2550 M Street, NW

PATTON
B066SllP
ATTORNEYS AT lAW

Washington, DC 20037-1350
20H57-6000

Facsimile 202-457-6315
www.pattonboggs.com

Paul C. Besozzi
202-457-5292
pbesozzi@pattonboggs.com

January 20, 2012

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Catrice C. Williams
Secretary
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, Suite 820
Boston, MA 02118-6500
Re:

Petition Of Recipients Of Collect Calls From Prisoners at Correctional
Institutions In Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust And
Unre~son~ble Cost of such Calls ("Petition") - D.T.C. 11-16 - Response of
Securus Technologies, Inc.

Dear Secretary Williams:
In Cl-ccordance with the Department's Procedural Rules, enclosed for filing in
the referenced proceeding are an original and three (3) copies of the Response of
Securus Technologies, Inc.
. A copy of the Response is being served on this date on all parties listed on the
official Service List issued by the Department.
An extra copy of the Response is enclosed to be stamped "received" or
"filed" and returned in the enclosed envelope.
Please direct any questions concerning this filing to the undersigned at 202456-5292 or pbesozzi@pattonboggs.com or in my absence to Ryan King at 202-4575312 or rking@pattonboggs.com.
~

Counsel for Securus Technologies, Inc.

Washington DC

I

Northern Virginia

I

New Jersey

I

New York

I

Dallas

I

Denver

I

Anchorage

I

Doha

I

Abu.Dhabi

BdoreThe
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

)

Petition Of Recipients Of Collect Calls
From Prisopers at Correctional Institutions
In Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Uiljust
And Unreasonable Cost of such Calls

)
)

D.T.C. 11-16

)
)
)
)

RESPONSE OF SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Curtis L. Hopfinger
Director - Regulatory and Government Affairs
Securus Technologies, Inc.
14651 Dallas Parkway, 6th Floor
Dallas TX 75254
972-277-0319

January 20, 2012

Paul C. Besozzi
Ryan W. King
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington DC 20037
202-457-5292

SUMMARY

Petitioners seek to have the Department of Telecommunications and Cable
("Department" or "DTC") declare "unjust and unreasonable" the inmate calling service ("ICS")
rate-cap regime adopted by the Department's predecessor in 1998, reconfirmed in 2004 and
enforced through filed tariffs since then. Petitioners also complain of quality-of-service and
customer service problems for which the Department should regulate standards.
The Petition, filed in August of 2009 and amended twice thereafter, was docketed by the
Department in November of 2011. In doing so, the Department required Securus Technologies,
Inc. ("Securus" or "Company"), a leading provider of ICS in Massachusetts and elsewhere, to
respond to the Petitioners' claims.
Petitioners contend that the rate-cap regime, and in particular the right of ICS providers
to impose up to a $3.00 per-call surcharge on collect calls, is "unjust and unreasonable"
primarily because (a) legitimate, contract-based compensation paid by Securus to the county
confinement facilities it serves is not a cost of providing ICS and (b) the additional costs of ICS
that the Department found justified the per-call surcharge have since been "eliminated."
Securus respectfully submits that compensation payments imposed by facility
administrators as a requirement to serve their facilities are "legitimate additional costs associated
with inmate calling services." Contrary decisions by two state agencies and the FCC do not bind
the Department. Commission payments to county facilities used.to support "prisoner programs
and amenities" (as described by Petitioners) are a legal business reality and to now ignore or
exclude them as a cost of providing ICS is punitive and, in and of itself, would be unjust and
unreasonable.

1

Further, despite Petitioners conclusory surmise based on primarily general statements as
much as 10 years old by a consultant declarant in an FCC proceeding, the additional costs, which
the Department recognized were driven by the "unique characteristics" of ICS, remain.
Petitioners have offered no specific data to the contrary. While in some areas there have been
some efficiencies from centralization or adjusted carrier costs, Securus on the other hand, based
on its own internal assessment, has projected that since 2008 its overall per-call costs have
increased by 16.5 %.
What may have happened to per-call rates at other State Department of Correction
("DOC") systems between 2004 and 2008, even if correct, cannot be a basis for concluding now
that a cap of $4.50 for a 15 minute intraLATA collect call is unjust and unreasonable. This is
particularly the case when the "commensurate ... [rate] charged to the general public for like
services" would, for a payphone served by Verizon, be $4.99 per call plus $0.89 per minute.
Securus respectfully submits that the Petitioners have failed to carry their substantial
burden of demonstrating that the Department's thoughtfully adopted policy has now become
unjust and unreasonable. There is no basis for changing it based on what Petitioners have
brought forward or expending further Department resources on hearings or further proceedings.
The Petitioners request to eliminate the per-call surcharge in its entirety and reduce the perminute rate cap should be denied.
With respect to quality-of-service issues, Securus devotes substantial resources, both in
terms of dollars and people, to service quality and customer service.

The Company has

dedicated field technicians residing in Massachusetts. It has brought in house all customerservice responsibilities and now has 200 customer service personnel to assist customers on a
round-the-clock basis. Securus' investigation of the thirty-two (32) affiants found that many

11

made general, unspecified claims and less than half (Le., eleven (11)) actually contacted Securus
customer service. None of the affiants raised complaints with the Department, the FCC, the
State Attorney General, the State Office of COP'sumer Affairs and Business Regulation or the
Better Business Bureau. None of the affiants "escalated" whatever complaints that they may
have made to Securus Customer Service to the Company's executive level. Securus is extremely
cognizant of its customer service obligations. The Company's facility customers have rated its
service highly. There is no need for an additional regulatory regime beyond what the Department
currently imposes.

ill

·"i

TABLE OF CONTENTS·

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2

II.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 4
A.
Procedural History And Status Of Docket ......................................................... 4

III.

B.

The Genesis Of The Existing Approved Rate Structure For Inmate
Calling Service In Massachusetts ......................................................................... 5

C.

The Dep~rtment's 1998 Order And Aftermath .................................................. 7

D. .

Securus ICS Operations, Including In Massachusetts ....................................... 9

RESPONSE TO THE PETITION ........................... :............... :..................................... 11
A.
Petitioners Bear The Burden Of Proof.............................................................. 12
B.

The Standard By Which The Current Rate Structure Must Be
Measured .............................................................................................................. 13

C.

Commission Payments Are A Legitimate Additional Cost Associated
With Inmate Calling Services ............................................................................. 14

D.

The Unique Characteristics Of ICS Continue To Produce Additional
Costs That Justify Retention Of The Current Rate Structure ........................ 18
1.
2.

E.

System And Security Costs Down Dramatically .................................. 20
Live Operators And High Wages And Infrastructure Needed
To Support Them Are Gone ................................................................... 20
3.
Reduction In Transport Costs As Transport Technologies
Iniproved And Lower Access Charges And Switching Costs ............. 21
4.
Reduction In Regulation And Regulatory Costs Of Providing
Long Distance .......................................................................................... 22
5.
Economies Of Serving Many Facilities From A Central
·Location ................................... ,................................................................ 23
6.
Advanced Recording Technologies Including Reduction In Size
And Cost Of Storage Devices ................................................................. 23
7.
Substantial Elimination Of Un collectibles ............................................ 23
8.
Savings On Billing And Collection From Prepaid Systems ................ 24
ICS Rate Changes In Other States Do Not Warrant Abandonment Of
Massachusetts Existing Rate-Cap Structure .................................................... 25

F.

Service Fees Are Necessary Administrative Costs Associated With
Enhanced Billing Options ................................................................................... 29

G.

There Is No Justification For Reducing The Per-Minute Rate Cap .............. 30

H.

Securus Invests Substantial Time and Resources In Order To Provide
High Quality ICS And Customer Service ......................................................... 31
1.
2.

IV.

Securus Quality And Customer Service Policies .................................. 31
Petitioners' Securus-Specific Service Problems ................................... 34
a.
Poor Connection Problems ......................................................... 35
b.
DiscOilDected Or Dropped Calls ................................................ 36
c.
Call Reporting And Details Of Charges ..... ,.............................. 37
d.
Customer Service Problems ....................................................... 37

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF ......................................................... 38

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - DTE Industry Notice
Exhibit 2 - Securus Massachusetts Tariff
Exhibit 3 - Verizo~ Tariff Excerpt
Exhibit 4 - Securus Letter to FCC, CC Docket No. 96-128
Exhibit 5 - InVision Initial Comments, D.P.U.ID.T.E. 97-88/97-18
Exhibit 6 - Securus Friends & Family Telephone Service Guide
Exhibit 7 - Customer Satisfaction Survey Summary
Ex.hibit 8 - Securus Customer Service Record Analysis

2

Before The
THE COMMONWEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

Petition Of Recipients Of Collect Calls
From Prisoners at Correctional Institutions
In Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust
And Unreasonable Cost of such Calls

)
)
)

D.T.C. 11-16

)
)
)
)

RESPONSE OF SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securlls" or "Company"), l acting through counsel, hereby
responds to the captioned Petition ("Petition") filed by certain individuals and legal organizations
("Petitioners") concerning (a) the current, approved rate regime for collect calls by inmates at
Massachusetts correctional facilities and (b) certain related quality of service issues. This
response ("Response") is timely filed in accordance with the Department of Telecommunications
and Cable ("DTC" or "Department") "Order On Motions To Extend Time For Responses," dated
November 18, 2011 ("Extension Order")? In support of its Response, Securus hereby sets forth
the following.

I Unless otherwise specified, as used herein, these terms refer to Securus and its predecessor Evercom Systems, Inc.
("Evercom")

2 Unless otherwise specified herein, the term "Department" shall include the Department of Telecommunications
and Cable and its jurisdictional predecessors, the Department of Telecommunications & Energy ("DTE") and the
Department of Public Utilities ("DPU").

I.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioners first challenge as unjust and unreasonable a Department-imposed rate regime

for inmate calling service ("ICS") providers approved by the Department in 1998, reconfirmed in
2004 and enforced through the tariffing process to this day. To carry their complainant's burden

of proof, Petitioners argue that the cost to ICS providers of complying with legitimate
contractual obligations to compensate the confinement facilities in Massachusetts such providers
serve now cannot be considered a cost of providing ICS. Next, citing primarily general assertions
(some as much as 10 years old) by a consultant engaged by a similar group in an FCC
proceeding concerning interstate ICS rates, and without offering any specific cost information
relating to Securus, Petitioners assert that certain Securus' costs, which the Department
acknowledged reflected the unique characteristics of ICS, . have "been almost entirely
eliminated.,,3 Lastly Petitioners cite questionably accurate and dated information from what has
happened to ICS rates at State Department of Corrections systems in other states to justify a
radical restructuring of the current Department-approved rate regime, seeking elimination in its
entirety of any per-call surcharge and reducing the approved per-minute usage now at $0.10 per
minute.
Securus respectfully submits that commission payments to the confinement facilities that
it serves are a direct and attributable cost of its providing service to those facilities. To hold
otherwise, which the Department has never done and is not obligated to do based on decisions in
other jurisdictions, ignores business realities. There has been· no change in the unique
characteristics of ICS,. with respect to security and other special needs. If anything, these

3

Petition, at p. 8.

2

requirements have become more sophisticated to counter the efforts by inmates to avoid security
restrictions and engage in activities such as call forwarding and three-way calling. Indeed, on
October 11, 2011, Securus filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
indicating that the Company's overall per-call costs had increased approximately 16.3% since
2008 and that its overall per-minute costs had increased approximately 16.5% since that year.
This information was provided at the request of the FCC as a follow on to an Inmate Telephone
Industry cost study (the "Wood Study") previously filed with that Commission on August 15,
2008.
Petitioners also cite quality of service and customer service issues that they claim justify
the imposition of certain regulatory requirements in the cited areas. Securus investigated each of
the thirty-two (32) affiants submitted by Petitioners citing Securus4 and found that none of the
averred concerns were ever presented (a) to Securus for resolution directly as "escalated
complaints"S or (b) through more formal complaint channels such as the DTC, the FCC, the
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office ("AGO"), the state Office of Consumer Affairs and
Business Regulations ("OCABR"), or the Better Business Bureau ("BBB"). Further, a thorough
review of Securus' internal Customer Care records was also conducted for the 32 Petitioners'
complaints where identifiable information was provided to determine whether any of the
complaints had contacted the company directly for assistance concerning the areas cited in their
complaints. Based on this investigation, well over half of the affiants (some twenty-one (21))
never contacted Securus Customer Care for assistance with the enumerated concerns expressed

Exhibit A-II to Amendment #1, an Affidavit of Chery1 Williams actually cites Global Tel Link as the provider of
service. So Securus counts 32 specific complainants.

4

In Securus customer service system, complaints that are not resolved or addressed at the customer service level
may be escalated to the attention of the Company's Executive level management for decision. These are referred to
as "escalated complaints."

5

3

in the thirty-two (32) affidavits. A copy of Securus' findings is discussed below, with the detail
provided in a separate exhibit to this Response.
Securus cannot reasonably be expected to address complaints that it does not receive
through its readily available customer-service network. Nevertheless, Securus recognizes that
quality of service and customer service are of critical importance and continues to invest
significant resources to ensure that complaints are mInimized and, when they do arise and are
reported, are handled in a prompt and courteous matter.
II.

BACKGROUND
A.

Procedural History And Status Of Docket

The Petition was apparently filed with the Department on or about August 31,2009. That
filing was thereafter amended on or about May 18, 2010 6 and further amended on or about April
27,2011. 7
On November 10,2011, the Department served on Securus by electronic mail a "Letter to
Parties RE: Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls from Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in
Massachusetts Seeking reHel/rom the Unjust and Unreasonable Cost of such Calls, D.T.C. 11-

16" ("Initiating Letter") announcing that it had, on November 10, 2011, opened the docket "for
the Petitioners' Complaint .,,8 The Initiating Letter provided that Securus had until November 21,

6

Amendment #1 And Supplement On Quality Of Service, May 18,2010 ("Amendment #1").

7 Amendment #2: Additional Petitioners, April 27, 2011 ("Amendment #2"). The original Petition and the two
Amendments thereto are hereinafter, unless otherwise specified, collectively referred to as the Petition. Although the
Petition was apparently sent to Securus office at the time of its filing, neither of the Amendments was so provided to
Securus.
8 The Department noted that Petitioners "filed a second amendment to cure flaws in their Petition and First
Amendment that prevented the Department from opening a docket for their request." Initiating Letter, at p.2.

4

2011 to answer the "Complaint.,,9 The Letter also reflected that the Docket would be handled by

Hearing Officer Kalun Lee.
After receiving motions to extend the time to respond from both Securus and other
inmate calling service ("ICS") providers, the Department, by Order dated November 18, 2011,
extended the time for this Response until January 20,2012.
Since the Petition is fundamentally a· request for a new rulemaking, asking the
Department to revise the long-established existing rate caps for ICS providers in Massachusetts
established by the DTC's predecessors and to impose certain service quality requirements,
Securus respectfully submits that a brief review of the genesis of the existing rate cap regime is
particularly appropriate.
B.

The Genesis Of The Existing Approved Rate Structure For Inmate Calling
Service In Massachusetts

The Department's current rate structure for ICS providers was founded on decisions
dating to the late 1980s relating to the charges that could be imposed by alternative operator
service ("AOS") providers. At that time AOS providers were given the option of having their
intrastate rates set based on an adjudicated rate proceeding applying standard rate-of-return
regulation principles. However, "[c]ognizant of the time, expense and administrative burden
involved in presenting a rate case," the Department also allowed such providers to "base [their]
rates on the rates offered for similar intrastate services provided by [New England Telephone]
NET and AT&T" by filing tariffs with rates that were equal to or less than the corresponding
rates for AT&T (interLATA) or the incumbent local exchange carrier (e.g., New England

The Petition relies on Sections 14, 17 and 24 of Chapter 159 of the Massachusetts General Laws as a basis to
request a proceeding be opened and a hearing be conducted. Petition, at p. 3.

9

5

Telephone) then on file. lO This rate cap included rates for any operator surcharges on such calls.
This regime was applied to ICS providers as a type of AOS provider.
The Department reasoned that "[e]xisting rates for NET's intraLATA services and
AT&T's rates for interLATA services have been found to be just and reasonable for those
companies based on traditional ratemaking principles .... Effective prices to end-users equal to or
less than those of the existing dominant carriers will provide protection to consumers from unjust
and unreasonable rates without need for further investigation."ll This option was a Departmentapproved "alternative to cost-based rates" provided the "total rate charged to the end-user,
including [any] surcharge, may not exceed those rates charged by NET and AT&T.,,12
Starting in 1992, the Department began to grant regulatory flexibility to both AT&T and
New England Telephone in the pricing of their operator services callsY

And in 1994 the

Department commenced a proceeding on it own motion to investigate "the regulatory treatment
of alternative operator service providers within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.,,14

10 International Telecharge, Inc., D.P.U. 97-72/88-72, 97 PUR4th 349,356 (1988) ("IT!'). The Department noted
that "traditional cost of service ratemaking standards ... would require the Department to review the reasonableness
of expenses, rate base and rate of return." Id

11 ITI, 97 PUR4th at 356 (citations omitted); see also NY COM, Inc., D.P.U. 88-69/88-87, 101 PUR4th 65,67 (1988)
("NY COM'). In 1993, the Department clarified that AOS providers had the option of providing statewide rates (for
both inter- and intra-LATA calls) that were identical to the corresponding rates of AT&T. Letter, dated March 19,
1993, from the Department of Public Utilities TO: All Companies Providing Alternative Operator Services RE:
Intrastate Pricing of Alternative Operator Services.
12 Id The use of such an "alternative to cost-based rates" belies the Petitioners' assertion that the Department must
use a,n "actual costs" focus. Petition, at pp. 7-8; see also Access Charge Order, irifra, n. 19.

See AT&T Communications of New England, Inc., D.P.U. 91-79, 1992 WL 506126 (1992) and D.P.U. 95-131,
174 PUR4th 38 (1996); New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, D.P.U. 94-50, 1995 WL 38680 (1995) ..
At the time of the 1995 decision SUbjecting AT&T operator services to full "market pricing" and lifting all rate caps
on AT&T, the O.P.U. retained the caps on AOS providers while noting that it would determine at a later date
whether this policy should be modified and if so how. 174 PUR4th at 42, n. 6.
13

14 D.P.U. Order, dated March 23, 1994, initiating D.P.U 93-118. The Order cited a petition filed by an rcs provider,
Value-Added Communications, Inc. d/b/a Value Access Communications, seeking exemption for rcs providers
from the AOS regulations.

6

Although the D.P.U. took comments in the proceeding, it never proceeded with the docket.
Rather, in September of 1997, the D.P.U. found that "it is necessary to investigate the rate policy
for operator services providers ('OSPs')." It consolidated this investigation with a previously
initiated proceeding involving several matters relating to pay telephone service, D.P.U. 97-18
(Phase H).l5

c.

The Department's 1998 Order And Aftermath

As noted by the Petition, in April of 1998, the Department issued an order in that
combined docket addressing the rate policy for operator service providers. The Department
generally found that "the reasons for the OSP rate cap and continued rate regulation of OSPs no
longer exist.,,16 However, the Department maintained its regulation ofICS rates, noting:
"Since inmates have no option to access another long distance
provider, they must use the presubscribed OSP at a prison
payphone. As there are no competitive alternatives for inmates, the
Department will continue to regulate inmate calling services
providers as dominant carriers and, accordingly, will continue to
'cap' their rates. However, we find that it is necessary to modify
the existing rate cap mechanism on inmate calling services to
provide for rate recovery of legitimate costs incurred in providing
inmate calling services. Under the existing cap, rates of
independent inmate calling services providers are capped at those
rates charged by Bell Atlantic or AT&T (depending on whether the
call is intraLATA or intrastate), and, therefore, independent inmate
calling services may be precluded from recovering legitimate
additional costs associated with inmate calling services. The
record demonstrates that the unique characteristics of inmate
calling services produce per-call costs which are higher than costs
for conventional OSP calls .... These additional costs include
(1) costs associated with call processing systems, automated
15

Vote To Open Investigation And Order On Consolidation, dated September 2, 1997, D.P.U. 97-88/97-18 Phase II.

16 Investigation by the Department of Teleco11Jmunications and Energy on its own motion regarding (1)
implementation of Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relative to Public Interest Payphones, (2)
Entry and Exit Barriers for the Payphone Marketplace, (3) New England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a
NYNEX's Public Access Smart-pay Line Service, and (4) the rate policy for operator services providers, ORDER
ON PAYPHONE BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND EXIT, AND OSP RATE CAP, D.P.U.ID.T.E. 97-88/97-18 (Phase II),
at p.8 (April 17, 1988) ("April 1998 Order").

7

operators, call recording and monitoring equipment, and fraud
control programs, that are required to ensure security and deter
abuses; (2) higher levels ofuncollectibles; and (3) higher personnel
costs.... The record shows that AT&T, MCI and Sprint
Communications impose $3.00 per call surcharges in 33 states to
cover their additional costs, and that the costs of these providers do
not differ significantly from state to state .... We can reasonably
rely upon these carriers as a proxy for the costs of inmate callings
services providers in Massachusetts .... Therefore, the Department
will allow inmate calling services providers, to charge a maximum
surcharge of $3.00 for such calls. This surcharge cap will apply to
all inmate calling services providers, including Bell Atlantic and
AT&T. Regarding usage rates for inter- and intraLATA inmate
calling services calls, we find that it is reasonable and appropriate
to cap carriers' rates at those of Bell Atlantic."l7
Six years later, on September 4, 2004, the Department reconfirmed this rate regime in
connection with a change to Verizon rates for collect inmate calls. Verizon amended its leS
tariff to increase the per-call surcharge to $1.75 per call and set a flat usage rate of $.10 per
minute. The Department stated that the "usage or flat-rate per call charge for either a local, intraor interLATA call cannot exceed the usage rate that would be charged by Verizon-MA for a
corresponding 'average' local or intraLATA call," with 15 minutes being used by the
Department as the average length of a collect inmate call."l8 The Department reaffirmed that

"[p]roviders of collect inmate calling services may continue to charge an incremental surcharge
not to exceed $3.00 per call. ... " To be in compliance with the rate-cap policy, revised tariffs
were to be filed by December 1, 2004. This rate cap regime for ICS providers remains in effect

17

!d., at p. 9 (emphasis supplied) (footnotes omitted).

18 Department of Telecommunications & Energy, **REISSUED** INDUSTRY NOTICE, COLLECT INMATE
CALLS - RATE CAP, September 3, 2004. Attached as Exhibit 1.

8

today. By statute, all

rcs rates tariffed in accordance with this policy are "deemed prima facia

lawful" and remain so until the Department changes or modifies them. 19
D.

Securus ICS Operations, Including In Massachusetts

Securus is licensed and certified to provide

rcs in all fifty (50) states and the District of

Columbia. However, as of December 1,2011, Securus had contracts to provide such services to
correctional facilities in forty-four (44) states and in the District of Columbia. Securus ,serves
approximately 2,300 correctional facility sites (locations) throughout the states in which it
operates. The overwhelming majority of these sites are "County" jail facilities.
The Company has been an innovator in the development of rcs technology, investing
millions of dollars in research and development ("R&D") for state-of-the art

rcs calling systems

or software, which Securus has patented and deployed at substantial additional expense in a
number of the facilities that it serves, including those in Massachusetts. Securus continues to
make those investments in new technology and commits an average of $10 million each year to
advance its industry leading capabilities through reinvestment in its employees, platforms and
products, at least a portion of which benefits Massachusetts. 2o
Securus or its predecessors have provided

res

in Massachusetts since 1997, pursuant to

tariffs filed with and approved by the Department. Securus does not provide

rcs

at any of the

19 Mass O.L. c.159 §17. In 2009, the Department, citing the April 1998 Order, applied the same proxy rate setting
methodology to setting intrastate access rates for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, even though there had been
no cost analysis of Verizon's intrastate access rates. Petition of Verizon New England, Inc. et al. for Investigation
under Chapter 159, Section 14, of the Intrastate Access Rates of Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, D.T.C. 07-9,
FinalOrder, at pp. 21-23 (June 22,2009) ("Access Charge Order").

The Company currently holds 85 issued patents, 4 allowed patents and another 35 patent applications are
pending.

20

9

Massachusetts Department of Correction State Prisons. Rather, Securus currently services the
following eighteen (18) County correctional facilities sites: 21
1. Ash Street Jail and Regional Lock Up
2. Barnstable County Corrections Facility
3. Berkshire County House of Correction
4. Billerica House of Correction (Middlesex)
5. Bristol County Faunce Comer
6. Dukes County Jail
7. Essex County Lawrence Correctional Alternative
8. Essex County Middleton Jail and House of Correction
9. Essex County Women In Transit Facility
10. Franklin County Jail
11. Hampden County Correctional Facility
12. Hampden County Womens Correctional Facility
13. Middlesex County Cambridge Jail
14. Plymouth County Correctional
15. Suffolk County Jail
16. Suffolk County House of Corrections
17. West Massachusetts Correctional Alcohol
18. Worcester County Jail
In Securus' experience, most of the inmates in the facilities it serves are often there for relatively
short terms and can be reflective of all levels of society in the surrounding locales.

Petitioners refer to certain counties as being "abolished" (e.g., Hampden, Worcester). Petition, Appendix IV.
Whatever their current political status, Securus continues to perform its obligations under its contracts with the
county entities that are parties thereto.
21

10

To help service these facilities, Securus has three local field technicians dedicated to its
Massachusetts operations who collectively have over thirty-five (35) years of experience in the
ICS industry. In addition, Securus' Massachusetts accounts are supported by a local Account
Manager as well as the Regional Sales & Support Specialist and the Regional Vice President all
of whom live in the Commonwealth.
In each case Securus' contracts with these facilities it serves were obtained through a
competitive bidding process with the specifications and requirements for the inmate telephone
system established by the facilities and their administrators. Securus had and has no role in
setting those specifications and requirements. Further, the rates and billing options for calls from
each of these facilities are established in consultation with the facility administrators and are
tariffed to the extent required by the Department. 22 All such charges have been and are consistent
and in accordance with the Department's long~standing and current rate cap policy.

III.

RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
Petitioners leave no stone untumed in their effort to argue that the current rate caps

embody "unjust and unreasonable" rates, at one point implying. that Securus and the confinement
facilities it services are contributing

~o

recidivism by denying inmates the right to use ICS

whenever they want to and are the cause of certain budget cuts experienced by some
Petitioners.23 Securus will not comment on inmates' legal rights to access telephone service or·
budget adjustments, but rather further responds to the Petition as follows:

Securus current Massachusetts tariff reflecting its various rate offerings is attached as Exhibit 2. Note, Petitioners'
allege that "debit calling is not an option at county facilities." Petition, at p. 1, n. 2. However, prepaid calling cards
and debit accounts are a tariffed option under Securus tariff should facility administrators decide to offer same.

22

23 See Petition, at pp. 5, 6. The probative value (for the relief requested by Petitioners in this proceeding) of
Petitioners' recitation about the gross dollar amount of calls is difficult to understand when there is no information
provided about the number of inmates calling, the number of calls involved calls or their duration. Moreover, county
facility administrators in Massachusetts are authorized to set policies regarding the privileges of inmates to use
telephones, including the specific hours of calling and the length of calls. See 103 CMR §948.1 o.

11

A.

Petitioners Bear The Burden Of Proof

The Petition "complains" that the current, Department-approved rate structure for lCS in
Massachusetts is in fundamental respects "unjust and unreasonable" and should be changed. The
burden of establishing this to be the case lies squarely and wholly with the Petitioners. As the
Court held in Metropolitan District Commission v. Department of Public Utilities, 352 Mass. 18,
25 (1967):
"Thus, where a reduction or other adjustment is sought in an
existing rate (e.g. under G.L.c 164, Section 93) which has been
approved for general application, the party seeking the benefit of
such adjustment has the burden of proving that the existing rate
should be changed. Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. United States,
238 U.S. 1, 11. Swift & Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 373, 382.
Antioch Milling Co. v. Pub. Servo Co. of No. Ill. 4 Ill. 2d 200,209.
Carpenter V. Home Tel. Co. 122 Vt. 50, 55. Cooper, State
Administrative Law 355. See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise,
Section 14.14; 5 U.S.C Section 1006 (c) (1958) (Section 7 [c] of
the Administrative Procedure Act).
The reason for this rule was aptly stated in Antioch Milling Co ... ,
supra, 209. 'Certainly as a practical matter a utility should not, in
the absence of explicit legislative direction, be required to embark
on a full dress justification of its r~te structure every time an
individual customer files a complaint .... [l]n complaint proceedings
the burden is upon the complainant to show that existing rates are
unreasonable or discriminatory.' "
And as noted above, the existing, approved lCS rate structure is by statute deemed prima
facie lawful until the Department concludes that the Petitioners have met their burden and holds
otherwise. 24 Securus respectfully submits for the various reasons outlined below, the Petitioners
have fallen far short of meeting that obligation.

24

Mass G.L. C.

159 § 17.

12

B.

The Standard By Which The Current Rate Structure Must Be Measured

As the Department concluded when it adopted the existing rate cap regime, the
Department's task under the applicable statute and its decisions relevant to ICS providers is to
"ensure by way of a regulatory scheme that ... [the] rates are just and reasonable.,,25 As the
Department held in the April 1998 Order rates that satisfy this standard include the right for ICS
providers to recover "legitimate additional costs incurred in providing inmate calling services"
and cannot be set at levels which preclude ICS providers from "recovering legitimate additional
costs associated with inmate calling services.,,26
Petitioners offer an array of additional characterizations of the standard to be applied in
assessing the existing, lawful, previously-approved rate structure. For example, at various points
Petitioners refer to "actual necessarily incurred costs," "actual costs," "appropriate necessarily
incurred costs," "necessarily incurred costs" or "necessarily incurred recoverable costs" of
providing ICS. 27 Petitioners point to no decision of the Department or the Massachusetts courts
which articulates/adopts/approves any of its variously-worded standards in this regard as applied
to ICS or for that matter other services.
Petitioners also cite at several junctures a standard contained in the Department of
Corrections ("DOC") regulations and advanced by other policy statements - "commensurate
with [rates] charged to the general public for like services.,,28 The fact of the matter is that if that
standard were applied the current rate to the "general public" for an automated collect call in
Massachusetts from a public pay telephone presubscribed to Verizon as the carrier consists of a
25
26

I TL supra; NY COM, supra; Mass G.L. c.159 §§ 14, 17.
April 1998 Order, supra.

27

See, e.g., Petition, at pp. 2, 3, 4,8, 11, 12.

28

See id., at p. 30 (citing American Correctional Association); see also, id., at p.l (citing 103 CMR §482.01) and 3.

13

$4.99 per-call surcharge plus $0.89 per minute. 29 So Securus' ICS rates, ~s currently capped by

the April 1998 Order, are far below what a member of the general public would pay using
Verizon services from a payphone, including one that might be in the publicly accessible lobby
of a confinement facility.

c.

Commission Payments Are A Legitimate Additional Cost Associated With
Inmate Calling Services

Petitioners first argue that the compensation payments to facilities required under the
competitive Request For Proposals ("RFPs") and subsequent service contracts for ICS cannot be
considered as Securus' costs for purposes of determining whether the existing rate structure
meets the "just and reasonable" standard. Rather, these payments, since they are not made for
"telephone-related purposes," represent Securus' "profits" which the Company chooses on its
own volition to share with county confinement facility administrators. 3o Petitioners cite decisions
by the FCC and state commissions in Georgia and Alaska in support of their position that these
payments cannot be considered as costs of providing ICS services and assessing the justness and
reasonableness of rates. As a result, Petitioners contend that the Department-sanctioned $3.00
per call surcharge, which Petitioners claim is now imposed solely in order to generate "profits"
to pay the contractually required commissions, is an unjust and unreasonable charge and must be
eliminated in its entirety.
First, as in virtually all other states, contracts to provide ICS at the county facilities in
Massachusetts are generally awarded pursuant to a competitive bidding process. The facility
29

A copy ofVerizon's current relevant tariff pages are attached as Exhibit 3.

While touting the "profit concept" at one point the Petitioners describe commissions as the "largest single
category of prisoner payPhone expense incurred by providers." Petition, at pp. 11-12 (emphasis supplied).
Presumably as an example of the extent of the "profits" petitioners also claim gross annual proceeds "per prisoner
bed" of "over $1000" in some county facilities as evidence of the magnitude of these "profits," but provide no
information as to numbers of prisoners, number of calls, duration of calls relating to those figures, so Securus
respectfully submits that they are meaningless as a measure of alleged "profits." Id, pA.
30

14

administrators prepare and issue the RFPs for these contracts and impose the requirements to
participate in the bidding process. Securus has no role in deciding the contents of RFPs or the
requirements for compensation to the facility.
Compensation to the facilities for the opportunity to install equipment and provide the
ICS is a confinement-facility-dictated requirement and has been since the ICS industry was first
authorized in the Commonwealth. Petitioners do not challenge the authority or right of the
facilities to include such a requirement in their RFPs. Indeed, the Department of Corrections'
authority to require and enter into agreements providing for such compensation has been
affirmed by the Massachusetts

COurtS.

31

Securus submits that the administrators of county

facilities served by Securus are no less authorized to do so.32
Second, the practical reality is that 'in light of these facility-imposed requirements any bid
response that indicated that; no compensation would be paid would be non-responsive and the
bidder would be disqualified. So compensation in the form of commission payments is a cost
directly associated with and necessary to Securus (or any other bidder participating) providing
ICS at these facilities in Massachusetts.
Contractually required commission payments to government-operated correctional
. facilities are no different than any other fees or payments Securus is required to make to other
government agencies. Things such as state business license fees, state regulatory fees, number
portability fees, operating permits, and numerous other fees and government-required payments
are costs that Securus must pay if it wishes to do business in a state or county. The application
31 See Carol Breest et at. v. Larry DuBois, 1997 WL 449898 (Mass. Super.), at p. 8 (Because institutional telephones
can be used by inmates to disrupt security, safety and order, the DOC has the power to regulate inmate access to,
and use of prison telephones and incidental or necessary to exercise of that power may enter into contracts requiring
payment of commissions).
32 County correctional filCility administrators have broad authorizations regarding the operation of those facilities
under 103 CMR Part 900.

15

of these fees and charges, just as the contractually required facility commissions, are imposed on
Securus as a matter of public policy and are not a matter of choice or discretion to Securus. Any
ICS that refuses to pay these government-mandated fees 'would not be permitted to operate in the
state or county where such payments are required. Payment of commissions is a direct cost of
doing business. 33 The Company accounts for these costs on its books in this fashion. By any
reasonable standard, compensation payments directly required as part of the contracts to provide
the services are "legitimate ",dditional costs associated" with providing ICS in Massachusetts.
Third, while state regulators in Georgia and Alaska may have chosen to mandate the
exclusion of commissions in their states when assessing ICS rates, those decisions are not
binding on the Department. 34 Moreover, the Department has never so decided or mandated such
an exclusion. Petitioners apparently argue that because commissions were not "listed" as one of
the additional costs associated with the "unique characteristics" of ICS in the April 1998 Order,
the Department in effect decided that they should be excluded or they cannot be included.
However, as clearly reflected in the text of that Order, the costs cited were not an exclusive list.

35

Indeed, the Department was well aware of these additional compensation-related costs in
considering the rate structure for ICS. 36 Furthermore, other jurisdictions have implicitly
33 In this respect, it is no different than the demand by a location owner to an independent payphone provider for
compensation in return for the placement of a pay telephone on the location owner's premises. In that regards, the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska conceded that a portion of commission payments "may indude amounts intended
to compensate DOC for use of space for inmate calling areas (and possibly telecommunications equipment funded
by DOC rather than" the ICS provider. Those amounts are related to provision oflCS. RE Evercom Systems, Inc., U00-143, Order No.5, 2001 WL 1246903 (RCA), at 4.

See Access Charge Order, at p. 25 (citing In re W. Elec. Co., D.P.U. 92-8C). Nor is the Department obligated to
adopt the rationale of the FCC on this subject. Indeed, it is worthy to note that the FCC, unlike the Department, has
imposed no rate caps or restrictions on interstate ICS calls.

34

35 Petitioners conveniently ignore the word "include" which by conventional defmition means "to take in or
comprise as part of a whole or group." www.merriam-webster.comldictionary/inc1ude.

36 See e.g., Initial Comments of AT&T Communications Of New England, Inc., July 22, 1994, D.P.U. 93-118, at p.
4 ("added costs of commission expenses to the prison") ..

16

recognized that compensation to the facilities IS clearly a cost associated with providing the
services. 37 Indeed, in at least one case, the regulatory agency determined that it had no
jurisdiction over that component of the carrier's costS. 38
Fourth, it cannot be ignored, at least from a public policy perspective and as conceded by
the Petitioners, that in the case of the facilities served by Securus these commission payments
inure to the benefit of the inmates ("prisoner programs and other prisoner amenities,,).39
Petitioners complain that the cost of these benefits should be underwritten by the government.
That is a plea that properly should be directed to those who appropriate or otherwise allocate
funds to operate the facilities and not in the context of an assertion that the Department-approved
rates now do not meet a 'just and reasonable" standard. 40 To the extent that the surcharge were
eliminated and compensation to the county facilities from the Ies providers were reduced, and
replacement funds were not provided, then presumably these inmate benefits and amenities
would have to be truncated or perhaps even eliminated. 41 Thus, these commission payments fund
vital programs for which there could be no other state or county source of funding.
See, e.g., Mario L. Sims, Sr. et al. v. AT&T, and its Contract With the Indiana DOC, 2001 Ind. PUC Lexis 503
(Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 2001) (Commission rejects allegations that AT&T inmate rates are
unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory where commissions acknowledged as cost to be covered by rates) ("IURC
Order").
37

See Ordinary Tariff Filing of MCl WorldCom Communications to Change maximum Security Rate Plan for New
York State Department of Corrections from a Mileage-Sensitive Structure for IntraLATA and interLATA to a Flat
Rqte Structure,. 2003 N.Y. PUC Lexis 616 (New York Public Service Commission, 2003) (In challenge alleging
among other things that commission payments were unlegislated tax levied by the DOC, Commission finds that it
could review only the jurisdictional portion of the rate that reflected what MClretained from the provision ofICS).
38

39

..
See PetltlOn,
at p. 2.

40 Petitioners assert that in this respect the commissions are akin to a tax imposed upon them to support the prisoner
programs and amenities. See e.g., Petition, at pp. 13, 31. This argument has been addressed and rejected by at least
one court. See In the Matter oflvey Walton et al. v New York State Department of Correctional Services, 2009 NY
Int. 168 (Court of Appeals 2009).

In some jurisdictions where such compensation payments to facilities have been legislatively or otherwise
proscribed (e.g., Rhode Island and New York), the legislature has simultaneously appropriated funds from other
sources to support such inmate-focused services.

41

17

Securus respectfully submits that commission payments currently required by facilities
under competed IeS contracts in Massachusetts are "legitimate additional costs associated" with
the provision of IeS service. They are a component of the costs that Securus must pay in
conjunction with providing that service to facilities served by Securus. To consider commission
payments as a form of shared "profit" implies that there is a for-profit "business partnership"
between Securus and its customers and ignores conventional business reality.42 The Petitioners'
line of reasoning on this issue should be rejected by the Department.
D.

The Unique Characteristics Of ICS Continue To Produce Additional Costs
That Justify Retention Of The Current Rate Structure

Petitioners would have the Department believe that the additional costs associated with
the "unique characteristics" of Ies cited by the Department in the April 1998 Order (and in
effect reconfirmed by the Department in 2004) as justification for the up-to-$3.00 surcharge
"have been almost entirely eliminated.,,43 Therefore, the surcharge can be done away with in its
entirety as well.
In support of their elimination assertion, however, Petitioners they offer no current cost
analysis or data. Rather, they principally support their claim with reference to two
Declarations, the most recent dated some 4 years ago. The Declarations were made by a paid
consultant for a group similar to Petitioners that has been asking the Fee to reregulate
interstate rates for IeS calls for some of the same reasons raised in the Petition. To date the
Fee has declined to do so.

A profit is the surplus remaining after total costs are deducted f~om total revenue, and the basis on which tax is
computed and dividend is paid. www.businessdictionary.com/detinitioniprofit.html. Since Securus is obligated to
pay commissions as a cost of serving the facilities with ICS those costs are not "remaining" with Securus.
42

43

P ebbon,
..
at p. 8.

18

Primarily based on reference to statements in these Declarations, the Petition makes a
series of general assertions, but again provides no specific data on the degree or extent to
which Securus costs have declined or disappeared. The fact is, as Securus stipulated to the
FCC, overall per-call costs had increased approximately 16.3% since 2008 and that the
Company's overall per-minute costs had increased approximately 16.5% since 2008.

44

This

dispositive fact aside, Petitioners' "cost analysis" must be found wanting in other fundamental
respects.
First, the Petitioners' analysis focuses on the three categories of costs specifically
mentioned in the April 1998 Order - "(1) costs associated with call processing systems,
automated operators, call recording and monitoring equipment, and fraud control programs,
that are required to ensure security and deter abuses; (2) higher levels of uncollectibles; and (3)
higher personnel costs." But as noted above, that list was not exclusive. The Department noted
that the "additional costs" included these, but not only these. 45 The InVision Initial Comments
cited by Petition and the April 1998 Order also refer to call control systems, database checks,
voice overlays, customized call detail reports and research and development costs. Petitioners
conveniently ignore these costs and do not claim that they have too literally disappeared. None
of these categories, including the Petitioners' abbreviated list of costs, have been eliminated.
Second, the Petitioners' analysis exhibits fundamental misimpressions about how the ICS
business has been operating. For example, with respect to personnel costs, it argues that with
the departure of "live operators" and the shift to automated systems for completing collect

44 See Letter, dated -October 11, 2011, from Stephanie A. Joyce, Esq. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, regarding CC Docket No. 96-128 Alternative Rulemaking Proposal of Martha
Wright et ai., attached as Exhibit 4.

45

The InVision Initial Comments, with Exhibit Petition For Rulemaking, are attached as Exhibit 5.

19

calls, there has been a dramatic reduction in personnel costs. 46 But "live operators" have never
been used to complete ICS collect calls. Completion has always been through sophisticated,
intricate automated-oper~tor-services equipment. Indeed, the April 1998 Order was not
.referring to live operator costs, but the personnel costs relating to customer service and fraud
investigation, and maintenance, which clearly remain. 47
Third, Petitioners arguments with respect to each of the categories of costs/economies are
addressed as follows:

1.

System And Securitx Costs Down Dramatically

ICS system and security costs have not been reduced or eliminated.

Securus is an

industry leader in patenting advanced ICS system security features and is continually working to
combat new forms of fraud. Securus spends millions of dollars every year in an effort to "stay
ahead" of the criminals that are constantly attempting to find ways to circumvent the safety and
security features of the ICS system. Over the .last four years, Securus has averaged over $10
million per year in development costs and in 2011 Securus spent almost $17 million toward the
development of new and improved features for its ICS systems. These are certainly costs that
are not incurred by those providing standard payphone services.

2.

Live Operators And High Wages And Infrastructure Needed To
Support Them Are Gone

As noted above, the ICS industry does not and has not used live operators in connection
with its calling systems. Yet, ICS companies do have unique and higher personnel costs due to

See e.g., Petition, at p. 7, n.l0. This equipment is used to complete automated collect calls whether or not there is
a prepaid collect account established. The mere fact of repayment does not relieve Securus of the various securityrelated and regulatory (e.g., announcement) requirements satisfied through the operation of this equipment.
46

See Exhibit 1 to InVision Initial Comments, at pp. 8, 11. Moreover, the increased prevalence of call-forwarding
schemes and other efforts to avoid legitimate and required security-related restrictions on inmate calls has not
diminished these costs.
47

20

the physical environment in which they operate and the unique inmate telephone system
equipment. One need only consider the way a technician would enter and work in a residence or
standard office building as compared to performing a similar task in the confines of a
correctional institution. ICS technicians can't simply show their identification and walk into a
correctional facility with tools, parts, or other equipment. The ICS technician must go through
an extensive entry screening and will most often be continually escorted by a correctional
officer. Should the technician need to return to hislher truck for a part or additional tool, they
must go through the complete exit and reentry process. Therefore, the ICS personnel time
needed to complete an installation or repair task in a confinement facility will be two, three, or
more times that of a local exchange carrier ("LEC") or interexchange carrier ("IXC") technician
working in a non-confinement facility environment. Additionally, ICS technicians, both in the
field and located at the company's Network Operating Centers, must be trained on the features,
functions, hardware, and software applicable to the specialized ICS systems and equipment.
Again, these ICS personnel costs are not incurred by public payphone providers. 48
3.

Reduction In Transport Costs As Transport Technologies Improved
And Lower Access Charges And Switching Costs

It is true tha~ Securus realizes some savings in the reduction of transport and other costs it

pays carriers (e.g., pass through of switching and access charge costs) when Securus uses its
centralized ICS system, known as the Secure Call Platform ("SCp,,).49 However, these savings
are dwarfed by the additional costs of designing and implementing the specific features functions
an.d security requirements for each correctional facility served. Securus' implementation of new
Moreover, Securus has brought in-house all of its customer services personnel, which now consist of some 200
people who interface with end-user customers.
.

48

49 Securus is a pure reseller. It owns or controls no switching or network facilities. Any cost reductions it might
receive as a result in the reductions in such transport, switching or access charge costs of the facilities-based carriers
whose services Securus resells would be a function ofthe generosity of such carriers in passing on such savings.

21

features and functions also comes with increased costs in hardware requirements, increased
band-width costs, additional data storage capacity, and devel()pment and programming costs.
Each correctional facility Securus serves must be designed and created to meet the specific
requirements contained in that facility's RFP and contract.

This includes partitioning each

facility in the centralized equipment and assuring that a particular facility has all required
equipment, software, and capacities needed. There is no "one-size-fits all" system that is just
plugged into the wall at any facility we serve.
4.

Reduction In Regulation And Regulatory Costs Of Providing Long
Distance

Regulatory requirements and reporting are increasing costs for ICS providers as well as
other telecommunications providers.

Over the last three to five years, increased regulatory

scrutiny of anti-cramming, anti-spamming and customer privacy regulations have caused
considerable increases in Securus' operating costs.

During this period Securus has had to

implement new internal programs to comply with the Customer Proprietary Network Infonnation
(CPNI) rules and to comply with the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act
implemented in 2007. These regulations have also increased required reporting requirements.
Anti-cramming and anti-spamming regulations have had a dramatic effect on Securus' cost of
billing through third-party billing agents. These agents have increased their rates and have
significantly increased Securus' billing costs. Because these agents are so fearful of substantial
regulatory fines for non-compliance, they have implemented onerous processes and procedures
that cost Securus tens-of-thousands of dollars.

For example, one billing agent, without

investigation, will remove collect call charges from a customer's bill, recourse the charges back
to Securus, and bill Securus $150 per call if the end-user customer merely says they do not
recognize the charge. Additionally, without any investigation of the legitimacy of the charge, the

22

billing agent will report this as a "cram" on its regulatory report. Securus has investigated these
recoursed calls and has found every call treated in such a manner to be a valid, accepted collect
c~ll. Securus, through comments filed at the FCC, has expressed its concerns on how regulatory

requirements to protect consumers from fraud can have a very costly unintended effect on
legitimate providers of services such as Securus.

5.

Economies Of Serving Many Facilities From A Central Location

As noted above while Securus has invested substantial sums in deploying, operating and
maintaining certain centralized servicing facilities and functions, each facility has its own special
security and configuration needs. Centralization of certain processes does not offset these
customization requirements.

Moreover, service to the· facilities still requires technicians and

service representatives in the field to ensure th<:+t contractual obligations are met. Centralization
of some functions has not eliminated the unique configurations and costs that characterize
provision of ICS at ~ variety of facilities in terms of size and layout.

6.

Advanced Recording Technologies Including Reduction In Size And
Cost Of Storage Devices

Although, some call recording technologies have assisted in data storage, the ever
increasing needs and demands of correctional facilities for retaining and accessing inmate call
recordings has caused a dramatic increase in Securus' data storage capacity requirements. All of
this specialized work, software, and hardware comes at a much higher cost than the provision of
non-inmate payphone services.

7.

Substantial Elimination Of Un collectibles

Petitioners argue that with the increase in the number of "pre-paid" accounts the cost of
bad debt is virtually eliminated. This is simply not true and also ignores the costs of maintaining
the pre-paid accounts. It ,.is correct that the fewer the number of customers that pay for inmate

23

calls on their LEC bill there is a corresponding reduction of bad-debt for that category of billing.
However, Securus still faces bad debt from checks that are returned and credit card/debit card
fraud that are used to fund pre-paid accounts.
8.

Savings On Billing And Collection From Prepaid Systems

With pre-paid accounts and pre-paid calling cards, Securus must develop, implement, and
maintain internal systems to track funding, deduct call charges, produce and ship carding cards,
and provide visibility to the inmates/end-users of their pre-paid accounts. These are all costs that
Securus does not incur when the customer is billed by their LEC. LEC billing remains a
significant portion

of Securus'

billing/payments

options

offered to

its

customers.

Approximately, 30% to 40% percent of Securus' customer billing continues to be through the
end-user's LEC. The LECs do not provide this service for free. Billing and collection charges
have not decreased. Indeed, regulatory requirements relating to cramming, slamming and privacy
h~ve

only contributed to a significant increase in billing and collection costs.
Separate and apart from the billing and collection charges paid to, for example, the LECs,

are costs association with number and billing validation. Before any inmate call is put through,
Securus must validate the number by electronically consulting a number of databases to ensure
that the number is valid and the inmate is permitted to call the number and for billing purposes.
Costs associated with these efforts are incurred even if the call is not positively accepted by the
called party. In fact, in Securus' experience less than half of the inmate calls originated are
completed, revenue gener~ting calls, yet these validation requirements and costs remain on all
inmate call attempts.

***
Fourth, despite the foregoing refutation of Petitioners general claims about actual costs, it
must be recognized that the Department has wide latitude in determining the method by which
24

just and reasonable rates will be achieved. 50 For the reasons described above it has chosen an
alternative to cost-based rates resulting from a rate case. So unless the Department is going to
reverse 25 years of precedent, the discussions and analyses that relate to measuring actual costs
as part of a rate-of-return analysis are inconsistent with the "alternative to cost-based rates"
methodology long ago approved by the Department with respect to res services. 51
E.

ICS Rate Changes In Other States Do Not Warrant Abandonment Of
Massachusetts Existing Rate-Cap Structure

Petitioners argue that price adjustments in other states reflect cost changes that further
justify elimination of the current up-to-$3.00 surcharge in Massachusetts. The data is based
largely on 2008 information that it gathered for intraLATA collect calls. 52

Specifically,

Petitioners argue that because 10 states no longer impose any surcharge and another 18 had
surcharges of $1.50 or less, the Department should eliminate the currently authorized
Massachusetts surcharge. 53
First, at least from Securus' perspective, the Petitioners' comparison is apples to oranges,
for it appears Petitioners have provided only rate comparison information from other State DOe
systems. State DOe prisons have considerably different res calling and billing patterns than
those of county j ails like those served by Securus in Massachusetts. Those facilities almost
always have much higher res call volumes as compared to county jails. This allows the cost of

50

See Access Charge Order, atp.18.

51 As noted above, putting on a traditional rate case remains an option, but a burdensome one for both the IeS
providers and Department. To date, to Securus' knowledge, no IeS provider has done so. And there are other
reasons why traditional rate of return regulation ofIeS rates would be exceedingly difficult (e.g., IeS providers are
not required to keep their books according to the uniform systems of accounts normally applied to carriers and used
for rate-proceeding purposes).

52

Petition, at Appendix IV.

53

Id, at p. 21

25

· the IeS system$ located at State prisons to be spread over a much greater number of calls, thus
lower "per call" costs. As outlined earlier, each Securus correctional facility contract is unique
and the IeS must recover its costs associated with a particular facility contact through the rates
applicable at that specific facility. Additionally, State Doe prisons are longer term facilities and
can institute programs that would simply not be feasible in the high tum-over, much shorter term
county facilities. It is not unusual for the overwhelming majority of inmates in a county jail to
be incarcerated only until arraignment or bond is posted. This could be as little as 48 to 72
hours, or less. In such cases it is not reasonable for the facility to set-up inmate debit programs
or to institute other calling programs, such as Prisoner Allowed Number lists. With the lower
call volumes, short incarceration time and high turnover, it increases the IeS per call costs and
also increases bad-debt. Because an IeS's only recourse is to block future calls for unpaid
charges, there is little incentive to pay the Ies bill once an inmate is released. Therefore, any
comparison of Securus' rates applicable to the eighteen (18) county facilities it serves in
Massachusetts to the State DOe prison rates in other states is an apples to oranges comparison.
As detailed below, even comparing the inmate telephone rates at Massachusetts State prisons to
IeS rates at other State prisons is not appropriate.
Second, the Department should not be making decisions to throw out its existing rate-cap
structure on data that is now going on 4 years old and potentially inaccurate. For example,
Petitioners list the cost of a 15 minute intraLATA toll collect call in 2008 in Alabama as $2.85
without any per-call surcharge. According to data researched by Securus, Alabama's IeS rate
cap regime currently permits a per call surcharge of $2.25 and a per minute usage rate of $.30, so
the potential cost of a 15 minute intraLATA collect call would be $6.75, far above the
Department's existing rate cap and the charges that Securus is currently imposing in

26

Massachusetts. 54 And in Idaho, Petitioners claim that there is no per-call surcharge, but
according to Securus information there are no ICS rate caps and the Qwest (South) rates include
a $2.25 per-call surcharge and a per minute usage charge of $.37, resulting in the cost of a 15
minute intraLATA collect call being $7.80.
Third, there are also states missing from the Appendix IV analysis which may have a
bearing on Petitioner's claims. For example, in Iowa ICS rates are reportedly capped at any
approved tariffed rates.

Qwest's intraLATA station-to-station (partially assisted) calling

surcharge is $3.10 and the intraLATA toll usage charge is $.25 per minute during the day, so a
15 minute intraLATA collect call based on Qwest's tariffed rates would cost $6.85, again more
than the Department's existing rate cap and the charges that Securus is currently imposing.
Another missing state is Delaware (15 minute intraLATA collect call at Verizon rates would be
$4.75).
Fourth, the Petitioners include a number of states where state regulators have no
jurisdiction over ICS (Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Florida) or, unlike Massachusetts
there are simply no rate caps imposed on ICS (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware).
Thus, although the charges listed by Petitioners may be those that were in effect in 2008 for
certain State penitentiaries and may still be in effect as a result of the contracts that facility
administrators have chosen to enter, unlike the Department, those states either now have no
jurisdiction over ICS or have not imposed rate caps on ICS.
Fifth, while the Massachusetts per-call surcharge cap is, based on Petitioner's chart, at the
high end of the scale for State DOC facilities only, if there is to be a comparison, the more
appropriate measure of "just and reasonable" rates is the total cost of the candidate call. Indeed,
54 Securus' data is based on its own operating experience and information made available, on a subscription basis,
by Technologies Management, Inc., a consulting fInn that has long tracked rates in the ICS and payphone industry.

27

on the Petitioners' Appendix IV chart there are some 19 states, many of whom have per-call
surcharges as low as $1.50, but for which the total cost of the ICS call exceeds the maximum of
what inmates pay under Securus current, Department-approved tariffs.
Sixth, to the extent that the "reduction" in rates reflected on Appendix IV may be deemed
to be accurate, Petitioners provide no information on what may have been behind decisions to
lower surcharges or other components of the ICS rates in the states that they tout. For example,
were these changes as a result of legislation imposed by the legislature? Petitioners presumably
would have the Department assume that these adjustments in other states all reflect cost savings
or avoidance that is perforce translatable to Massachusetts, without taking into consideration the
nature of the facilities being served, the equipment installed, and the contract requirements.
There is no assurance that there is an apples to apples comparison being made. 55
Seventh, again, the Petitioners argu~ that a "just and reasonable" rate is one that is
"commensurate with [rates] charged to the public for like services.,,56 If that is an acceptable
standard, then the ICS charges are far below what a member of the public would pay for a
comparable intraLATA collect call. Other state commissions have found this fact to be
dispositive in determining whether ICS rates satisfied the "just and reasonable" standard. For
example, in rejecting a very similar challenge to AT&T's rates for ICS the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Utility Commission held:
"Here, the uncontroverted testimony of AT&T witness Timmis
showed that price for an intrastate interLATA 0+ prison collect
($3.00 Set-up Charge and $0.59 per minute) is lower than for an
55 For example, in New Mexico the legislature proscribed certain payments, but not all compensation paid to
facilities by ICS and thus eliminated the ICS cost associated with those proscribed payments. In seven other states
(New York, Nebraska, Missouri, Rhode Island, California, Michigan and South Carolina), the DOC or other
jurisdictional bodies have proscribed or limited such payments. Note, Securus does not provide ICS at any facility in
the State of Rhode Island.

56

See note 28, supra.

28

intrastate interLATA 0+ traditional automated call ($4.99 Set-up
Charge and $0.59 per minute). Thus, the inmates are not paying
higher rates than others receiving similar services, even though, as
Mr. Timmis pointed out, AT&T incurs higher costs to serve the
inmates than it does to serve other customers receiving 0+
automated calling. ,,57
The same analysis applies here where, as noted above, the tariffed Verizon charge for an
automated toll collect call from a pay telephone would be $4.99 per-call surcharge, plus $0.89
per minute.
Lastly, the Department itself recently has in other contexts rejected the use of "a survey
of ... rates charged by carriers across the country" as a basis for determining the appropriate
rates in Massachusetts. 58
F.

Service Fees Are Necessary Administrative Costs Associated With Enhanced
Billing Options

Petitioners assert that Securus' service fees on prepaid accounts operate as an additional
per-call surcharge and should be regulated. Petitioners are incorrect when they say that Securus
imposes a "hefty service fee ... to set up" a prepaid account. 59 Securus does not charge any fee
to establish or set up a prepaid account. An end-user customer may establish a prepaid account
and fund that account by check, money order, or on-line banking and Securus will not apply any
fee. If the customer chooses to fund the prepaid account via credit or debit card, there is a fee for
processing the card transaction. This fee is to recover Securus' costs paid to the card processing
company and to assist in recovering SecurUs' internal cost to handle credit/debit card processing.
This $6.95 fee and an explanation of its application are contained in Securus' authorized

57

See IURC Order, at p. 11.

58 See Access Charge Order, at pp. 19-20 (declining to rely on survey of switched access rates charged by carriers
across the country as evidence of carrier costs in Massachusetts).
59

PetltlOn,
..
at p. 11 .

29

Massachusetts tariff. Securus does not apply fees or charges in Massachusetts that are not
contained in its MA authodzed tariff or in its published federal price list for Interstate calls.
G.

There Is No Justification For Reducing The Per-Minute Rate Cap

Petitioners contend that even eliminating the pure "profits" generated by the current
$3.00 surcharge, with the current $0.10 per-minute usage rate cap ICS provides still are
profitable, indeed too profitable and the existing usage rate cap should be lowered. They again
offer only back-of-the envelope calculations and no specific information/data to support their
claim. By their own Appendix IV chart, this per minute rate is clearly at the lower end of the
scale and is the same as in a number of other states that they list. Securus has clearly shown that
its overall cost of providing ICS in Massachusetts have not been reduced or eliminated.
In fact, as demonstrated in the letter to the FCC, Securus' per minute costs, as well as
per-call costs, are increasing. Securus has determined that for the eighteen (18) County facilities
it serves in MA that the average length of an inmate call is approximately 12.6 minutes. This is
consistent with the national average for all correctional facilities Securus serves. Securus has
not, and does not have the means to, perform incremental cost studies similar to LECs.
However, by using internally available Massachusetts statewide financial data and the average
call length of 12.6 minutes, Securus estimates it is currently only receiving a low single digit
(about 3.5%) profit margin on Massachusetts ICS calls.

For these reasons, there is no

justification for the DTC to even consider a per-call or per-minute rate reduction.

30

H.

Securus Invests Substantial Time and Resources In Order To Provide High
Quality ICS And Customer Service

In the original Petition and Amendment #1, Petitioners complain of "poor quality of
service,,6o As a result, Petitioners ask that the Department take a number of steps relating to
quality of service. 61
1.

Securus Quality And Customer Service Policies

Securus has been providing quality ICS to correctional facilities for more than 25 years.
As previously noted, Securus currently serves approximately 2,300 facilities nationwide in 44
states with the dedication of more than 900 Securus associates. More than seventy-five percent
(75%) of these associates are customer facing - meaning they are out in front of the Company's
customers assisting them with their needs. As stated previously, Securus' Massachusetts-based
team includes three local field technicians dedicated to its Massachusetts operations who
collectively have 35+ years experience in the ICS industry. Securus does not use third-party
contractors. Rather the Company uses its own field service technicians to ensure they meet with
strict guidelines our correctional facility customers demand. In addition, Securus' Massachusetts
accounts are supported by a local Account Manager as well as the Regional Sales & Support
Specialist and the Regional Vice President who all live in the Commonwealth. The local Securus
service and account management team provides round-the-clock coverage.
The complaints as they relate to Securus include (a) connection problems (b) disconnected calls (c) call reporting
and details of charges and (d) customer service problems. See Table of Contents, Amendment No.1.

60

61 Petitioners specifically ask the Department to require that "all prisoner telephone service providers (i) replace
and/or repair all non- and malfunctioning telephone equipment used in providing prisoner telephone call service,
inCluding without limitation telephone units and lines, whether such equipment is located inside or outside state and
county correctional facilities; (ii) calibrate three-way calling detection systems such that prisoner telephone calls in
the state are not prematurely terminated unless genuine attempts to evade telephone security measures are initiated;
(iii) provide each of their customers who initiate or receive calls from prisoners and have prepaid accounts with the
company a detailed accounting of how the funds deposited into such accounts are actually allocated and spent; and
(iv) limit the number of recorded warnings concerning the recording and monitoring of calls that are played during a
prisoner telephone call to one at the beginning of such call.' Amendment #1, p. 30.

31

As has always been the practice in Massachusetts correctional facilities served by
Securus, when the facility receives a complaint matter requiring resolution, either the local
Account Manager or the primary field technician is contacted. Company procedure is for the
Securus individual to open a trouble ticket for timely investigation and resolution of the issue.
Depending on the nature of the complaint issue, personnel in the company's technical,
operations, or customer service areas may be engaged in its satisfactory resolution.
In competing for contracts to provide ICS in Massachusetts or elsewhere, Securus is fully
cognizant of the critical importance of service quality and customer service. Securus invests
millions of dollars each year to maintain and enhance service quality, as well as to ensure
responsive, courteous customer service. Over the past 20 years, Securus has spent more than
$100 million dollars and devoted 300,000 person-hours developing the Company's advanced
network platform. Securus commits an average of $10 million each year to advance its industryleading capabilities through re-investment in its people, platforms, and products. Securus leads
the industry in innovation with patents to ensure continuous improvements in both products and
services to its customers. These investments include research and development on new
technologies that contribute to both areas. 62
Securus is committed to providing the best customer service to friends and family
members of inmates as demonstrated by the Company's expenditure of more than $2 million
dollars the past two years (2009 and 2010) to build an in-sourced call center in Dallas, Texas
operating around the clock. Securus employs more than 200 people in the provision of customer
services, as well as online instructions has to how to deal with issues such as disconnected

As noted above, Securus holds 85 issued patents, 4 allowed patents and another 35 patent applications are
pending.

62

32

calls. 63 Securus .expends substantial time and resources training its customer services
representatives, who are available by toll-free number and email 24 hours a day for 7 days a
week. Customer service handles account set up, billing and collection, dropped or disconnected
calls and other service problems. Customers are given the opportunity to initiate specific
investigations of dropped calls. Securus also maintains an interactive company website,
..www.securustech.net.. that offers its customers important round-the-clock access to information
on all products and services. Consumers may access the Securus website to set up an account,
make payments, look up call rates and facility locations, and locate essential information on the
Company's products and services. A Frequently Asked Questions ("F AQ") section is included
that provides helpful customer information, such as how to avoid disconnections and information
on obtaining a copy of aprepaid account statement.
Securus contracts with its confinement facilities customers include quality of service
requirements. Securus makes every effort to be consistently in compliance with all those
requirements. To remain competitive in the marketplace, it is essential that Securus provides a
high quality of customer service to win new business and secure renewals. Securus provides
annual surveys to our facility customers nationwide to obtain their important feedback about our
company's performance. The facilities are asked to rank their satisfaction with Securus' quality
of service (customer satisfaction "CSAT" scores).

In Massachusetts, Securus has not been

called to task by its facility customers for failing to meet its quality-of-service obligations. In
fact, quite the opposite is suggested based on the Company's CSAT scores for 2008, 2009, and
2010. Securus has been and is providing highly rated service 64
See http://www.securustech.net/consumersolutions.asp. A copy Securus' Friends and Family Telephone Service
Guide is attached as Exhibit 6.

63

64

A summary of the results of these systematic surveys is attached as Exhibit 7.

33

2.

Petitioners' Securus-Specific Service Problems

As stated previously, Securus found that the NONE of the complainants presented their
concerns to Securus for resolution either directly, as "escalated complaints," or through more
formal complaint channels; such as the DTC, the FCC, the state AGO, the state OCABR, or the
BBB. Certainly, Securus cannot reasonably be expected to respond to or seek to address alleged
service deficiencies of which the Company has no knowledge.
Securus' review of its Massachusetts related complaints at the state agency level, FCC
and BBB found a total of twenty two (22) complaints over a period of the past six (6) years.

65

Securus regards its quality of service and customer service of critical importance to ensure that
complaints are minimized and when they do arise are reported and handled in a prompt and
courteous matter. Securus is not suggesting that twenty two complaints over a six year period
from multiple agencies specific to the state of Massachusetts are acceptable. It does, however,
demonstrate Securus has not received a high level of such complaints in Massachusetts
concerning its rates and quality of service.
Securus has researched and examined the specific customer complaints supported by
Affidavits attached to the Petitioners Amendment #1 and Amendment #2. A number of the
complaints for which affidavits were filed contained no specific information about the problem.
Rather, there were just general assertions about cut off calls or other general accusations.
Unfortunately, the majority of the thirty two (32) Petitioners' affidavits provided limited and
generalized complaint information making it difficult or impossible to investigate. Also, no
customer telephone account or billed telephone number information was provided in any of the
respective complaints.
65 Massachusetts Complaint Breakdown: BBB (8); AGO (3); FCC (3); DTC (5) DCA (2); and Executive (1) =
twenty-two (22) total complaints over a six (6) year period.

34

Twenty-seven (27) of the thirty two (32) complaints were from law firms and five (5)
were from Friends & Family (F&F). Twenty-one (21) of the complaints consist of signed
affidavits from lawyers requesting lower rates and improved quality of calls. No specific detail
is, however, provided on dates or incidents related to the general complaint issues. An additional
six (6) complaints from lawyers and the institutional petitioners did provide more particular
detail and timeframes associated with their complaint issues. Finally, the five (5) complaints
from Friends and Family ("F&F") provided the most detail in their affidavits, though dates of the
incidents were not very clear.
A review of Securus' Customer Care records (reflecting c?ntacts with the Company's
customer service representatives) was conducted to determine whether any of the Petitioners'
complaints with identifiable information relating to the incidents had contacted the Company for
assistance concerning the areas cited in their affidavits. In fact, of the thirty-two (32) affiants,
Securus found that only eleven (11) had contacted Securus Customer Care and in many cases the
inquiries did not relate to the matters complained of. Indeed, in many cases the contacts did not
relate to service complaints at all, but questions about bills or balances or other issues. A copy of
Securus' findings is provided as Exhibit 8. With respect to the "categories" of service problems
attributed to Securus in Amendment # 1, Securus notes the following:
a.

Poor Connection Problems 66

Petitioners complain of problems with poor connections and request that Securus replace
and/or repair all non- and malfunctioning telephone equipment used in providing IeS, including

66 While poor connections on any call are not acceptable to Securus, the percentages of calls on which poor
connections were experienced by some of the lawyer petitioners were 5% or less out of hundreds of calls.
Amendment #1, at p.12.

35

without limitation telephone units and lines, whether such equipment is located inside or outside
state and county correctional facilities.
Securus is responsive to facility and customer complaints involving poor connection
problems.

Securus is unable to specifically respond to the generalized allegations of these

complaints particularly due to the time that has elapsed. It is the Company's practice to upgrade
and replace all malfunctioning telephone equipment that is determined to be causing poor
connection problems. A Securus trouble ticket is issued upon receipt of a complaint from the
facility or directly from the customer complaining of a poor connection problem. The resulting
solution is to isolate the trouble and correct any malfunctioning equipment.
h.

Disconnected Or Dropped Calls

Petitioners are requesting that Securus calibrate three-way calling detection systems such
that inmate telephone calls in Massachusetts are not prematurely terminated unless genuine
attempts to evade telephone security measure are initiated.
Securus works with each of its facilities to ensure that three-way calling systems are
appropriately working. Should there be an incidence of complaints involving dropped calls
reported, the system is thoroughly checked to validate its operation in accordance with
prescribed security parameters.
Securus addresses the reasons for dropped calls with its customers when they first
establish an account to ensure that they understand the causes for potential disconnects. Dropped
call disputes may be submitted to the Company within 90 days of the call to be eligible for a call
credit and a customer may complete a dropped call investigation form to dispute calls. Dropped
calls of one minute or less in duration receive credit. Securus cannot be responsible for the
transmission quality of wireless/cellular networks. These networks experience dropped calls.
Therefore, Securus cannot issue credits for dropped calls to cell phones or wireless devices.
36

c.

Call Reporting And Details Of Charges

Customers with prepaid accounts do not receive printed documentation reflecting call
charges, but customers with Internet access can check their accounts on-line, including call detail
and other charges.
In the Petitioners' complaints it was correctly stated that customers with prepaid accounts
do not receive bill statements in the mail reflecting call charges. Customers may go on the
Internet to the Securus' website at www.securustech.net to review their account detail on-line.
Securus customer service is available twenty four hours a day seven days a week for customers
to call and speak with a representative to obtain prepaid account charges and request a copy of
their bill by mail.

d.

Customer Service Problems

Petitioners reported dealing with customer care was a frustrating challenge. The
Petitioners' complaints express difficulty in reaching a Securus CBS customer service
representative to assist them when attempting to have their concerns addressed. Securus
sincerely regrets customers experienced difficulty in trying to reach a customer service
representative. Due to customer feedback nationwide, please note that changes have been
implemented to Securus' Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") automated line that assists
customers in navigating through their options when they call Securus CBS. These changes allow
customers many more self-service options than our previous IVR, and there are opt out
opportunities throughout the IVR which allows customers to more easily connect with a
customer service representative. Securus hopes our customers are able to secure contact with a
customer service representative much more easily than during their past experiences.

37

IV.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Securus respectfully submits that for all the reasons set forth above the Petitioners have

failed to demonstrate that the existing ICS rate structure in Massachusetts is ''unjust and
unreasonable." There is no basis for eliminating the $3.00 pre call surcharge cap and reducing
the $0.1 0 per-minute usage cap. Further, based on the reports provided by Securus above
Petitioners claims with respect to service quality and customer service do not justify a further
investigation of these issues at this time.
Respectfully submitted

Curtis L. Hopfinger
Director - Regulatory and Government Affairs
Securus Technologies, Inc.
14651 Dallas.Parkway, 6th Floor
Dallas TX 75254
972-277 -0319 (Tel)
972-277-0416 (Fax)
chopfinger@securustech.net

Paul C. Besozzi
Ryan W. King
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington DC 20037
202-457-5292 (Tel)
202-457-6315 (F~)
pbesozzi@pattonboggs.com

.January 20,2012

38

EXHIBIT 1

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS REGULATION

DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS & ENERGY
ONE SOUTH STATION
BOSTON, MA 02110
MITT ROMNEY

PAUL G. AFONSO

GOVERNOR

CHAIRMAN

KERRY

JAMES CONNELLY, ESQ.

HEALEY

COMMISSIONER

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

W. ROBERT KEATING
BETH LINDSTROM

COMMISSIONER

DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
AND BUSINESS REGULATION

EUGENE J. SULLIVAN, JR.
COMMISSIONER

DEIRDRE K. MANNING
COMMISSIONER

** REISSUED **
INDUSTRY NOTICE
Release Date:
September 3, 2004

Contact:
Janice McCoy, Telecom Specialist
(617) 305-3745
janice.mccoy@state.ma.us

COLLECT INMATE CALLS - RATE CAP
Background
In 1998, the Department adopted its current rate cap policy for collect inmate calls.
Intra- and interLATA usage rates for collect inmate calls could be identical to, or lower
than, the corresponding Verizon-MA ("VZ-MA") intraLATA collect inmate call usage
rates ("rate cap"), and a maximum surcharge of $3.00 for each call could apply. See
D.P.U.lD.T.E. 97-88/97-18 (Phase II) at 9-10 (1998) ("1998 Order"). The rate cap
policy applies to collect calls originating from "inmate only" telephones and not to calls
placed from telephones located in visitation areas.
Change to Verizon Rates for Collect Inmate Calls
On July 21, 2004, the Department approved revisions to VZ-MA's rates for collect
inmate calls. The revisions simplify the rate structure which previously reflected
different initial and additional minute rates for calls based on time-of-day and the
distance of the call. VZ-MA has replaced the multiple components with a flat usage
rate of $.10 per minute. In addition, VZ-MA increased its per-call incremental
surcharge from $0.86 to $1.75. To allow for the completion of systems reprogramming,
VZ-MA's new rates and rate structure will not be implemented until December 1, 2004.
VZ-MA's collect inmate calling services tariff can be found in VZ-MA's Tariff DTE MA
No. 10, Part A, Section 5.1.7.; Section 9.4.3, and Section 9.5.2. Rates can be found in
Main FAX: (617) 345-9101
TTY: (800) 323-3298
www.mass.gov/dte

Reissued Industry Notice - Collect Inmate Calling - Rate Cap
September 3, 2004

Page 2

Part M, Section 1.9.1.
Industry Action
As a result of VZ-MA's new rates, providers of collect inmate calling services within
Massachusetts may be required to modify their existing intrastate tariffs in order to
remain in compliance with the Department's rate cap policy.
Providers of collect inmate calling services are not required to conform their rate
structure to VZ-MA's rate structure. However, the usage or flat-rate per-call charge for
either a local, intra- or interLATA call cannot exceed the usage rate that would be
charged by VZ-MA for a corresponding "average" local or intraLATA call. For purposes
of determining compliance with the rate cap, the Department will use 15 minutes as the
average length of a collect inmate call in Massachusetts. Providers of collect inmate
calling services may continue to charge an incremental surcharge 'not to exceed $3.00
per call. For purposes of determining compliance with the rate cap, the Department
does not take into account the surcharge.
Any revisions to intrastate collect inmate calling services tariffs must be made for effect
no later than December 1, 2004, in order to remain in compliance with the Department's
rate cap policy.

- MDTE-

Main FAX: (617) 345-9101
TTY: (800) 323-3298
www.mass.gov/dte

EXHIBIT 2

Securus Technologies, Inc.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 1

TITLE PAGE

This tariff applies to intrastate telecommunication services furnished by Securus Technologies, Inc. between one or
more points in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This tariff is on file with the Massachusetts Department of
Telecommunications & Cable ("M.D.T.C."), and copies may be inspected, during normal business hours, at the
Company's principal place of business at 14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75254. Securus
Technologies, Inc. was formerly known as Evercom Systems, Inc.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
First Revised Sheet No.2
Cancels Original Sheet No.2

CHECK SHEET

This tariff contains sheets 1 through 28, inclusive,

~ach

of which is effective on the date shown thereon.

Sheet

Revision

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22.1
23
24
25
26
27
28

Original
First *
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original*
Original
Original
First *
First *
Original
Original

* denotes revisions

Issued: October 19,2011

Effective: November 18, 2011

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.3

Securus Technologies, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

1

CHECK SHEET

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

TARIFF FORMAT

5

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

6

DEFINITIONS
APPLICATION OF TARIFF
GENERAL REGULATIONS
3.1
Use of Services
3.2
Liability of the Company
3.3
Responsibilities of the Customer
3.4
Cancellation or Interruption of Services

7
9

4.

RATE DETERMINATION
4.1
Time of Day Rate Periods
4.2
Distance Measurements
4.3
Call Timing

15
15
16
16

5.

PAYMENTS AND CHARGES
5.1
Billing Arrangements
5.2
Validation of Credit
5.3
Contested Charges
5.4
Returned Check Charge
5.5
Credit,Card/Check-by-Phone Payment Processing Fee
5.6
Deposits
5.7
Taxes

17
17
18
18
18
18

1.
2.

3.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES
6.1
Local, IntraLATA and InterLATA Rates and Charges
6.1.1
Contract Location 1
6.1.2
Contract Location 2
6.1.3
Contract Location 3
6.1.4
Contract Location 4
6.1.5
Contract Location 5
6.1.6
Contract Location 6
6.1. 7
Contract Location 7
6.2
Prepaid Service
6.3
SECUREvoice™

Issued: October 22, 2010

11
11
11
13
13

19
19
19
19
19
20
20
21
21

22
22
23
26

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet NO.4

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.

PROMOTIONS
7.1
General
7.2
Demonstration of Services
7.3
Comparable Pricing Promotion
7.4
Debit Services Sponsor Programs

27
27
27
27
27

8.

CONTRACT SERVICES
8.1
General

28
28

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.5

TARIFF FORMAT
Sheet Numbering: Sheet numbers appear in the upper right comer of the sheet. Sheets are numbered
sequentially. However, new sheets are occasionally added to the tariff. When a new sheet is added between sheets
already in effect, a decimal is added. For example, a new sheet added between sheets 11 and 12 would be Sheet
11.1.
Revision Numbers: Revision numbers also appear in the upper right comer of each sheet where applicable.
These numbers are used to indicate the most current sheet version on file with the Massachusetts Department of
Telecommunications & Cable. For example, 4th Revised Sheet 13 cancels 3rd Revised Sheet 13. Consult the Check
Sheet for the sheets currently in effect.
Paragraph Numbering Sequence: There are nine levels of paragraphing coding. Each level of coding is
subservient to its next higher level:
2
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.1.A
2.1.l.A.l
2.1.1.A.1.(a).1
2.1. l.A. l.(a).I.(i)
2. 1. LA. l.(a).I.(i).1
Check Sheets: When a tariff filing is made with the M.D.T.C. an updated Check Sheet is included. The
Check Sheet lists the sheets contained in the tariff, with a cross reference to the current Revision Number. When
new sheets are added, the Check Sheet is changed to reflect the addition. All revised sheets in a given filing are
designated by an asterisk (*) on the Check Sheet. The tariff user should refer to the latest Check Sheet to find out if
a particular sheet is the most current on file with the M.D.T.C.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.6

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS - CODING OF TARIFF REVISIONS

When changes are made in any tariff sheet, a revised sheet will be issued canceling the tariff sheet affected.
Charges will be identified on the revised sheet(s) through the use of the following symbols:
C
D
I
M
N
R
T

Change in Regulation, but No Change in Rate or Charge
Delete or Discontinue
Changed Resulting in an Increase in Rate or Charge
Moved from Another Tariff Location without Change
New
Change Resulting in a Reduction in Rate or Charge
Change in Text, but No Change in Rate or Regulation

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.7

Securus Technologies, Inc.

1.

DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this tariff, the following definitions will apply:
Collect Calls - Calls billed not to the originating telephone number, but to the called telephone number upon
acceptance, via an automated interface, of the call for which charges are billed.
Common Carrier - A company or entity providing telecommunications services to the public.
Company - Securus Technologies, Inc.
Customer - The person or entity responsible for the payment of charges for services offered under this tariff.
Debit Card - A card issued by the Company which provides the Customer or other authorized user with a debit
account, an authorization code and instructions for accessing the carrier's network. Customers purchase usage on a
prepaid basis.
Debit Card Call- A service whereby the customer or other authorized user dials all of the digits necessary to route
an bill a call placed from a location other than hislher residence or normal place of business. Service is accessed via
a "1-800" or other access code dialing sequence. Usage charges for Debit Card Calls are deducted from the
Customer's debit account on a real time basis.
Local Access and Transport Area (LATA) - The term "Local Access Transport Area" denotes a geographical area
established by the US District Court for the District of Columbia in Civil Action No 82-0192.
M.D.T.C. - Used throughout this tariff to mean the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Cable or
any successor thereto .
.Measured Charge- A charge assessed on a per minute basis in calculating the charges for a completed call. Measured
Charges are specified as a rate per minute which applies to each minute, with fractional minutes of use counted as
one full minute.
Person - to - Person Collect Calls - Calls billed not to the originating telephone number, but to a specific called
party upon acceptance, via an automated interface, of the call for which charges are billed.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

1.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.8

DEFINITIONS (Continued)

Service Charge - A non-measured (fixed) charge which is added to a Measured Charge in calculation the total tariff
charges due for a complete call.
Station - Any location from which calls may be placed or received.
Telecommunications - The transmission of voice communications or, subject to the transmission capabilities of the
services, the transmission of data, facsimile, signaling, metering, or other similar communications.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

2.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No.9

APPLICATION OF TARIFF
2.1

This tariff contains the regulations and rates applicable to intrastate telecommunications services
provided by the Company between points within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
Company's services are furnished subject to the availability of facilities and subject to the terms
and conditions of this tariff

2.2

The services offered by the Company subject to this tariff consist of furnishing Collect and Person
to Person Collect Calls through store and forward technology incorporating an automated operator
and the resale of transmission service of other carriers.

2.3

The Company's Debit Card Call services are offered for Customer use 24 hours a day, seven days
a week, to all valid terminating locations specified in this section. Access to the Company's debit
services is via a toll-free number. The Customer must input a valid authorization code in addition
to the destination number with area code. Purchase of a Debit Card or establishment of a debit
account entitles the consumer to access the carrier's network for a present amount of usage. Usage
will be debited from the available card or account balance in full-minute increments on a real-time
basis. Customers will be interrupted with an announcement when the account balance is about to
be exhausted. Balances in debit amounts are non-refundable and will expire on the date specified
on the Debit Card, expiration occurs within one year from the state of establishment or last
renewal unless otherwise specific in writing by the carrier. Unlike a deposit or advance payment,
the Debit Card account balance is not held against future payment as all service is available for
immediate consumption. For Customer accounts provide with a renewal option, Customers may
renew or increase the available usage balance within an account by making additional payments to
the Company or the Company's authorized agents.

2.4

Because the services offered hereunder are provided to inmates of a correctional facility or similar
institution, special stipulations may apply. These stipulations are designed to preserve the integrity
and security of the facility, the safety of the public and to reduce fraud and harassment. When
deemed appropriate by the facility administration, these include: providing outward only calls;
providing 0+ Collect and/or Person to Person Collect Calls only for local, IntraLATA toll and
InterLATA toll calls and blocking access to all other types or forms of calls; blocking access to
local Directory Assistance (411), long distance Directory Assistance (555-1212), 911 calls, toll
free numbers including 1- 800, 700, 900, 950, 10XXX and any other telephone numbers the
facility administration directs; limiting hours during which telephone service is available to
inmates; and/or limiting call duration to a time interval established by the facility administration.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

2.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 10

APPLICATION OF TARIFF (Continued)

2.5

Service furnished by the Company may be connected with services or facilities of other
authorized Common Carriers and with private systems, subject to the technical
limitations established by the Company. The services of the Company are not part of a
joint undertaking with any other entity providing telecommunications channels facilities
or services but do involve the resale of the Message Toll Services (MTS) and Wide Area
Telecommunication Services (WATS) of underlying common Carriers who may be
subject to the jurisdiction of the M.D.T.C.

2.6

The rates and regulations contained in this tariff apply only to the services furnished by
the Company and do not apply, unless otherwise specified, to lines facilities, or services
provided by a local exchange telephone company or other Common Carrier for use in
accessing the services of the Company.

2.7

The Company's obligation to furnish service hereunder is dependent upon its ability to
secure and retain, without unreasonable expense, suitable facilities and contractual rights
necessary for the provision of the service.

Issued: October 22,2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

3.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 11

GENERAL REGULATIONS
3.1

Use of Services

3.2

3.1.1

The Company's services may be used for any lawful purpose consistent with the
transmission and switching parameters of the telecommunications facilities utilized in the
provision of services.

3.1.2

The use ofthe Company's services to make calls which might reasonably be expected to
frighten, abuse, torment, or harass another or in such a way as to unreasonably interfere
with use by others is prohibited.

3.1.3

The use of the Company's services without payment for service or attempting to avoid
payment for service is prohibited.

3.1.4

The Company's services are available for use 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
except as set forth in Section 2.3 of this tariff

3.1.5

The Company does not transmit messages pursuant to this tariff, but its services may be
used, for that purpose.

3.1.6

The Company's services may be denied for non-payment of charges or for other
violations of this tariff

Liability of the Company
3.2.1

Issued: October 22,2010

The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage sustained by reason of any failure in
or breakdown of facilities associated with the Company's service or for any interruption
or delay of service, whatever shall be the cause of such failure, breakdown, or
interruption and whether negligent or otherwise and however long it shall last. In no
event shall the Company's liability for any services exceed the charges applicable under
this tariff for such service.

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

3.

M.D.T.e. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 12

GENERAL REGULATIONS (Continued)

3.2

Liability of the Company (Continued)

3.2.2

The Company shall be indemnified and saved harmless by any Customer or by any other
entity against claims for libel, slander, or the infringement of copyright arising from the
material transmitted over its services; and against all other claims arising out of any act or
omission of a Customer or of any other entity in connection with services provided by the
Company.

3.2.3

The Company shall not be liable for any act or omission of any entity furnishing facilities
or services connected with or provided in conjunction with the services of the Company.

3.2.4

The Company shall not be liable for any person injury or death of any person or persons,
or for any loss or damage sustained by reason of acts, mistakes, omissions, errors or
defects in providing its services, whatever shall be the cause and whether negligent or
otherwise.

3.2.5

The Company shall not be liable for an shall be indemnified and saved harmless by any
Customer or other entity from any and all loss, claims, demands, suits or other action or
any liability whatever, whether suffered, made instituted or asserted by any Customer or
any other entity for any person injury to, or death of, any person or persons, and for any
loss, damage, defacement or destruction of the premises of any Customer or any other
entity or any other property whether owned or controlled by the Customer or others,
caused or claimed to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of
the Customer or others or by any installation, operation, failure to operate, maintenance,
removal, presence, condition, location or use of facilities or equipment provided by the
Company. No agents or employees of any other entity shall be deemed to be the agents or
employees of the Company.

3.2.6

The Company shall not be liable for any failure of performance due to causes beyond its
control, including, without limitation, acts of God, fires, floods or other catastrophes,
national emergencies, insurrections, riots or wars, strikes, lockouts, work stoppages or
other labor difficulties, and any law, order regulation or other action of any governing
authority or agency thereof.

Issued: October 22,2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

3.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. I
Original Sheet No. 13

GENERAL REGULATIONS (Continued)
3.3 Responsibilities of the Customer
3.3.1

The Customer is responsible for payment of applicable charges set forth in this tariff.

3.3.2

The Customer is responsible for compliance with applicable regulations set forth in this
tariff.

3.3.3

The Customer is responsible for establishing its identity as often as necessary during the
course of a call.

3.304

The Customer is responsible for identifying the station, party, or person with whom
communication is desired and/or made at the called number.

3.4 Cancellation or Interruption of Services
3.4.1

Without incurring liability the company may immediately discontinue services or may
withhold the provision of ordered or contracted services:
304.l.A For nonpayment of any sum due the Company for the services,
3.4.l.B For violation of any of the provisions of this tariff,
304.l.C For violation of any law, rule, regulation or policy of any governing authority
having jurisdiction over the Company's services, or
304.l.D By reason of any order or decision of a court, state or federal regulatory body or
other governing authority prohibiting the Company from furnishing its services.

304.2

Issued: October 22, 2010

Without incurring liability, the Company may interrupt the provision of services at any
time in order to perform tests and inspections to assure compliance with tariff regulations
and the proper installation and operation of the Company's equipment and facilities and
may continue such interruption until any items of noncompliance or improper equipment
operation so identified are rectified.

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

3.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 14

GENERAL REGULATIONS (Continued)
3.4

Cancellation or Interruption of Services (Continued)

3.4.3

Service may be discontinued by the Company, without notice, by blocking traffic to
certain countries, cities or exchanges or by blocking calls using certain authorization
codes, when the Company deems it necessary to take such action to prevent unlawful use
of its services, and as set forth in Section 2.3 of this tariff. The Company will restore
service as soon as it can be provided without undue risk, and will, upon request by the
Customer affected, assign a new authorization code to replace the one that has been
deactivated;

3.4.4

The Company may refuse to provide service without prior notice when the called party
refuses to accept the charges or has subscribed to billed number screening, prohibiting
acceptance of such calls.

Issued: October 22,2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

4.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 15

RATE DETERMINATION
4.1

Time of Day Rate Periods
Time of day rate periods are determined by the time of day at the location of the calling station.
When a call designs in one rate period and ends in another, the rate in effect in each rate period
applies to the portion of the call occurring within that rate period. In the event that a minute is split
between two rate periods, the rate in effect at the start of that minute applies.
Time of Day Rate Periods
MON

8:00 a.m. to*
5:00p.m.
5:00 p.m.
to*
11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m.
to*
8:00 a.m.

1 TUE

I WED
I THU
DAY RATE PERIOD

JFRI

SAT

SUN

EVENING
RATE
PERIOD

EVENING RATE PERIOD

NIGHT/WEEKEND RATE PERIOD

* To but not including.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 16

Securus Technologies, Inc.

4.

RATE DETERMINATION (Continued)
4.2

Distance Measurements
The airline mileage between two cities can be calculated using the vertical (V) and horizontal (H)
coordinates of the serving wire centers associated with the Company's POP locations. The method
for calculating the airline mileage is obtained by reference to AT&T's FCC Tariff according to the
following formulas:

(vlv2i +( HIH2/

10

In the above example, the VI and HI correspond to the V&H coordinates of "City I" and V2 and
H2 correspond to the V&H coordinates of "City 2."

4.3

Call Timing
Timing of each Collect or Person to Person Collect Call begins when the called party accepts
responsibility for the charges and ends when either party hangs up, as determined by standard
industry methods in use for ascertaining answer and disconnect, including hardware answer
supervision in which the local exchange telephone company sends a signal to the switch or the
software utilizing Common Carrier for the Company's services, where answer supervision is
available. The Company will not knowingly bill for uncompleted calls.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

5.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 17

PAYMENTS AND CHARGES
5.1

Billing Arrangements
5.1.1

Charges for services hereunder may be:
5.1.1.A Billed directly by the Company, or
5.1.1.B Included on the Customer's regular home or business telephone bill, pursuant to
billing and collection agreements established by the Company or its
intermediary with the applicable telephone company.

5.1.2

When billing functions on behalf of the Company or its intermediary are performed by
local exchange telephone companies or others, the payment of charge conditions and
regulations of such companies and any regulations imposed upon these companies by
regulatory bodies having jurisdiction apply.

5.1.3

The Company's bills are due upon receipt. Amounts not paid within30 days from the due
date of the invoice will be considered past due and may subject to a late fee on past due
amounts at the maximum lawful rate under applicable Massachusetts law. If a Customer
presents an undue risk of nonpayment at any time, the Company may require that
payments in cash or the equivalent of cash. In the case of any Customer who elects to
post a deposit pursuant to Section 5.5, the Company may deduct any past due balances
from the deposit.

5.1.4

Customers with questions about invoices may contact the Company directly at 14651
Dallas Parkway, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone number 1-800-844-6591. If
written notice of a dispute as to charges is not received by the Company within thirty (30)
days of the date a bill is issued, such charges shall be deemed to be correct and binding
on a Customer.

Issued: October 22,2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

5.

M.D.T.e. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 18

PAYMENTS AND CHARGES (Continued)
5.1

Billing Arrangements (Continued)
5.1.5

5.2

In the event the Company incurs fees or expenses, in collecting or attempting to collect,
any charges owed the Company, the Customer will be liable to the Company for the
payment of all such fees and expenses reasonably incurred.

Validation
The Company reserves the right to validate the creditworthiness of Customers through available
verification procedures and to establish a maximum predetermined credit amount. Where a
requested billing method cannot be validated, the Company may refuse to provide service.
Services offered pursuant to this tariff are provided to inmates of correctional facilities, in
accordance with institutionally authorized programs. The Company may request that facilities
adopt, as part of the institutionally authorized program, terms that enable the Company to collect
the charges for all inmate calls, including without limitation, the blocking of calls to certain
telephone numbers when the amount charged to such telephone number (a) exceeds a
predetermined amount or (b) becomes past due.

5.3

Contested Charges
For consideration of any disputed charge, a Customer must submit in writing to the Company,
within thirty (30) days of the date the bill is issued, the call details and basis for any requested
adjustment. The Company will promptly investigate and advise the Customer as to its findings and
disposition.

5.4

Returned Check Charge
A charge of $20 may be applied if a check or draft presented for payment of service is not
accepted by the institution on which it is written. The Company reserves the right to refuse to
accept such checks or drafts in payment for services and require prepayment or a certified or bank
check or money order.

5.5

Credit Card/Check-by-Phone Payment Processing Fee
A payment processing fee in the amount of $6.95 is applicable to credit card payments and checkby-phone payments submitted to the Company. This fee does not apply to payments mailed to the
company or submitted via a customer's online banking service.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 19

Securus Technologies, Inc.

5.

PAYMENTS AND CHARGES (Continued)
5.6

Deposits
No advance deposits are required; provided, however, that in the event that any Customer wishes
to exceed any maximum credit amount that may be predetermined by the Company that Customer
may do so by fIrst posting a deposit with the Company in an amount such that the level of credit
sought is equal to ninety percent of the deposit amount. The Company shall pay simple interest on
an annual basis at a rate that might be required under the regulations applicable to local exchange
telephone companies under Section 5.1.2.

5.7

Taxes
All federal, commonwealth and local taxes (e.g. excise tax, gross receipts tax, sales tax, municipal
utilities tax) for calls provided pursuant to this tariff are billed as separate line items and are not
included in the rates set forth herein.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES - The charges for a particular call shall be the total of the measured usage charge
and the operator surcharge.

6.1

Local, IntraLATA and InterLATA Rates and Ch,arges
Collect call surcharge:
$3.00
Per minute usage charge: $0.10

6.1.1 Contract Location 1
LOCAL

SURCHARGE'
DAY

RATE

EVENING

EACH

EACHADD'L

EACH

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

CALL

0-9999

0.5000

PERIOD

CALL

0.0000

0.5000

EACH

EACH ADD'L

PERIOD

CALL

PERIOD

0.0000

0.5000

0.0000

INTRALATA

SURCHARGE'
DAY

.

$ 3 00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

EVENING

.

$3 00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.0550

0.0550

0.0360

0.0360

0.0360

0.0360

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE'
EVENING

DAY

$3 00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-10
11-14
15-9999

0.1000
0.1000
0.1000

0.0600
0.0900
0.1000

0.0740
0.1000
0.1000

0.0550
0.0550
0.0610

0.0460
0.0540
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 20

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.1.2

Contract Location 2
SURCHARGE:

LOCAL
EVENING

DAY

$ 2.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

EACH

EACH ADD'L

EACH

EACH ADD'L

EACH

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

CALL

PERIOD

CALL

PERIOD

CALL

PERIOD

0-9999

0.5000

0.0000

0.5000

0.0000

0.5000

0.0000

INTRALATA

SURCHARGE'
EVENING

DAY

$2.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.0400

0.0400

0.0360

0.0360

0.0360

0.0360

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE'
DAY

EVENING

$2.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-10
11-14
15-9999

0.0780
0.0780
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

0.0740
0.0780
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

0.0460
0.0540
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

6.1.3

Contract Location 3

LOCAL

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$ 3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTRALATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$2.50

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

Issued: October 22, 20 10

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 21

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.1.4

Contract Location 4
SURCHARGE:

LOCAL
EVENING

DAY
RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

$ 2.50

NIGHTIWEEKEND

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

PERIOD

PERIOD

0.1000

0.1000

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

SURCHARGE:

INTRALATA
EVENING

DAY

$2.50

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE'
EVENING

DAY

$2.50

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

6.1.5

Contract Location 5

LOCAL

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$ 3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTRA LATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-10
11-14
15-9999

0.1000
0.1000
0.1000

0.0600
0.0900
0.1000

0.0740
0.1000
0.1000

0.0550
0.0550
0.0610

0.0460
0.0540
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE:
EVENING

DAY

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-10
11-14
15-9999

0.1000
0.1000
0.1000

0.0600
0.0900
0.1000

0.0740
0.1000
0.1000

0.0550
0.0550
0.0610

0.0460
0.0540
0.0780

0.0360
0.0360
0.0360

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 22

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.1.6

Contract Location 6
SURCHARGE:

LOCAL
EVENING

DAY

$ 2.85

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

SURCHARGE:

INTRALATA
DAY

EVENING

$2.85

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

SURCHARGE:

INTERLATA
EVENING

DAY

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

6.1.7

$2.50

NIGHTIWEEKEND

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

Contract Location 7
SURCHARGE:

LOCAL
EVENING

DAY

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTRALATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government AffSlirs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.e. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 22.1

Securus Technologies, Inc.

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)

6.

6.1.8

(N)

Contract Location 8
SURCHARGE:

LOCAL
EVENING

DAY
RATE

INITIAL

MILEAGE

PERIOD

0-9999

0.0000

$3.80

NIGHTIWEEKEND

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

EACH ADD'L

SURCHARGE:

INTRALATA
EVENING

DAY

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

INTERLATA

SURCHARGE:
DAY

EVENING

$3.00

NIGHTIWEEKEND

RATE

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

INITIAL

EACHADD'L

INITIAL

EACH ADD'L

MILEAGE

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

PERIOD

0-9999

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000

0.1000
(N)

Issued: October 19,2011

Effective: November 18,2011

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 23

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.2

Prepaid Service

Prepaid Calling Cards and Debit Accounts
Where offered by the Confinement Facility, Inmates may either purchase a Prepaid Calling Card or set up a
Prepaid Debit Account for calls made by the Inmate User or Authorized User. Prepaid Calling Cards and
Debit Accounts provide an alternative method to make calls and are designed for those Inmates who prefer
to prepay for their calls. Calls are made by dialing a special access dialing sequence that connects directly
to the Company's network at the Confmement Facility. A valid Authorization Code must be entered to
access the account.
The Company's system automatically informs the Inmate User or Authorized User of the Prepaid Balance
remaining on the Prepaid Calling Card or in the Prepaid Debit Account, and provides prompts to place the
call by entering the destination telephone number with area code. Network usage is deducted from the
Prepaid Balance on a real time basis as the call progresses. Applicable state taxes and fees are included in
the rates and charges for the calls made. On Prepaid Calling Card and Prepaid Debit Account calls, when
the Prepaid Balance is one minute prior to depletion, the Inmate User or Authorized User will be
interrupted with such an announcement.
Prepaid Calling Card and Debit Account services are ;:tvailable twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days
per week to all terminating locations serviced. Access to such telephone services by an Inmate User may
be subject to time-of-day an usage restrictions imposed by individual Confinement Facilities. No minimum
service period applies. For debiting purposes, call timing is rounded up to the nearest one (1) minute
increment. Usage charges are computed and rounded up to the nearest one (1) cent on a per call basis.
Prepaid Balances are not charged for incomplete calls.
6.2.1

Prepaid Calling Cards
The Confinement Facilities that offer the option of Prepaid Calling Cards may purchase Prepaid
Calling Cards directly from the Company. Inmates then purchase the Cards from authorized
personnel at the Confinement Facilities. The Company does not engage in direct monetary
transactions with the Inmate. The Inmate may purchase a Prepaid Calling Card in denominations
determined by the Confmement Facility. Prepaid Calling Cards are offered only to Inmates at
Confinement Facilities and not to the general pUblic. Prepaid Calling Cards are valid for one
hundred eighty (180) days from the date of frrst usage. Unused Prepaid Balances may be used by
the Inmate User or Authorized User following release from the Confmement Facility only through
the Company's network by dialing a special toll free access number with automatically connects
the call to the Company's network. Unused Prepaid Balances are not refundable nor may Prepaid
Calling Cards be replenished upon the depletion of the Prepaid Balance. Inmates may purchase
additional cards, as permitted by their Confmement Facility.

Issued: October 22, 20 I 0

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 24

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.2

Prepaid Service (Continued)
6.2.2

Prepaid Debit Accounts
For a Prepaid Debit Account, the Inmate may set up the account through the Confinement
Facility administrators with an initial payment typically through the Inmate's commissary
account, in those Confinement Facilities where this service is available. Upon the
depletion of the Prepaid Balance, the Prepaid Debit Account may be replenished by
depositing funds into the Account via the Confmement Facility administrator. Prepaid
Debit Accounts are considered dormant if there is no activity for one hundred eighty
(180) days following the last call made. Inactive accounts will be removed from the
Company's system. In conjunction with their release from the Confinement Facility, the
Inmate may request a refund from the Confmement Facility administrator.

6.2.3

AdvanceConnect Accounts
End Users who prefer to pay in advance for Collect Calls that originate from
Confinement Facilities, or else if the End User's local exchange carrier does not have a
billing and collection agreement with the Company or its intermediary, may set up an
AdvanceConnect Account with the Company with a minimum initial fifty dollar ($50)
payment. The Account is set up with the initial payment and may be replenished by the
End User. Applicable state taxes and fees are calculated and deducted from the balance
at the conclusion of the call.
When the balance in an AdvanceConnect Account reaches twenty dollars ($20) or below,
the End User will receive an automated courtesy call from the Company notifying the
End User with such an announcement. If the End User's balance reaches zero prior to
replenishment of the Account, the End User will be blocked from receiving further calls
from any Confmement Facility served by the Company until the balance is replenished or
an alternative billing arrangement is made.
The End User may request a refund of the available balance in the AdvanceConnect
Account either by written request to the Company or by contacting the Company at its
toll free telephone number once the End User verifies certain account information. Any
such unused balances will expire in one hundred eighty (180) days following the last call
made, unless the balance is either fully depleted or a refund has been requested. Refunds
are subject to a processing fee of up to $4.95 for accounts established on or after
November 1, 2008. No refunds of unused balances will be issued after the expiration
date.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 25
Cancels Original Sheet No. 25

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.

RATES AND CHARGES (Continued)
6.2

Prepaid Service (Continued)
6.2.3

AdvanceConnect Accounts (Continued)
AdvanceConnect Account service is available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7)
days a week to all terminating locations served. Access to such services by the Inmate
User may be subject to time-of-day and usage restrictions imposed by individual
Confinement Facilities. No minimum service period applies. For debiting purposes, call
timing is rounded up to the nearest one (1) minute increment. Usage charges are
computed and rounded up to the nearest one (1) cent on a per call basis. Balances are not
charged for incomplete calls.
Wireless Administration Fee - a monthly fee of $2.99 is applicable to any
AdvanceConnect account with a wireless telephone number included as a number
authorized to receive calls. This fee applies once per month, per account regardless of
the number of wireless telephone numbers authorized. The fee amount will be deducted
from the AdvanceConnect account balance on a monthly basis as long as a wireless
number remains on the AdvanceConnect account. As of the initial effective date of this
fee, existing AdvanceConnect accounts with existing authorized wireless numbers will be
Grandfathered and the Wireless Administration Fee will not apply. If an existing
AdvanceConnect account adds or changes a wireless number on the account, the Wireless
Administration Fee will apply going forward.

Issued: October 19,2011

Effective: November 18,2011

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

(I)

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 26
Cancels Original Sheet No. 26

Securus Technologies, Inc.

6.2

Prepaid Service (Continued)
6.2.4

Prepaid Services Rates
The rates listed below are applicable to the Company's Prepaid Services. For billing purposes,
call timing is rounded up to the next full minute increment after a minimum initial period of one
(1) minute. No time of day, holiday or volume discounts apply.
Prepaid Calling Cards and Debit Accounts

Option 1
PER MINUTE USAGE CHARGE

$0.50

An additional per call service charge of $1.00 will apply to all completed prepaid calling card
IntraLAT A and InterLATA telephone calls.

Option 2
Rates and charges for prepaid calling services are provided at a ten percent discount off standard
operator assisted collect call rates.

Option 3
PER MINUTE USAGE CHARGE

$0.60

Option 4
Rates and charges for prepaid calling services are provided at the standard contracted collect call
rates applicable to the facility requesting prepaid services. Contracted rates will be filed with the
Massachusetts Department of Communications and Cable for tariff approval and will be in
compliance with existing policy.
6.2.5

AdvanceConnect Accounts
The rates for AdvanceConnect Accounts are the same as those for automated Collect Call service.

6.3

Voice Biometrics (ftkla SECUREvoice)

(T)

This charge may apply to automated calls place by inmates of confinement facilities when such calls are
provided through Securus Technologies, Inc.'s own processing equipment. Voice Biometrics provides
validation of inmate personal identification numbers (PINs) through voice verification technology for
purposes of improved security and reduced potential of fraud and consumer harassment by inmates. Where
installation of Voice Biometrics is requested by confmement facilities, a per call service charge of up to
$0.30 applies in addition to all applicable message charges, operator assistance service charges and other
miscellaneous service charges.

Issued: October 19, 2011

Effective: November 18,2011

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

(T)

(T)
(I)

Securus Technologies, Inc.

7.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 27

PROMOTIONS
7.1

General
From time to time the Company shall, at its opinion, promote subscription or stimulate network
usage by offering to waive some or all of the nonrecurring or recurring charges for the Customer
(if eligible) of target services for a limited duration. Such promotions shall be made available to aU
similarly situated Customers in the target market area.

7.2

Demonstration of Service
From time to time the Company may demonstrate service for potential customers by providing
free use of its network on a limited basis for a period of time, not to exceed one (1) month.
Demonstration of service and the type and duration of service provided will be at the Company's
discretion.

7.3

Comparable Pricing Promotion
The Company will, at its discretion, match certain standard or promotional offerings of other
interexchange carriers or reseUers in order to acquire new Customers or retain existing Customer
accounts. The Customer must demonstrate to the Company's satisfaction that 1) an alternative
service offering is valid and currently available from a competing interexchange carrier or reseUer
and 2) the Customer intends to either subscribe to or remain subscribed with the competing
interexchange carrier or reseller.

7.4

Debit Services Sponsor Program
A sponsor program is offered to organizations or commercial entities for distribution of
Company's Debit Cards to their members or patrons. The marketing vehicle and expiration period
is selected by the sponsor upon joint agreement between the carrier and the sponsor. The sponsor
is responsible for name, service mark or other image on the card. The carrier reserves the right to
approve or reject any image and to specify the customer information language and use of the
carrier's trade mark, trade name, service mark, or other image on the card. The sponsor may
distribute the carrier's Debit Card accounts at reduced rates or free charge to end users for
promotional purposes. At the option of the sponsor, these cards may not be renewed. Debit Cards
and/or accounts issued through a sponsor program may not be used in conjunction with debit
account services provided to inmate of confinement institutions.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21, 2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

Securus Technologies, Inc.

8.

M.D.T.C. Tariff No. 1
Original Sheet No. 28

CONTRACT SERVICES
8.1

General

At the option of the Company, service may be offered on a contract basis to meet specialized
requirements of the Customer not contemplated in this tariff. The terms of each contract shall be
mutually agreed upon between the Customer and Company and may include discounts off of rates
contained herein, waiver of recurring or nonrecurring charges, charges for specially designed and
constructed services not contained in the Company's general service offerings, or other
customized features. The terms of the contract may be based partially or completely on the term
and volume commitment, type of originating or terminating access, mixture of service for other
distinguishing features. Service shall be available to all similarly situated Customers for a fixed
period of time following the initial offering to the first Customer as specified in each individual
contract.

Issued: October 22, 2010

Effective: November 21,2010

Issued by: Curtis L. Hopfmger, Director - Regulatory & Government Affairs
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254

EXHIBIT 3

VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC.

Massachusetts D.P.U. Tariff No.1
Original Page 43

SECTION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (Continued)

6.2

(N)

Operator Services -'Payphone

6.2.1

General
Operator Services - Payphone allows calls to be placed from payphones pre-subscribed to
Carrier for the handling of long distance traffic. These calls are placed with the assistance
of an automated or live operator. Calls are billed in increments of one minute. Partial
minutes are rounded to the next higher increment for billing purposes. A one-time
operator surcharge,if applicable, will be added to the first minute of each operator
assisted call in addition to per minute rates as specified in 6.2.4.
The following types of calls are available for operator assistance:
•

Collect Calls - Operator assistance for collect calls will ask the caller to provide
his/her name or other identification, then contact the party at the domestic telephone
number specified by the caller, repeat the caller's identification and then ask if the
called party will accept charges for the call. If the called party agrees to accept the
charges, the call will be established and the associated charges for a collect call will
be billed to the called party's residential telephone number billing account. Collect
calls can be either person-to-person or station-to-station.

•

Billed-to-Third Number - Operator assistance will establish the call requested by
the caller and arrange for billing of associated charges to a residential domestic
telephone number specified by the caller that is other than the calling telephone
number or the called telephone number. Requests for third number billing are
subject to operator verification that the party at the telephone number to be billed
will accept charges for the call. Other efforts may be undertaken subsequently by
Carrier, as necessary, to determine responsibility for payment of such calls.

•

Person-to-Person - At the caller's request, operator assistance will attempt to place
a call to a particular party at a domestic telephone number specified by the caller.
The party specified by the caller may be a person, station, department, extension, or
office. If successful, the Operator will establish the person-to-person call between
the calling and called parties. If the identified party is not available and the caller
requests, or agrees, to speak to a party other than the party initially specified, the
call will be established and billed at the person-to-person call rates.

•

Operator Dialed Direct - Operator assistance is available to callers who want an
Operator to place their call for them. Operator dialed direct calls do not include:
collect calls, billed-to-third number calls, person-to-person calls or calls billing to a
calling card or commercial credit card.

•

Calling Card or Credit Card Calls - Operator assistance is available to callers who
request that charges for a long distance call be charged to a valid calling card or
credit card. In order to control fraud, Carrier may refuse to accept a card that it
determines or suspects to be invalid.
(N)

Effective: June 14, 2002

Issued: May 13, 2002
by:

Donald R. Fowler, Director - Tariffs
Verizon Select Services Inc.
600 Hidden Ridge
Irving, TX 75038

VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC.

Massachusetts D.P.U. Tariff No.1
Original Page 44

SECTION 6 • MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (Continued)

6.2

(N)

Operator Services· Payphone (Continued)

6.2.1

General (Continued)
•

6.2.2

Real Time Rated - Operator assistance is available to provide the time (duration)
and charges associated with an operator assisted call. Carrier's operator must
establish the call for which time and charges are requested. The caller must provide
the calling and called telephone numbers to the operator and request the operator
provide the time and charges associated with such call upon completion of the call.

Terms and Conditions

A.

To participate in this service, Customer must access operator assistance to have a
call established by dialing the appropriate operator code (e.g., 0, 00, a dial around
number + 0) or by dialing a Carrier designated access number. Caller may need to
specifically request a Carrier operator or respond to appropriate prompts, depending
on the operator access code or Carrier designated access number initially dialed.
Customer may dial 0- to speak to an automated operator or a live operator. This
service is offered where technically feasible.

B.

The following types of calls are included in this service:
•
•

6.2.3

Live operator assisted calls from a payphone, and
Automated Operator Attendant assisted calls from a payphone.

C.

A surcharge, as specified in 6.2.4, will be assessed to all non-coin calls made from a
payphone to compensate the payphone service provider, pursuant to FCC Ruling
CC Docket 96-128.
Payphone Compensation does not apply to calls using
Telecommunications Relay Service, and calls originated by callers with qualified
hearing or speech impairment who are certified by a physician as hearing or speech
impaired.

D.

Customer will incur a surcharge based on the type of call placed. In addition, a perminute rate will apply.

Availability of Service
This service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where facilities and systems
capabilities permit.
(N)

Issued: May 13, 2002
by:

Effective: June 14, 2002
Donald R. Fowler, Director - Tariffs
Verizon Select Services Inc.
600 Hidden Ridge
Irving, TX 75038

VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC.

Massachusetts D.P.U. Tariff No.1
3rd Revised Page 45
Cancels 2nd Revised Page 45

SECTION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (Continued)
6.2

Operator Services - Payphone (Continued)
6.2.4

Rates and Charges
These rates are applicable to all automated or live operator-assisted calls. All rate periods
apply.

A.

Per Minute

B.

Operator Assisted Service Charges

c.

(D)
(C)
(D)

Per Call

0+ (Calling Card, Calling Card Operator Assisted,
Credit Card, Credit Card Operator Assisted,
Collect, Bill to Third Party)

$4.99

(I)

0- (Calling Card, Calling Card Operator Assisted,
Credit Card, Credit Card Operator Assisted,
Collect, Bill to Third Party)

6.20

(I)

Operator Dialed
Person-to-Person
Payphone Compensation Surcharge
Directory Assistance

1.20
6.50
.55
1.00

A Premise Imposed Fee of $3.00 may apply.

Issued: February 17, 2005
by:

$.89

Effective: March 21,2005
Donald R. Fowler, Director - Tariffs
Verizon Select Services Inc.
600 Hidden Ridge
Irving, TX 75038

EXHIBIT 4

Arent Fox LLP I Washington. DC I New York. NY I Los Angeles, CA

Arent fox
October 11,2011

Stephanie A. Joyce

VIA ECFS

Attorney
202.857.6081 DIRECT
202.857.6395 FAX
joyce.stephanie@arentfox.com

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re:

CC Docket No. 96-128, Alternative Rulemaking Proposal of Martha Wright. et al.

Dear Ms. Dortch:
Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus") files this letter to provide the Commission with
the updated cost information offered in its previous letter dated September 20, 2011.
Securus has reviewed its overall cost of service for providing inmate telecommunications
service. Securus used whole-year data that was available after the submission of the industry
cost study (the "Wood Study") in 2008. The data reviewed is specific to Securus and does not
represent the costs of any other company that was involved in the Wood Study.
Securus estimates that its overall per-call costs have increased approximately 16.3%. Its
overall per-minute costs have increased approximately 16.5%.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns:
202.857.6081. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
s/Stephanie A. Joyce

Counsel for Securus Technologies, Inc.
cc:

Chairman Julius Genachowski (via electronic mail)
Commissioner Michael Copps (via electronic mail)
Commissioner Robert McDowell (via electronic mail)
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn (via electronic mail)
Sharon Gillett, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau (via electronic mail)
Austin Schlick, General Counsel (via electronic mail)
Zachary Katz, Legal Advisor to Chairman Genachowski (via electronic mail)

SMART IN YOUR WORLD@

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339
T 202.857.6000 F 202.857.6395

1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-5820
T 212.484.3900 F 212.484.3990

555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
T 213.629.7400 F 213.629.7401

Marlene H. Dortch
October 11, 2011
Page 2

Arent FOx
Margaret McCarthy, Policy Advisor to Commissioner Copps (via electronic mail)
Christine Kurth, Legal Advisor to Commissioner McDowell (via electronic mail)
Angela Kronenberg, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Clyburn (via electronic mail)
Albert Lewis, Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau (via
electronic mail)
Marcus Maher, Legal Advisor to Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau (via
electronic mail)
Pamela Arluk, Assistant Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
(via electronic mail)
Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau (via
electronic mail)
Michelle Berlove, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau (via
electronic mail)
Jennifer Prime, Acting Legal Advisor, Office of the Bureau Chief, Wireline
Competition Bureau (via electronic mail)

· EXHIBIT 5

/

.

S1 '-IN

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
Investigation by the Department of Public Utilities
on its own motion regarding (1) implementation of
Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
relative to Public Interest Payphones, (2) Entry and
Exit Barriers for the Payphone Marketplace, (3) New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a
NYNEX's Public Access Smart-pay Line Service and
(4) the rate policy for operator services providers

)
)
)
)
) Docket D.P.U. 97-88/97-18 (Phase II)

)
)
)
)

----------------------------~-------)
INITIAL COMMENTS

Qf
INVISION TELECOM, INC.
INVISION TELECOM, INC. (1InVision"),

acting through counsel and in

accordance with the Department's Order of September 11, 1997 hereby submits its
Initial Comments in this matter, focusing on the consistency of the existing operator
service provider ("OSP") rate caps with certain provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1966 (ITA-96") and relevant orders of the Federal Communications Commission.
In particular, InVision submits its comments in response to the second question set
forth in the Department's September 11, 1997 Order.
1.
Question:
Are the Department's requirements for payphone
providers and OSPs, including the OSP rate cap, competitively neutral and
consistent with the requirements of Section 276 of the Act, and the FCC's
payphone regulations and orders? If not, please explain why not and specify
which requirements need to be removed or modified, and how.

280411

2.

Comments:

InVision is a registered, tariffed provider of alternate

operator services ("AOS") in Massachusetts. It provides operator services in the form
of automated, outbound-only, collect-only calling by inmates from confinement facilities
in the Commonwealth.

Although InVision does not generally provide conventional

coin-operated payphones1L, its inmate calling services constitute "payphone service" for
purpose of Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the TA-96
("Act").

47 U.S.C. § 276(d) ("payphone service" includes the provision of inmate

telephone service in correctional institutions").

Therefore, InVision is entitled to the

protections of Section 276 and the relevant FCC implementing orders.Zl
On March 26 of this year InVision filed a Petition for Expedited Rulemaking with
the Department, seeking to have the Department initiate a proceeding to address the
OSP rate cap issue.

.s.e.e Exhibit 1 attached hereto.

Therein, InVision outlined why the

Department must revisit and lift the existing rate cap policy; noting at least the following
two reasons:
a.

The current policy is clearly discriminatory under the Communications Act.

(Exhibit 1, at pp. 6-7) because the Department has deregulated (Le., now treats as
nondominant) AT&T's operator services .

InVision does offer such services through a few payphones in areas of confinement facilities
accessible to the general public.

.11

Implementation of Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. CC Docket Nos. 96-128 and 91-35, Reported Order ("Payphone
Order"); Order on Reconsideration. FCC 96-436, released November 8. 1996 ("Reconsideration Order")
(collectively. "Payphone Orders")..

Z!.

280411

b.

Under the current

asp

rate cap policy, InVision is not being fairly

compensated for the capped-intrastate calls as required by Section 276 of the
Communications Act. (Exhibit 1, at pp. 7-12).~
For the very same reasons as set out in Exhibit 1, InVision maintains that the
Department must lift the existing rate cap policy and treat InVision as a nondominant
carrier like AT&T is now treated.
Respectfully submitted,

Paul C. 8es z
PATTON BOGGS, LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 457-5292
Dated: September 19, 1997

~

As noted in Exhibit 1, the FCC reminded the states that the "fair compensation" requirement
applied to inmate calling service providers. Reconsideration Order, at p. 37 72).
280411

m

n r'

·I
S

~«-:
( ~i
,~
:to::;_

i\t:..
!
_'

l) ...... rT'l.
'Ij.,;"·:'.

.

E; <::; \""'i't... .:':;:.!\
'"';'"
~~'"
~

;t.~

f.c'"

"

• ,.

',:

.~-:

.

R·~ ::.ttii~
'.~ -- r:~-H
t.> ¥'- '".
;
.'

1\' ;

•

r

~"'~

'.'I-~'

..~. ~,

"';.'~" iO ~ il

BEFORE THE
P'!"'I I ' ' ' ! ' ; :
.'
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC' UTILITIES' " .....

MAR

26 10 42 AH ·91

)

In the Matter of Restrictions On
The Intrastate Rates Of Providers
Of Inmate Calling Services In
The Commonwealth Of
Massachusetts

)
)
)

D.P.U. ______

)
)

--------------------------)
PETITION FOR EXPEDITED RULEMAKING
InVision Telecom, Inc. (flInVision fl or "Company"), acting through counsel and in
accordance with Parts 1.00 and 2.00 of the Rules of the Department of Public Utilities ("MDPU"
or "Department fI). ]:20 CM R \.00 and], 00. hereby petitions the Department to immediately lift
tht: t:xisting MDPl' restrictions relating to the intrastate rates charged by alternate operator
sen'ice providers (flAOSP") in Massachusetts. as they apply to inmate calling services providers
("ICSP"), InVision maintains that changes to those rules are necessitated by (a) the passage of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (fl 1996 Act"), (b) the Department's own rulings with
respect to competing operator service providers in Massachusetts and (c) the unique and more
costly nature of the services provided by ICSPs such as InVision. In support of its Petition,
InVision sets out the following:
I. BACKGROUND: THE DEPARTMENT'S EXISTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
I,

InVision IS a registered. tariffed provider of automated, outbound-only,

C(llkc\-onh calling servIces to inmates of confinement facilities in the Commonwealth of

~

;.~ ". ".:

t,:. \.

Massachusetts. Since the Department catalogues In Vision as a provider of automated operator
services. the Company currently is subject to the MDPU's existing regulatory framework
governing AOSPs in Massachusetts. That framework was adopted by the Department almost 10
years ago. in the context of AOSPs principally serving the public pay telephone industry.
2.

The Department first articulated its present-day AOSP rules in International

Telecharge. Inc. D.P.U. 87-7'2. D.P.U. 88-72 (1988) ("ITI"). A central feature of the rules was
the requirement that. absent the presentation of a traditional rate increase case, AOSPs adhere to
intrastate rates that did not exceed "rates offered for similar intrastate services provided by NET
and AT&T." ITI at p. 17: see MDPU Memorandum, dated March 19, 1993, "Intrastate Pricing
of Alternative Operator Services. ilL

Because of the significant expense and uncertainty

.associated with preparing and prosecuting a successful rate case, the Department's AOSP rules
have imposed a de facto rate cap on these intrastate rates for the last decade. To InVision's
knowledge. no AOSP has ever sought to breach this cap. It remains in effect today, despite the
Department's subsequent approval of regulatory changes reflecting a reevaluation of the
competitive marketplace.

II. DEPARTMENT'S DEREGULATION OF AT&T
3.

In that regard. the Department. in two stages, has now lifted its regulation of the

prices for all of AT&T's intrastate services in Massachusetts. First, in AT&T Communications
of New England. Inc., D.P.U. 91-79 (1992) ("AT&T No. 1."), the Department, citing competitive

A traditional rate increase case is one that requires the proponent to provide full cost
information for all services at the time of a requested rate increase. IntraLATA
Competition. D.P.U. 1731 (1985) at p. 62 ("IntraLATA Competition"); see also AT&T
Communications of New England. Inc., D.P.U. 85-137 (1985).

developments

In

the marketplace. eliminated traditional rate-of-return regulation for most of

AT & Ts intrastate services.' including operator services~. However, the Department declined to
make any change in the ratemaking rules for AOSPs in the Commonwealth. AT&T No.1 at pp.
54-55.
4.

Second. more recently in AT&T Communications of New England. Inc., D.P.U.

95-131 (1996) (AT&T No.2."). the Department lifted even the relaxed regulation of AT&T's
rates adopted in AT&T No. I. so that "all of AT&Ts services [including operator services], will
now be subject to market-based pricing."

AT&T No. "2 at p. 9.

In doing so, the MDPU

recognized that it was creating a regulatory dichotomy, with AT&T, the country's largest
telecommunications service provider. deemed a nondominant carrier on one side, and other
operator service providers. all dwarfed by AT&T, subject to continued arbitrary rate ceilings, on
the other. AT&T No.2 at p. 10. n. 6. As a result, the Department committed to "determine at a
later date whether its policy on alternative operator services should be modified (and if so, how)
to reflect changing market conditions. " AT&T No.2 at p. 11. n. 6.31

At the time the Department did continue to require AT&T to cost justify changes to
operator services rates. AT&T No.1 at p. 56. Subsequently, the MDPU also eliminated
traditional rate-or-return regulation for the Commonwealth's principal local exchange
carrier. New' England Telephone and Telegraph Company. Petition of New En~land
Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a NYNEX for an Alternative RegulatOIy Plan for
the Company's Massachusetts intrastate telecommunications services, D.P.U. 94-50
( 1(95).
Indeed. some two and a half years earlier. the MDPU's Commissioners had recognized
that changing market conditions warranted a reexamination of the . Department's
regulatory treatment of AOSPs. including the rate caps. DPU Investi~ation Regardin~
Regulatory Treatment of Alternative Operator Service Providers, D.P.U. 93-118, March
23. ) 994 ("DPU 93-118"). However, that proceeding has lain dormant since the
comment cycle was completed in August of 1994.

-3-

III. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
A. The Statute
5.

In the meantime. in between. the Department's two rulings collectively lifting price

regulation of AT&Ts intrastate operations, including operator services, Congress enacted, and
the President signed. the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104,110 Stat. 56, February
8. 1996) ("1996 Act").

Among other things, the 1996 Act added a new section to the

Communications Act of 1934 ("Communications Act") relating to the competitive provision of .
pay ph one service. Section 276 expressly defined "payphone service" to include "the provision of
inmate telephone service in correctional institutions .... " 47 U.S.c. § 276(d).
6,

Among

the

principal

directives of Section 276

was for the Federal

Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission") to take all actions necessary to
"establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly
compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone,"
with certain limited exceptions. 47 U.S.c. § 276(b)(I)(A). So by Federal law, ICSPs such as
InVision must be fairly compensated for each completed intrastate call. As noted below, the

FCC specifically reminded the states of their obligation to ensure that this mandate is achieved
and that state regulations which interfere with this mandate are subject to FCC preemption. 47

l .'"S' C .

1\ ') 76( c). !
~...

The Department has announced its intention to initiate a proceeding to address certain
requirements of Section 276 regarding barriers to entry. Legal Notice, D.P.U. 97-18,
March 14. 1997.
2-1171111

-4-

B. The FCC's Section 276 Implementing Regulations
7.

The FCC has implemented Section 276 in two major orders. In the Matter of

Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Report and Order FCC 96-388, released September 20, 1996
("First Report and Order"). Order of Reconsideration, FCC 96-439, released November 8, 1996
("Order On Reconsider~ltion").

Therein. the FCC made it clear that the statutory "fair

compensation" requirement included inmate payphones and that the state regulators, particularly
where there were rate caps in place. have an obligation to ensure the fair compensation standard
is being met.
"We note that. in response to their arguments about
state-mandated intrastate toll rate ceilings, the
inmate petitioners may remind the states that
Section 276's mandate that [payphone service
providers] be fairly compensated for all payphone
calls is an obligation that is borne both by us and
the states. If an inmate provider believes, after
making its arguments to a particular state in light of
Section 276 and the instant proceeding, that it is not
receiving fair compensation for intrastate toll calls
originated by its inmate pay phones, it may petition
the Commission to review the specific state
regulation of which it complains."
Order On Reconsideration at p. 37. ~ 72.
8.

Indeed. the FCC had already concluded that a "government-mandated rate" (i.e., a

rate cap such as that imposed by the Department) "may not be high enough to be fairly
wmpensatory."

In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and

Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Notice of Proposed

-5-

Rulemakingl. 11 FCC Red. 6716. 6726 n. 54 (1996) ("NPRM").~ Thus, where the market "does
not or cannot function properly" because of an artificial restriction, the Commission is prepared
to "take afftnnative steps to ensure fair compensation." First Report and Order at p.27, ~49.
IV. THE DEPARTMENT MUST REVISIT AND LIFT
THE EXISTING DE FACTO RATE CAPS
9. Given the foregoing chain of events. the Department must revisit and lift the existing
de facto intrastate rate caps on In Vision as a provider of AOS for at least two reasons.
a. The current policy is clearly discriminatory under the CommuniCations Act.
b. The unique cost situation of InVision justifies such an adjustment because InVision
is not being fairly compensated for the capped-intrastate calls as required by Section 276 of the
Communications Act.

C. The Current Policy Is Clearly Discriminatory
10. The Department has left market forces to control the pricing of all intrastate services
of AT&T. See AT&T No.2. supra. AT&T must file tariffs with the Department to implement
its pricing decisions. but need only provide "nominal supporting documentation". IntraLATA
Competition at p. 63. Thus. AT&T is free to price its intrastate services, including any local
exchange services it might provide in the future, as it sees fit, subject to the filing of new tariffs
for \vhich it need not provide full cost justification.

S« IntraLATA Competition at pp. 63-64.

11. On the other hand. InVision is precluded from making any adjustments to its intrastate
operator services rates without providing full, traditional, rate-of-return cost justification.
In any case. the use of dominant carrier rates/costs ostensibly to reflect the costs of
competitors has not been endorsed as a valid benchmark. Final Report of the Federal
Communications Commission pursuant to the Telephone Operator Services Improvement
Act of 1990. November 13. 1992. at p. 19 n. 38; H. Rep. No. 213, 101st Cong., 1st Sess.,
Aug. 3. 1989. at p. 17: AT&T Comments .infra" n. 5, at p. 4.

- 6-

InVision. which is microscopic in size as compared to AT&T. is not allowed the same flexibility
and regulatory treatment as AT&T which. by any statistical measure, is many times its size.
Moreover. it is unclear that InVision (or any other AOSP) could provide the cost data in the
format and detail required to successfully prosecute a traditional rate increase case. DPU 93-118,
Comments of Value Added Communications. Inc., July 21, 1994, Exhibit 1 at pp. 7-8 (lfYA
Comments"): Comments of American Network Exchange, Inc., July 22, 1994, at p. 10
("AMNEX Comments").
12. On its face this disparate regulatory treatment clearly is unreasonably discriminatory.
The Department has articulated no. regulatory or other justification for this gross distinction
between AT&T and In Vision in their provision of operator services. For this reason alone the
distinction must be eliminated immediately and InVision should receive the same regulatory
treatment now afforded AT&T and its nondominant brethren.~

D.

I J.

The Unique Costs Associated With The Provision
Of Inmate Calling Services Warrant The
Lifting Of The De Facto Rate Caps

In developing its current policy and applying· it to ICSPs like InVision, the

Department did not consider the unique situation of ICSPs. The special characteristics of the
inmate calling environment produce per-call costs which are even higher than the costs of
conventional operator services used. for example, at public payphones.

The Department recognized the obvious problem with such disparate treatment when it
lifted regulation of AT&T in November of 1996, some four months ago. Still, there has
been not formal action to take up this issue, even though, as noted above, there already is
an open docket on the issue of AOSP rates in general which long predates the recent
action on AT&T. See DPU 93-118. SJ.ll2m. Indeed DPU 93-118 was initiated based on a
filing by another lesp. Value-Added Communications, Inc., making some of the same
arguments raised here by In Vision. ~ V A Comments, Exhibit 1.

- 7-

14. The specialized inmate calling systems developed by InVision and its competitors to
meet the call control and monitoring needs of confinement facilities require more significant
capital investment. In addition. even with this sophisticated call control equipment, the level of
uncollectibles associated with calls from confinement facilities is several times higher than that
generally experienced at public payphones. Finally, labor expenses are higher because InVision
must maintain a customer service staff equipped to address the generally extraordinary needs of
the inmates. the parties they call and the administrators of the confinement facilities themselves.
15. These higher costs are effectively reflected in Federal and other tariff filings by
AT &T. Sprint and MCI to provide their own controlled inmate calling services. 1L In 33 states,
including Maine. AT&T imposes a $3.00 per call charge for its "Prison Collect With Controls"
service to cover the special telecommunications requirements and unique demands of the
confinement facility.

~

DPU 93- 118, Reply Comments of AT&T Communications of New

England. Inc .. August 5. 1994. at p. 5: AT&T Comments at p. 4. Similarly, MCl's Maximum
Security Collect and Sprint's PrisonFon tariffed services impose similar charges for such
service.~ Again. these tilings confirm. from the second and third largest interexchange carriers'

perspectives. the additional costs associated with the provision of inmate calling services.

AT&T. in its comments in DPU 93-118, itself acknowledged the added costs associated
\\'ith inmate calling services., DPU 93-118, Comments of AT&T Communications of
~ew England. Inc .. July 22. 1994. at p. 4 ("AT&T Comments").
~.

2.J I 7l\R

The relevant excerpt from AT&T's tariff is at Exhibit 1. To InVision's knowledge,
AT&T has not yet tiled this tariff in Massachusetts, although AT&T provides services to
inmates in the Commonwe·alth. AT&T Comments at p. 4 ("Inmate calling is a highly
competitive collect calling s.ervice with a plethora of competitors and AT&T's share in
this market is less than 50%"). The relevant excerpts from the MCI and Sprint tariffs are
at Exhibit 2.
-8-

16. In addition. the Department's de facto rate ceilings for intrastate calls fall more heavily

on ICSPs because the calls involved are predominantly local and intrastate toll. InVision's
December 1996 - January 1997 traffic mix revealed that 94.5% of its calls from the
\'1assachusetts facilities that it had under contract were intrastate (42% local, 50.6% intraLATA
and .9% interLATA toll). Finally, ICSPs traffic is totally "0+" in nature. Unlike AT&T, Mel,
Sprint and other AOSPs, InVision does not have alternative sources of traffic to help cover its
increas'ed costs. See AMNEX Comments at p. I 1.
1. Inmate Calling Service Providers Must Offer A

Unique Array Of Services Not Part Of The
Typical AOSP Offering.
17. To ensure the maintenance of security, ICSPs must provide a rigorous set of controls

oyer inmate calling.

Further. such controls are needed to protect against the higher levels of

fraud and uncollectibles associated with the inmate environment, at the same time as they offer
inmates adequate and fair access to their phones.

All of this necessitates increasingly

sophisticated and expensive call processing systems, automated operators, call recording and
monitoring equipment and extensive fraud control programs.
18. Thus. InVision and its competitors are offering a distinctive, integrated package of
services. They provide the calling equipment itself; they serve as their own operator service
rnwidcr: they perform extensive call control and monitoring functions while the call is taking
rlac~. I

The call control systems are absolutely mandatory to prevent or deter abuses such as the

harassllll.;!nt of witnesses and judges and the use of inmate calling systems to conduct criminal

.- ...

- ---------

As their own provider of operator services, ICSPs receive no third-party commissions.
The revenue for their "0+" calls is for the carrier function they serve, not to recover the
cost of the inmate services. .

-9-

\

acti\·ity. The controls are also necessary to try to control the level of fraudulent inmate calling.
Finall:-. the call controls ensun: that inmates receive fair and reasonable access to the phones.
19. Call control systems are needed:

a. To block all non-O+ collect calls (i.e., "1 +", access code calls, 700/800/900. 950, 976,
411 and repair service calls).

b. To limit call duration and or calling time of day.
c. To limit calling by called number.
d. To permit free calling to certain predesignated members (i.e., public defenders office,
bail bondsmen. commissary service).J.Q:
e. To block calls attempted by particular inmates or from certain inmate phones.
~O.

These call screening controls can necessitate that InVision's inmate calling equipment

check four or more separate databases before a call is completed. These checks can include (a)
\'eri tication of an inmate's personal identitication number ("PIN"), (b) a check against a "negative
database" (i.e .. prohibited numbers). (c) a check to ensure the call is not to a blocked number
category (i.e .. 800 or 950 numbers), (d) a check for the frequency of a particular inmate's calling
to the same number (i.e. a "velocity check" for security purposes), (e) a check against other
inmate's calling records. (f) a check against the provider's billing database to detennine if there is
an unusually high balance owed and (g) a check against the relevant Line Infonnation Data Base
to ensure the call is not being billed to' a number that has billed number screening (e.g., a
payphone).

II!

On these calls. In Vision bears the costs of maintaining the hardware and software plus the
transmission cost. which can amount to $0.25 or more for a 10-minute call.

- 10 -

21. Once these screens are completed. the call is placed and the ICSP monitors the time
limit of the call and to detect and prevent three-way calling or call transfer to a third number. In
some cases voice overlays are used to randomly announce during the course of the call that it is
from a confinement facility. In addition. confinement facilities typically require listening and/or
recording capability.

And inmate calling systems must also generally be able to provide

customized call detail repons. LL

2. Inmate Calling Services Providers Suffer
Higher Levels Qf Fraud And Un collectibles
22. The Department is already familiar with the higher levels of fraud and uncollectibles
sutTered by InVision.

In its Tariff Supplement No. 1 recently approved by the Department,

InVision outlined the losses it was sutTering and steps it was taking, all at additional costs to help
reduce uncollectibles and fraudulent use of its calling systems. ~ Exhibit 3. These additional
drom to stem the grO\vth of such fraud also generate costs not borne by the typical AOSP.

3. Inmate Calling Service Providers Incur
Higher Personnel Costs
23. The inmate calling service business is labor intensive. InVision itself must maintain
sen'icc and support staff in Massachusetts to be able to respond to inquires and maintain facility
requests. inmate and family concerns.

Finally, the level of fraud and uncollectibles generate

personnel demands in the form of resources to investigate and, if necessary, take corrective
action. InVision's Massachusetts personnel receive 250 fraud investigation requests monthly. In
addition. InVision must engage in research and development activities to thwart new methods
identified hy service users to avoid paying for calls.

:\ sample list of the special functions typically required at InVision's facilities is at
Exhibit 4.
- 11 -

V. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ACTION

24. The Department's de

~

rate caps on InVision as an ICSP must be removed. They

are discriminatory in light of what the Department has done to AT&T, a competitor ofinVision.
Further. the restrictions prevent In Vision from being "fairly compensated" as required by Section
276 of the Communications Act.
WHEREFORE InVision requests that the Department eliminate the current requirement
for InVision to adhere to the intrastate rates ofNYNEX or AT&T on intrastate local and toll calls
absent presentation and prosecution of a full-blown rate case. AT&T is no longer required to
meet that requirement.

InVision should be treated as a nondominant carrier like AT&T and

allowed to adjust its current frozen intrastate rates so that it will receive fair compensation as
required under Section 276 of the Communications Act. InVision requests that the Department
act exped!tiously.

The Department's deregulation of AT&T gives it a clear competitive

advantage. The Department committed to reexamining this issue in 1994, and again four months
ago. It should act now.
Respectfull submitted

Date: March

d- I . 1997

- 12 -

EXHIBIT 6

We know how important it is for you to receive calls
from a correctional facility. It is our goal that every call
to you be of the highest quality.
In addition, we provide multiple account options for
you to use to pay for the calls you need to receive.

Why was my call disconnected?
Our phone system has some built-in protections for
witnesses and legal personnel to help prevent unwanted
calls. If you do any of these things during your cal!, you
could be disconnected, so ...

An account is required
In order to receive calls from a correctional facility you
need an account to pay for the calls. This brochure
provides you with information you need to successfully
open an account and begin receiving calls.

Here are some tips to help
you stay connected to an
inmate in a correctional
facility:

if Set up a regular time for
the inmate to call you to
ensure you are prepared to
receive the call
-/ Check to make sure
your local phone company
allows collect calls to your
phone line

if' Open a phone account
now to avoid missing any

Why are calls to my line blocked?
Calls to your phone line(s) from a correctional facility may
be restricted for many reasons. Here are a few:
Collect call restriction. Your local telephone company may
restrict collect calls. Call your local telephone company
to have this restriction removed. Once this restrictions is
removed, it may take up to 72 hours for a collect call to go
through.
New telephone number. If you have a new telephone
number, a restriction could be placed on your line. Simply
provide us with the date you received your new number
from your !oca! telephone company, and Securus can
remove the restriction.

calls
©2010 Securus Technologies

online: securustech.net

call: 1-800-844-6591

Exceeded your spending limit. If you have exceeded your
account spending limit with our company, calls to your
line may be blocked. If you believe this is the case, please
contact us at 1-800-844-6591.

online: securustech.net
M3000_1011

call: 1-800-844-6591

To receive calls from a correctional facility, you must use a
touch-tone telephone.
1.) When you answer a call from a correctional
facility, you will hear a computerized voice. Wait for the
voice to finish speaking, and then follow the instructions to
accept, decline, or block the call.

AdvanceConnect™
Our prepaid AdvanceConnect account puts you in control
of your spending. Simply put money into your account to
receive calls.

,f Add multiple phone numbers to your account

Contact us to open a new account or if you have
questions about an existing account or about the
inmate telephone service at this facility. Call Securus
Correctional Billing Services or visit our website for
details:·

if Up to .$6.95 transaction fee to add money to
your account (when you call or go online)

2.) If you do nothing or select to decline the call, the phone
will hang up without a charge to your phone number.
3.) If you choose to accept the call, begin speaking after
selecting this option. NOTE: To protect you and to provide
equitable telephone access for all inmates, each correctional
facility may place a time limit on calls. Many facilities provide
a message 30 seconds to 1 minute before a call is terminated.

.r $0 transaction fee if you mail us a check,
money order, or cashier's check
.r 180 day refund policy

Online:

/ A $25 minimum funding amount may apply
>I' Up to $2.99 monthly wireless administration fee may
apply for including cel! phone numbers on your account

securustech.net
Phone:

1-800-844-6591

Traditional Collect
If a Traditional Collect account is available for your phone
number, it is a convenient way to accept and pay for calls
received. A Traditional Collect account is created automatically for you when you accept a collect call.

Representatives available
24/1,365 days per year
Email:
customerservice@securustech.net

../ Cal! charges appear on your local phone bill

-.I Your account number is your phone number
if You have a 90 day rolling spending limit
>I' Up to $3.49 monthly bill statement fee may apply
>I' View your calling activity
if See your account balance

>I' Put money into or make a
payment on your account
"" Get credit for dropped
calls under one minute*

>I' See the price (or "rate") of
your calls

>I' Manage or update your
account profile

</ $60.00 limit on the total cost of calls that may be
accepted within a 24 hour time period

Our Direct Bill account is a good option if the inmate is
incarcerated for longer than two years or if you are a bail
bondsman, attorney, social worker or other business or
government agency.
./' Accept calls and charges up to your credit limit

if Itemized monthly statement of activity and charges
./' Add multiple phone numbers to your account

About Us

>I' Up to $6.95 transaction fee to make a payment on

Securus Correctional Billing Services is a division
of Securus Technologies Inc. and T-Netix
Telecommunications Services, Inc. Securus
Technologies, Inc. is one of the largest providers
of detainee communications and information
management solutions, serving approximately 2,200
correctional facilities, more than 850,000 inmates,
and an estimated 7 million friends & family members
nationwide.

your account (when you call or go online)
or cashier's check

'Due to the nature of cell phone service, there is no credit on dropped
calls on cell phones

Correspondence:
Securus Correctional Billing Services
PO Box 1109
Addison, TX 75001

Direct Bill

,f $0 transaction fee if you mail us a check, money order,
Visit us today!
www.securustech.net

Payments:
Securus Correctional Billing Services
PO Box 650757
Dallas, TX 75265-0757

Other Payment Options
Subject to availability, you may receive a call with the
option to pay for it using our Text2Connect'" program or
Pay NowT?< payment product.
Other fees and taxes may apply as approved by state and federal regulations.

online: securustech.net

call: 1-800-844-6591

online: securustech.net

call: 1-800-844-6591

online: securustech.net

call: 1-800-844-6591

EXHIBIT 7

EXHIBIT 7

Securus CSAT approach includes rigorously and systematically surveying the
Company's facility customers, including end users, to assess its performance and determine
their level of satisfaction.These surveys are used to ensure that Securus is delivering the
highest quality of service to its inmate, end-user and facility customers alike. Securus uses
the data for continuous improvement and for locating areas where it needs to focus. These
surveys are done at regular intervals or based upon a specific event such as a technicians
visit to a facility or a friend or family member's discussion with one of Securus' call
centers. Securus also has disciplined follow up and escalation procedures to ensure that
any issues are resolved and the customer is satisfied.
In Massachusetts, Securus has not been called to task by its facility customers for
failing to satisfy quality of service requirements. In fact, quite the opposite is suggested
based on the Company's CSAT scores. The Company's goal is 4.6 out of a possible 5 (5 is a
perfect score and the absolute highest standard of achievement with a score of 4 indicating
that Securus met expectations). A breakdown of the CSAT survey data for the years 2008,
2009, and 2010 as it relates to Massachusetts facilities reflects the following:
1. Facility Survey Not Requiring Site Visit
•

Of 40 returned surveys, average Securus performance rating received was 4.6 out of

5.
2. Facility Survey Requiring Site Visit
•

Of 16 returned surveys, average Securus performance rating was 5 out of 5.

3. Customer Service Survey
A random selection of Friends and Family ("F &F") customers are requested to complete a
phone survey after speaking with a customer service representative
•

Of approximately 60,000 surveys returned; F&F rated Securus'
performance regarding policies and quality of service 4 out of 5;

•

F&F rated Securus' average performance in regards to questions specific to the
level of service provided by customer service representatives as 4 out of 5.

5214631

1

average

4. Facility Value Survey
This survey relates to how the facilities perceive the value of the service Securus provides.
The survey is sent to facilities once a year.
•

Of 28 returned surveys, average Securus' performance rating was 4.6 out of 5.

5. Facility Direct Correspondence
Occasionally Securus' state Account Manager also will receive letters directly from the
facilities we serve, expressing satisfaction with the quality and attention of Securus'
service. Examples include letters from the following facilities:
•

5214631

December, 2010 - - The Bristol County Sheriffs Office expressed satisfaction with
Securus' quality of service stating, "The facility has been a very satisfied customer
of Securus for over 12 years .... as long as Securus continues to improve their
technology and their excellent level of service the BCSO and staff will consider
Securus a valued partner and looks forward to a continued relationship."

2

EXHIBIT 8

Lulu Bozeman

Patricia Gonet

Customer Care records indicate thirteen (13) instances of Ms. Gonet speaking directly with a company representative from
me her account was established in July 2007 through April 2010; however, the records do not indicate Ms. Gonet expressed
any concern regarding call connection issues during this time frame.

Jrhrict-in .. -Rapoza

A-9

Customer Care records reflect multiple accounts for Ms. Rapoza with numerous billed telephone numbers. A review of the
account information finds over the course of Ms. Rapoza's relationship with Securus, she has been directed to complete an
nvestigation form for dropped calls on numerous occasions; however, Ms. Rapoza has not submitted the requested form to
Ms. Rapoza has also requested and has been mailed an investigation form for dropped calls, as recently as June 2010.
Ms. Rapoza has not submitted the required form to authorize an investigation for dropped calls, she has been issued
rtesy credits on multiple occasions for calls less than one minute in duration.

rleyTurner

Customer Care records indicate forty-five (45) instances of Ms. Turner speaking directly with a company representative from
time her account was established in February 2008 through December 2009. A review of the account information finds
~ver the course of Ms. Turner's relationship with Securus, she has been directed to complete an investigation form for

dropped calls on numerous occasions; however, Ms. Turner has not submitted the requested form to date. On December 30,
2009 an investigation form for cut off calls was mailed to Ms. Turner, based upon a request she made with Customer Care.
ugh Ms. Turner has not submitted the required form authorizing an investigation for dropped calls, she has been issued
courtesy credits on multiple occasions for calls less than one minute in duration. Upon Ms. Turner's request in November
2008, Customer Care researched Ms. Turner's allegations of cut off calls and found Ms. Turner's issues at the time were due to
her use of a cellular phone as well as call waiting features interrupting her call. At that time it was also determined that Ms.
rner's calls were being terminated at fifteen (15) minutes, due to the restriction of call duration required by the facility.

Jstomer Care records indicate two (2) instances of Ms. Chorbajian speaking directly with a company representative in
anuary 1999; however, the records do not indicate Ms. Chorbajian requesting any issues related to service quality or dropped
Customer Care record indicate four (4) instances of a representative for Mr. Logar speaking directly with a company
representative between December 2004 and May 2010; however, the records do not indicate Mr. Logar expressed any
concern regarding the issues presented in his petition.
Peter T. Sargent, Esq.

A-26

Customer Care records do not indicate any contact between Mr. Sargent and Securus. Securus records indicate Mr. Sargent is
billed by his Local Exchange Carrier (LEe) for collect calls accepted at facilities served by Securus. As a LECbilled customer, any
month in which Mr. Sargent is billed for charges on Securus' behalf, he is provided with Securus' contact information for any
and all billing or service related inquiries.

A-28
John S. Redden, Esq. !
-nmmittF." for Public Counsel

Customer Care records reveal a direct billed account for multiple billed telephone numbers has been established for Mr.
Redden's organization. There have been multiple instances of representatives from Mr. Redden's organization speaking
directly with a company representative between January 2008 through May 2010; however, the records do not indicate Mr.
Redden or his associates expressed any concern regarding call connection or call quality issues during this time frame.

Patricia Garin, Esq.! Stern
Shapiro Weisberg & Garin LLP

A-30

Customer Care records indicate fourteen (14) instances of Ms. Garin's organization speaking directly with a company
representative between April 2007 and January 2009; however, the records do not indicate Ms. Garin's organization pvnrp<;<:prll
any concern regarding the issues presented in her petition.

Leslie Walker, Esq.!
Massachusetts Correctional
Legal Services

Jstomer Care records indicate thirteen (13) instances of Ms. Walker's organization speaking directly with a company
Irl>nrl><;entative between April 2007 and May 2010. In July 2007 a representative of Ms. Walker's organization requested
ation on disputing prematurely disconnected calls and was provided with the following; the policy on cut off calls, the
required for researching cut off calls and how to access the form online, and contact information for returning the cut
call form to Securus for research and resolution. A courtesy credit was issued to the customer in the amount of $41.91, as the
completed form was received by Securus the following day. This is the only instance of the customer requesting information
or resolution of issues related to call quality or connections issues.

Customer Care records were locateq for Ms. DePalma; however, the records do not indicate she expressed any concern
interaction with Customer Care regarding the aualitv of service or rates outlined in her affidavit.
Customer Care records were located for Mr. Gately; however, the records do not indicate he expressed any concern through
the aualitv of service or rates as outlined in his affidavit.

ne E. Gowen, Attorney

lstomer Care records were located for Ms. Gowen; however, the records do not indicate she expressed any concern through
interaction with Customer Care regarding the aualitv of service or rates as outlined in her affidavit.

Edward Molari
Customer Care records were located for Mr. Molari; however, the records do not indicate he expressed any concern through
interaction with Customer Care regarding the aualitv of service or rates as outlined in his affidavit.

Frank H. Spillane
Customer Care records were located for Mr. Spillane; however, the records do notindicate he expressed any concern through
interaction with Customer Care regarding the aualitv of service or rates as outlined in his affidavit.

'\~

DECLARATION
I, Curtis L. Hopf'mger, am the Director - Regulatory and Government Mfairs of
Securus Technologies, Inc. ("Securus" or "Company"). I have occupied that position since
August of 2005. As such I am familiar with the Company's operations and the regulatory
requirements applicable to those operations in the States in which Securus operates,
including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I have reviewed the Petition f'Iled by various parties, and the two (2) Amendments
thereto, which are the basis for the Department of Telecommunications and Cable
("DTC") initiating proceeding D.T.C. llw16 ("Proceeding").
I have reviewed the foregoing "Response Of Securus Technologies, Inc." in the
Proceeding ("Response"). The Response was prepared pursuant to my direction,
supervision and control. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the representations
made
in the Response concerning Securus and its
,
. operations, including its operations in the
Co:inmonwealth of Massachusetts, and the inmate calling service industry in general are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief..

Curtis L. Hopfinger
Director - Regulatory and
Government Affairs
Securus Technologies, Inc.
Dated: January 20, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul C. Besozzi, hereby certify that on this 20 th day of January 2012, I did serve, by first class
mail, postage prepaid and by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing "Response of Securus
Technologies, Inc." on the parties listed on the Service List below issued by the Department:

KalunLee
Hearing Officer
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th fl. Suite 820,
Boston MA 02118-6500
kalun.lee@state.ma.us

Betsy Whittey
Hearing Officer
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th fl. Suite 820,
Boston MA 02118-6500
betsy. whittey@state.ma.us

Paul Abbott
General Counsel
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
paul.abbott@state.ma.us

Karlen Reed
Director, Competition Division
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th Floor, Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
karlen.reed@state.ma.us

Ben Dobbs
Deputy Director
Competition Division
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th fl. Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
benedict.dobbs@state.ma.us

Joseph Tieman
Competition Division
Department of Teleeommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, 8th fl. Suite 820
Boston MA 02118-6500
ioseph.tieman@state.ma.us

James Pingeon, Esq.
Elizabeth Matos, Esq.
Bonita Tehneriello, Esq.
Prisoners' Legal Services, Inc.
10 Winthrop Square, 3rd floor
Boston, MA 02110
jpingeon@plsma.org
lmatos@plsma.org
btenneriello@plsma.org

Patricia Garin, Esq.
Stern, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin
90 Canal St., 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
pgarin@sswg.com

Dorothy E. Cukier
Executive Director, External and Regulatory
Affairs
Global Tel *Link Corporation
12021 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 100
Reston, VA 20190
dcukier@g!l.net

Ken Dawson
VP Contracts & Regulatory
Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC d/b/a
ICSolutions
2200 Danbury St.
San Antonio, TX 78217·
kdawson@icsolutions.com

Linda Nelson
Manager- Regulatory Affairs
Securus Technologies, Inc.
14651 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 600
Dallas, TX 75254
lnelson@securustech.net

Cherie Kiser
Angela F. Collins
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
1990 K Street NW
Suite 950 .
Washington DC 20006
ckiser@cgrdc.com
acollins@cgrdc.com

i.

Pa\ll C. Besozzi