C AHILL G ORDON & R EINDEL LLP E IGHTY P INE S TREET N EW Y ORK , NY 10005-1702 TELEPHONE: (212) 701-3000 HELENE R. BANKS JONATHAN J. FRANKEL JOEL H. LEVITIN DARREN SILVER ANIRUDH BANSAL ARIEL GOLDMAN GEOFFREY E. LIEBMANN JOSIAH M. SLOTNICK WWW.CAHILL.COM DAVID L. BARASH JASON M. HALL BRIAN T. MARKLEY RICHARD A. STIEGLITZ JR. ___________ LANDIS C. BEST WILLIAM M. HARTNETT MEGHAN N. McDERMOTT ROSS E. STURMAN BRADLEY J. BONDI NOLA B. HELLER WILLIAM J. MILLER SUSANNA M. SUH 1990 K STREET, N.W. BROCKTON B. BOSSON CRAIG M. HOROWITZ NOAH B. NEWITZ ANTHONY K. TAMA WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1181 JAMES J. CLARK DOUGLAS S. HOROWITZ DAVID R. OWEN JONATHAN D. THIER (202) 862-8900 CHRISTOPHER W. CLEMENT TIMOTHY B. HOWELL JOHN PAPACHRISTOS SEAN P. TONOLLI LISA COLLIER DAVID G. JANUSZEWSKI LUIS R. PENALVER JOHN A. TRIPODORO CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL (UK) LLP AYANO K. CREED ELAI KATZ KIMBERLY PETILLO-DÉCOSSARD GLENN J. WALDRIP, JR. 24 MONUMENT STREET SEAN M. DAVIS BRIAN S. KELLEHER SHEILA C. RAMESH HERBERT S. WASHER LONDON EC 3 R 8 AJ STUART G. DOWNING RICHARD KELLY MICHAEL W. REDDY MICHAEL B. WEISS ADAM M. DWORKIN CHÉRIE R. KISER* +44 (0) 20 7920 9800 OLEG REZZY DAVID WISHENGRAD ANASTASIA EFIMOVA JOEL KURTZBERG THORN ROSENTHAL COREY WRIGHT ___________ JENNIFER B. EZRING TED B. LACEY TAMMY L. ROY JOSHUA M. ZELIG HELENA S. FRANCESCHI MARC R. LASHBROOK WRITER’S DIRECT NUMBER JONATHAN A. SCHAFFZIN DANIEL J. ZUBKOFF JOAN MURTAGH FRANKEL ALIZA R. LEVINE MICHAEL A. SHERMAN 202-862-8950 * ADMITTED IN DC ONLY ckiser@cahill.com July 30, 2020 Via ECFS Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: WC Docket No. 12-375 - Written Ex Parte Presentation Dear Secretary Dortch: Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”), 1 by its attorneys, respectfully submits this written ex parte presentation concerning the draft Report and Order on Remand and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Draft”) on inmate calling services (“ICS”) to be considered by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) at its monthly agenda meeting on August 6, 2020. 2 As explained below, GTL seeks to correct the record as to its international rates, and requests further clarification regarding the apparent new standard required for determining the jurisdictional nature of a telecommunications service. First, GTL seeks to correct the record regarding the posting of its rates for international ICS. In note 276 of the Draft, the FCC states it could not locate any international ICS rates on GTL’s website. Consistent with the requirements of FCC Rule 42.10, 3 GTL’s interstate and international ICS rates, terms, and conditions are (and have been) posted on GTL’s website at: https://www.gtl.net/legal-and-privacy/federal-tariffs-and-price-lists/. Further, consumers can 1 This filing is being submitted by GTL on behalf of itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries that also provide inmate calling services: DSI-ITI, Inc., Public Communications Services, Inc., and Value-Added Communications, Inc. 2 FCC-CIRC2008-05 (rel. July 16, 2020). 3 47 C.F.R. § 42.10. 1
C AHILL G ORDON & R EINDEL LLP obtain more information on GTL’s international ICS rates on the ConnectNetwork (www.connectnetwork.com) and GettingOut (www.gettingout.com) websites after creating an account or logging into their existing account and selecting the relevant correctional facility. Users of GTL’s ICS also can obtain rate information prior to the completion of a call from GTL’s interactive voice response (“IVR”) system or from GTL’s live customer service representatives. Accordingly, GTL respectfully requests that the FCC correct and update note 276 of the Draft. Second, GTL requests clarification concerning the FCC’s statement that a provider must follow the rules governing interstate ICS unless it can “definitively establish the jurisdiction” of the call as intrastate, as mentioned in paragraphs 50-51 and note 138 of the Draft. Similar language also is applied to ICS calls in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 4 This appears to be a new standard for determining the FCC’s jurisdiction over a call. The FCC discusses the comments filed by GTL and other ICS providers explaining that the jurisdiction of a call can be determined based on the origination and termination points of the call. 5 The FCC “clarifies” that “the jurisdictional nature of a call depends on the physical location of the endpoints of the call, and not on whether the area code or NXX prefix of the telephone number are associated with a particular state.” 6 The FCC explains further that, to the extent an ICS provider cannot “definitively establish the jurisdiction of a call, it may and should treat the call as jurisdictionally mixed.” 7 The Draft concludes that such jurisdictionally mixed services will be regulated as interstate. 8 The traditional “end-to-end analysis” has long been used by the FCC, the states, and the industry to determine the jurisdictional nature of a call. 9 There also have been numerous instances in which the FCC has found it difficult to apply an end-to-end approach for jurisdictional purposes, and instead has adopted “proxy or allocation mechanisms to approximate an end-to-end result.” 10 4 The FCC states the new proposed interstate rate caps will apply to all calls an ICS provider “identifies as interstate and to calls that the provider cannot definitively identify as intrastate.” See Draft ¶ 63. 5 Draft ¶ 50. 6 Draft ¶ 51 (emphasis added). 7 Draft ¶ 51. 8 Draft ¶¶ 30-31. 9 Petition for Emergency Relief and Declaratory Ruling Filed by the BellSouth Corporation , 7 FCC Rcd 1619 (1992); see also North Carolina Utils. Comm’n v. FCC , 537 F.2d 787 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 1027 (1976); North Carolina Utils. Comm’n v. FCC , 552 F.2d 1036 (4th Cir. 1977) cert. denied , 434 U.S. 874 (1977); New York Telephone Co. v. FCC , 631 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1980); Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC , 476 U.S. 355 (1986). 10 See, e.g. , Vonage Holdings Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission , 19 FCC Rcd 22404, n.98 (2004); see also High-Cost Universal Service Support, et al. , 24 FCC Rcd 6475, ¶ 327 (2008) (“To bill for termination of traffic, a terminating service provider must be able to identify the appropriate upstream service provider, and the location of the caller (or a proxy for the caller’s location) in order to determine jurisdiction, which is necessary to determine the appropriate charge under existing intercarrier compensation rules.”). 2
Recommend
More recommend
