaining in close contact with their families, the self serving policies and actions by the
MDOC are continuing to tear at the very fabric of these bonds.
The two most important and critical ways for a prisoner to keep in contact with his family
comes through visits and telephone calls. For most families, including mine, making the
trip to visit is a rare occurrence. When you consider the bad economic times, and that .
most of these visitors themselves are struggling near the margins, the cost of making the
trip to visit is prohibitive. Add to this that the MDOC has reduced the amount of days a
prisoner can get visits, and restricted the number of visitors an inmate is allowed to see,
it's not surprising to see the number of visits being reduced by 70%.
This leaves the telephone as the main lifeline for a majority of prisoners. Rather than
making this critical service more convenient, the MDOC has chosen instead to exploit
this service for profit. They, along with predatory telephone providers, have colluded to
extort and target those who can least afford it. Of the average $3.25 charged for a 15
minute call, $2.50 goes directly into the pockets of the MDOC and telephone provider.
The MDOC claims it needs its share to shore up its budget. Prisoners and their families
should not be charged outrageous rates to 'support prison budgets, that burden should be
borne by the entire tax base. As fot'the'telephone'provider~ they get a 30 % cut of the
overcharge. Remember, the telephone provider has already built in their cost and profit
margins for providing the actual telephone service. Public Communication Services is
Michigan's current provider and they ~e maIqng more money-from administering this
slush fund than they are from providing the actual ,inmate telephone service,
It seems 'one of the functions. of our Federal COrimlunic,!-tions Commission is to.protect
the consumer from predato~Y'behavior, and. if this doesn't qualify foi'that protec.tion, then

I don't know what would. Please put a 'stop to this.· Cap the rates!
Sincerely,

Received &inspectea
i

OCT 11 2012

i

FCC MaH Room

f lA

\~

"<='

4-

GO~t"'\t.--t ~~ --t\A~ \.>.'.r~~~t
( CL. \).oc..\..(~t ~ q\D - l 2..« )

vOlA\"\: c-

l'

t

~.r

\;

o:::t. zol '-

c\-.':.q. ." ..- G~-·c-\"":'v>c,v.:. ,

:r ~ ~r' ·-t.

V'

<-.>

-t... ~c.,v.c.. '1,,) -- ~

I; \ i"'t})G..'-.-\- y'. ~"V' V>~.) ~ " c..~ \ \ ~

iG- ~ ·\'1

c-........A

:r:.

l"e.t:i: ov\

""c..

V<-

v)t:..

/'r-

of i'-"c...

\9 '"

""""'\

\.M-.. .,.(.

0.( LA-\'~ I (;. \l ~ c,c..o\..V"'-\~_ ~v..c.,~
~ estc.~\:~~) (>J''-- {)~,:.~, -tW-"v...~ 0- CPII'",'-V-t ~
~'- - \:)c...pt 'Z.4~)
fj'oo . .,~\O 1S'5 1..\
(..p\.A.~\;.. \D -\0

1.

I", -t~(... 7J\:G.1c...

~

~,eo. 'BO'!' l"2- 'Z-'"\ "3~

. ~.)

"Z><Pc..... '-<.,. -to c..

0""

j~UCt\I1C'. ,c;")\ 'l....

W\y\,)J. ~~" c..~I1\~'-"\

Go-/'"

w

~t:-I' (...- '. <.. CA...!\ 'Z.-c::; . ,,;).::» v-'. .rt • ."....... '-"'" ~ _A c::.. "& 100 . 0 0 -f-..:>
dt 00· .0 0 f'\(;"i~ ("\ """tM. ~\Aoc:, (., ..r0.-1: Co.<, t:. r c- .t£ --;, '-l<; -\0
1(:0"'11'(..£.--1- c,,,,,<.. ,L{S" ~ t/t:-r """",,,,v..--\t- <A-~ ell c- (t ~
~~V Cv.~ of~ c..+
DO vv'1V'\V--~~.
G~+ e-...'P"pl\:)'/.-,
~lb.C,<; -\:0 Cvl \ "'~tI"'c, ~" -r"'(:~c...<;, v.>"- '.c..~ V""--=-" \A.)t
~ e~\J'c.-l,,\ ~ l' ~""t L,c:..A \ ~~v->c..\)Y-r, fe., (""c..-t ~~
bA\, c..c..LG.-t-\-c.A ~ . . . , G~c.-rcA ~ -A. Co l I ,'-"" iv<- "")t f c..t'-s
Ie _.A.
l+ ,-,> c.. ~.p I I .
1

lz.

:r:+

"'t.-

Co

-te.. ~

~
(}\1-c..V" '-{', i""~ C; l ~ "
.JV' : c) - 5lblc-.;)J~ S -\0 \c ~ '." '-""\t.-<,
~ .... -\ ~

~,

l

-t\- VV'

Cp

tl <,

Co ~

c r <\.)X..

~-\A.

..{'c:G~ i\~ •
\\Ac:.._\;<'

Y;:)Vo..- v-v..

:r::

v.0\l'- ~~~ V"'-c-""

:.- ~~ ~c.,

I<c..S(k-c.:~ II "1 ,

.
· 4t
--p.~ C~ l(o(~~,

.