ROBERT PATTON
DIRECTOR

MARY FALLIN
GOVERNOR

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

January 6, 2015

Chairman Tom Wheeler
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Commissioner Ajit Pai
Federal Communications Commission
44512th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Commissioner Michael O'Rielly
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), I am writing in response to the FCC's
request for comments on the Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services; Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, WC12-375.
This notice represents a culmination of efforts of the FCC, nearly 10 years of work that began on behalf
of a grandmother seeking an affordable way to communicate with her incarcerated grandson. There is
no denying that it was time to review the discrepancies across the nation in the costs associated with
making calls from prison.
I recognize and support the position of the FCC that communication with family, friends and other
members of a potentially pro-social support network is an integral part of a successful re-entry plan and
is thus critical to public safety.

It is, however, an undeniable fact that inmates use the same calling

systems for contacting people other than family and friends interested in facilitating happy, healthy,
pro-social relationships. These calling systems are frequently used to conduct illegal and illicit activities
that introduce security threats to facilities and enable criminal activity to occur within prisons, not just in
Oklahoma, but across the country.

3400 MARTIN LUTHER KING AVENUE • P.O. BOX 11400 •OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73136-0400 •PHONE: (405) 425-2500 •FAX: (405) 425-2064
www.ok.gov/doc/

 January 6, 2015
Page 2
The presence of inmate calling systems in prisons introduces ancillary costs to the corrections/jail
environment that must be considered while the FCC pursues the current course of action. When the
FCC adopted rate caps, much consideration was given to the ICS vendors and many hours were spent
determining the actual cost of providing the call. As with the vendors, state and county agencies incur
other costs associated with calling services that go far beyond that of the actual call. Industry vendors
have done a tremendous job of providing investigative tools to customers to mitigate the security risk
associated with inmate calling systems, however, as with any program or service provided in a
correctional setting, there is an additional level of security, personnel, equipment, and monitoring that
must be provided by the agency.
While it is understood that eliminating unmonitored, undefined and inconsistent "site commissions" is
recommended, allowing agencies to determine the actual costs associated with providing an inmate
calling system and providing an avenue for recovery of that cost via an administrative fee is a reasonable
and realistic approach to very real situation for agency administrators across the nation. The elimination
of an agency's ability to recover any of the associated costs via a well-defined and frequently reevaluated administrative fee would be financially devastating to most agencies, including the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections.
The ODOC is in partial support of the consensus proposal submitted by the ICS industry leading vendors
on September 15, 2014.

The proposal includes, among other detailed items, rate caps for both

interstate and intrastate calls, regulated and agreed upon site commissions or "admin-support
payments" for ICS related costs, and the elimination and limitation of a number of ancillary fees. I
strongly disagree that the FCC should have the authority to regulate intrastate calls. It should also be
noted that the method for determining the actual cost to agencies associated with providing the ICS
could, itself, be quite costly. The ODOC respectfully requests that, should the FCC pursue this course of
action, corrections professionals be consulted when determining the method for calculating such a cost.
In short, the FCC's intent to ensure inmates have access to affordable calling systems is commendable;
however, the course proposed in the Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services; Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC12-375 may accomplish the intended outcome, but I believe that it

will have numerous, long lasting and serious unintended consequences in its current form.
Respectfully Submitted,

Director