Skip navigation

FCC comment requesting recusal of Chairman Pai on ICS issues - August 2017

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

August 9, 2017

Secretary Marlene H. Dortch
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re:

Ex Parte filing:
WC Docket 17-126
WC Docket 12-375
GN Docket 13-111

Dear Secretary Dortch:
The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), publisher of Prison Legal News (PLN), respectfully
makes this ex parte submission regarding the clear conflict of interest that exists with respect to
the Senate confirmation of Ajit Pai as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC or Commission), given the fact that he represented Securus Technologies, Inc. (Securus) as
its attorney while employed as a partner with the law firm of Jenner & Block, LLP immediately
preceding his confirmation as FCC Commissioner in May 2012.
Based on the following, not only does Mr. Pai’s conduct give the appearance of a conflict of
interest, there appears to be an actual conflict. Namely, he has never stopped representing the
interests of his client Securus Technologies. Based on this conflict we request that Mr. Pai recuse
himself from all decisions involving Securus Technologies in particular and the Inmate Calling
Services (ICS) industry in general, and that he disclose any financial interests in same.
Mr. Pai clearly identified Securus as his client in information he submitted prior to the November
30, 2011 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
(the Committee) to consider the nominations of Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai to the Federal
Communications Commission:
[T]he complete list of my clients is as follows: AOL, Inc.; Cablevision Systems
Corp.; Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.; Charter Communications, Inc.;
General Dynamics Corp., C4 Systems; Guggenheim Partners, LLC; The Nielsen
Company; and Securus Technologies, Inc. (Emphasis added)
(Attachment 1, excerpt).
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Phone: 561-360-2523 Fax: 866-735-7136
pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

Page |2

Since joining the FCC as a Commissioner in 2012, Mr. Pai has vigorously and consistently
taken actions to undercut all federal regulation of the ICS industry. Securus enjoys kickbackbased monopoly contracts with more than 3,400 correctional facilities, and as a result can exploit
and price-gouge at least 1.2 million prisoners and their families in 48 states. (Attachment 2 at
1). The lack of federal regulation guarantees the company’s ability to continue to generate
obscene profits at the expense of prisoners and their family members.
An updated questionnaire was completed as part of the pending process to confirm Mr. Pai as
Chairman of the Commission. (Attachment 3, excerpt). While the bulk of the information
contained in this document is the same as submitted to the Senate in 2011, care was taken to recharacterize the relationship between Mr. Pai and Securus:
[T]he complete list of those clients is as follows: AOL, Inc.; Cablevision Systems
Corp.; Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.; Charter Communications, Inc.;
General Dynamics Corp., C4 Systems; Guggenheim Partners, LLC; The Nielsen
Company; and Securus Technologies, Inc. (Emphasis added)
Id.
Only Mr. Pai can (and should) explain why he decided to represent his relationship with Securus
differently in the Committee’s 2017 questionnaire than in his 2011 questionnaire.
Mr. Pai also failed to disclose the participation of a Securus employee on a panel he created for
an FCC Field Hearing on contraband cell phones held in South Carolina on April 6, 2016. Mr.
Pai announced the agenda and panelists for the hearing on March 2016, in which he identified
Mr. Dan Wigger as “Vice President and Managing Director for solution vendor CellBlox.”
(Attachment 4). While that may have been true, Mr. Pai failed to disclose that CellBlox was
purchased by Securus in January 2015, and that Securus announced its hiring of Mr. Wigger in
March 2015 “to be responsible for the day-to-day management of our Managed Access Systems
(MAS) business that installs propriety high tech software, preventing contraband wireless device
use in prisons and jails in the United States.” HRDC submitted a letter dated April 7, 2016 that
requested clarification of this issue by Mr. Pai; we did not receive a response. (Attachment 5).
Perhaps the most significant action taken by Mr. Pai to benefit Securus and the ICS industry was
a letter issued by the Commission under Mr. Pai’s leadership on January 31, 2017, a mere eight
days after he learned of his appointment as FCC Chairman by President Trump. (Attachment 6).
A petition for rulemaking commonly referred to as the “Wright Petition” had been pending on
the FCC’s docket since 2003, and in recent years the Commission had been working towards
comprehensive reform of the prison telephone industry, having issued an order in 2013 1 that
capped the rates for interstate calls from detention facilities and subsequent orders in 2015 2 and
2016 3 that capped the rates for intrastate calls from detention facilities. Intrastate calls represent
around 85-90% of all calls from detention facilities. Several ICS providers, including Securus,
appealed the FCC’s 2015 order and oral argument was set for February 6, 2017.
1

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14107 (2013)
(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-113A1.pdf)
2
See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket No. 12-375, Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd. 12763 (2015) (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-136A1.pdf)
3
See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, WC Docket No. 12-375, Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 9300 (2016)
(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-102A1.pdf)

Page |3

One week before the hearing, and again only eight days after Mr. Pai was appointed Chairman of
the Commission, Deputy General Counsel David M. Gossett filed a letter with the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals informing them that he was not authorized to defend the Commission’s
authority to cap intrastate ICS phone rates. (Attachment 7).
Following the Court’s ruling, Mr. Pai issued a statement that said, in part, “Today, the D.C.
Circuit agreed with my position that the FCC exceeded its authority when it attempted to impose
rate caps on intrastate calls made by inmates. Looking ahead, I plan to work with my colleagues
at the Commission, Congress, and all stakeholders to address the problem of high inmate calling
rates in a lawful manner.” (Attachment 8).
Notably, Mr. Pai omitted the fact that the Court had “agreed” with his position only after he
hamstrung the FCC’s attorneys by not allowing them to defend the Commission’s jurisdiction
over intrastate ICS calls. Further, he has not indicated since that time how he plans to address
exploitive prison phone rates, which have existed for decades, in a “lawful manner.”
It is worth noting that Mr. Pai has dissented on all votes taken by the Commission related to
comprehensive reform of the ICS industry, which includes his former client. In fact, his dissent
to the Commission’s 2013 order 4 that resulted in the February 2014 implementation of interstate
rate caps for prison telephone calls appears to have become the framework for the subsequent
appeals filed by ICS providers. Despite his acknowledgement that the prison phone industry
represents a “market failure” and his opposition to any regulation of the ICS industry, Mr. Pai
has failed to advance any means or alternatives to protect consumers from the exploitation and
price gouging they suffer at the hands of the ICS industry, including Securus, his former client.
This total abdication of any regulatory oversight or role benefits only hedge fund-owned ICS
companies and their government collaborators while financially penalizing the poorest, most
vulnerable members of American society and the public at large.
Currently pending before the FCC is the purchase of Securus Technologies by Platinum Equities,
another hedge fund. Once again Mr. Pai is going to act on an issue that inures exclusively to the
benefit of Securus Technologies, his former client, and against the public interest in general and
captive market of millions of prisoners and their families whose human contact is monetized for
the benefit of Securus and its hedge fund owners in particular. (See, e.g., Attachment 9).
To uphold the high ethical standards to which the American public and taxpayers are entitled,
and to avoid even the appearance of this obvious conflict of interest, HRDC respectfully requests
that Mr. Pai recuse himself from all actions and decisions involving both Securus Technologies
and the ICS industry. Further, we call on Mr. Pai to disclose any financial relationships he has
with Securus or any other ICS providers, or companies that own ICS providers.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Wright
Executive Director, HRDC
4

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14107 (2013)
(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-113A1.pdf)

Attachment 1

S. HRG. 112–480

NOMINATIONS OF
JESSICA ROSENWORCEL AND AJIT PAI
TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 30, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

75–046 PDF

:

2012

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK WARNER, Virginia
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director
JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director
BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel
TODD BERTOSON, Republican Staff Director
JARROD THOMPSON, Republican Deputy Staff Director
REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator

(II)

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

CONTENTS
Page

Hearing held on November 30, 2011 ......................................................................
Statement of Senator Rockefeller ...........................................................................
Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................
Statement of Senator DeMint .................................................................................
Statement of Senator Kerry ....................................................................................
Statement of Senator Blunt ....................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Statement of Senator Toomey .................................................................................
Statement of Senator Lautenberg ..........................................................................
Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................
Statement of Senator Begich ..................................................................................
Statement of Senator Snowe ...................................................................................
Statement of Senator Wicker ..................................................................................
Statement of Senator Thune ...................................................................................

1
1
2
3
32
37
37
39
40
42
44
47
49
51

WITNESSES
Hon. Pat Roberts, U.S. Senator from Kansas .......................................................
Hon. Jerry Moran, U.S. Senator from Kansas ......................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Jessica Rosenworcel, Nominee to be Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission ...........................................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Biographical information .................................................................................
Ajit Pai, Nominee to be Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Biographical information .................................................................................

5
6
8
9
10
15
18
20

APPENDIX
Hon. Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, prepared statement .......
Response to written questions submitted to Jessica Rosenworcel by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................
Hon. Claire McCaskill ......................................................................................
Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................
Hon. Mark Warner ...........................................................................................
Hon. Mark Begich .............................................................................................
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe ....................................................................................
Hon. Jim DeMint ..............................................................................................
Hon. Dean Heller ..............................................................................................
Response to written questions submitted to Ajit Pai by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................
Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................
Hon. Mark Warner ...........................................................................................
Hon. Mark Begich .............................................................................................
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe ....................................................................................
Hon. Jim DeMint ..............................................................................................
Hon. Dean Heller ..............................................................................................

57
58
60
61
63
64
66
72
73
74
76
77
79
80
85
86

(III)

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

20
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Ajit Varadaraj Pai.
2. Position to which nominated: Member, Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).
3. Date of Nomination: November 1, 2011.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: Jenner & Block LLP, 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20001–4412.
5. Date and Place of Birth: January 10, 1973; Buffalo, New York.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children
by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Janine Van Lancker, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Allergy and Sinus
Center, Medical Faculty Associates, George Washington University Medical
Center, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037–3201.
Child: Alexander Madhav Pai, born August 26, 2011.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended.
Harvard University, B.A. (1994)
University of Chicago, J.D. (1997)
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level
jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are
nominated.
Post-Undergraduate Employment
Jenner & Block LLP. Partner (April 2011 to present).
Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel. Special Advisor to the General Counsel (March 2010–April 2011); Deputy General Counsel
(December 2007–February 2010); Associate General Counsel (July 2007–December 2007).
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Property Rights. Chief Counsel (February 2005–June 2007).
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy. Senior Counsel (May 2004–
February 2005).
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight
and the Courts. Deputy Chief Counsel (March 2003–May 2004).
Verizon Communications Inc. Associate General Counsel (February 2001–March
2003).
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force.
Trial Attorney, Attorney General’s Honors Program (December 1998–February
2001).
Hon. Martin L.C. Feldman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.
Law Clerk (September 1997–September 1998).
Kirkland & Ellis. Summer Associate (June 1997–September 1997). Latham &
Watkins. Summer Associate (June 1996–September 1996).
Lathrop & Norquist (now Lathrop & Gage LLP). Summer Associate (August
1995–September 1995).
Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas. Summer Law
Clerk (June 1995–July 1995).
The management-level jobs I have held include Deputy General Counsel and Associate General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission; Partner at
Jenner & Block LLP (my current position); Chief Counsel at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property
Rights; and Deputy Chief Counsel at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
The non-managerial jobs I have held which relate to the position for which I have
been nominated include Special Advisor to the General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission; Senior Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Legal Policy; Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc.; and

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

21
Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force.
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last five years: None.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor,
agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership,
or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last five
years.
Partner, Jenner & Block LLP (April 2011 to present).
Co-Trustee, Radha V. Pai Children’s Trust (entire time period).
Co-Trustee, Varadaraj S. Pai Children’s Trust (entire time period).
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership
on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap.
Kansas Bar. Member during entire reporting period.
District of Columbia Bar. Member (December 3, 2001–September 30, 2003, June
18, 2004 to present). Member, Nominations Committee (November 2010
present).
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Member during entire reporting period; Member, Executive Committee, Administrative Law Practice
Group (January 2011 to present).
South Asian Bar Association-District of Columbia. Member during entire reporting period; Member of the Board (2001–02).
Federal Communications Bar Association. Member (2008–09).
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding
debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt: No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization,
political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the
past ten years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a
state or national political party or election committee during the same period.
I have not contributed $500 or more to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity over the past ten years. I
have not held any offices with any state or national political party, political action
committee, or campaign committee during the same period. Between November 6–
8, 2006, I served as a volunteer for the Republican National Committee in Montana.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or
achievements.
Marshall Memorial Fellowship, awarded by the German Marshall Fund of the
United States (2011).
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of
these publications unless otherwise instructed.
Article, ‘‘Congress and the Constitution: The Legal Tender Act of 1862,’’ 77 Oregon Law Review 535 (1998).
Comment, ‘‘Should a Grand Jury Subpoena Override a District Court’s Protective
Order?‘‘, 64 University of Chicago Law Review 317 (1997).
I have not given any speeches on topics relevant to the position for which I have
been nominated.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing
before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the
date and subject matter of each testimony.
I have not done so.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives
of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for ap-

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

22
pointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish
to serve in that position?
With respect to my background, first and foremost, I have extensive Commission
experience. I worked in the agency’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) for almost four
years on a wide variety of communications law issues and administrative matters.
Because OGC’s Administrative Law Division (which I supervised for a time as Deputy General Counsel) reviews virtually every significant proposed Commission decision, I had a broad and deep view of the agency’s overall docket, and worked on
a wide variety of media, wireline, wireless, spectrum, and public safety issues. Over
time, I also interacted with Commission-level leadership and every Bureau and Office, and I became quite familiar with agency personnel and procedures. Knowledge
of the agency’s law, rules, and people is indispensable for Commissioners charged
with primary responsibility for decisionmaking.
Second, my other professional experience has given me a good understanding of
law, government, and business. From my years on Capitol Hill, I learned about the
intricacies of the legislative process and gained a respect for members’ prerogatives
and perspectives. My time at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy
taught me about the importance of inter-branch consultation and inter-agency coordination. My work at Verizon gave me a better understanding of how the regulatory landscape affects corporate strategy and execution and how the communications industry operates. During my service in the Telecommunications Task Force
at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, I helped to evaluate a number of telecommunications transactions, large and small, and to assess requests for
regulatory relief following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Finally, as a law clerk to Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana,
I obtained an in-depth education in the judicial process and the importance of timely, thorough resolution of claims. In sum, I believe my experience in all three
branches of government, an independent agency, and a large company give me a
good foundation to serve on the Commission.
Third, I have management experience. My most significant management role was
as Deputy General Counsel in OGC, as described in more detail in response to the
next question. I also served as Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. In this
position, I managed the Subcommittee’s agenda, worked with members and staff of
both parties, and led then-Senator Brownback’s team in evaluating everything from
Supreme Court nominations to immigration legislation. I believe such management
experience would help me run an office as an agency principal.
Finally, throughout my professional career, I have always done my best to work
with colleagues in a collegial manner and to reach cooperative solutions to problems.
Even if the person with whom I am dealing has an irreconcilably opposing view on
an issue, I try to disagree agreeably. Fortunately, the bulk of the Commission’s
work proceeds by consensus; most votes are unanimous, and the agency has a collaborative culture. But on those rare occasions when divisions arise on a Commission-level item, my approach would be one of constructive engagement and then, if
necessary, respectful disagreement.
I wish to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for two basic
reasons. First, I believe in public service. For most of my career, I have worked for
the United States, and my client has been the public interest. It would be a privilege once again to contribute to the FCC’s mission, especially in a decision-making
role. Second, the communications industry has brought tremendous benefits to the
American economy generally and American consumers in particular. Perhaps more
than any other, it is characterized by innovation and change. I would welcome the
opportunities to serve as a Member at the agency that plays an important role in
this dynamic field and to do my best to ensure that the communications industry
continues to contribute to economic growth and the welfare of consumers.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the
department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization?
The Chairman of the FCC is the agency’s chief executive officer. Nevertheless,
were I fortunate enough to be confirmed as a Commissioner, I would take as active
a role as possible in ensuring that the agency was managed properly. The most important way a Commissioner can do this is by fully and timely participating in Commission proceedings, especially proposed items that the Chairman has placed on a
meeting agenda or on circulation. Helping the Commission reach and issue a final
decision in a timely manner not only reflects good government, but also gives parties to a particular proceeding the resolution they deserve.
In terms of administrative issues, I would work to improve agency management
in several ways. Most importantly, I would urge the Chairman, other Commis-

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

23
sioners, and staff to take full advantage of the Commission’s February 2011 order
amending various Part 0 and Part 1 rules of agency organization, practice, and procedure (for which I was the primary drafter while I was at the Commission and
which is available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/DailylBusiness/
2011/db0211/FCC-11-16A1.pdf by broadening the use of electronic filing; terminating more dormant proceedings; expanding the number of docketed proceedings;
issuing more electronic and fewer hardcopy notifications of new filings or other
changes in a particular docket; and dismissing plainly defective petitions for reconsideration on the staff level (rather than at the Commission level, in order to conserve scarce resources). In addition, there are a number of areas relatively removed
from public attention where agency processes could be improved. For instance, Commission procurement is particularly important at a time of fiscal constraint, and I
would seek to make sure that Commission procurement processes were consistent
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as well as basic principles of accountability
and proper stewardship of Federal funds. Finally, I would work to maintain good
relations with Congress by, among other things, keeping the door open to members
and staff with an interest in agency issues and urging the timely completion of reports required by statute to be submitted to Congress.
The best example of my experience managing a large organization would be my
service as Deputy General Counsel at the Commission. In that role, I led a team
of approximately 40 lawyers in OGC’s Administrative Law Division. As described on
its website, the Division ‘‘reviews all draft Commission decisions for legal sufficiency. Division staff provide legal advice to the Commission concerning a wide
array of statutes, regulations, and procedures, including, for example, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Government
in the Sunshine Act, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, negotiated rulemaking and alternative dispute resolution, the Commission’s procedural
rules, procurement issues, the agency’s ex parte and ethics rules (including receipt
of gifts by the Commission and its employees, reimbursed travel expenses, and lobbying disclosure).’’ See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/administrative-law-division-office-general-counsel.
Given the importance, breadth, and sheer volume of the matters that came
through the Division for review, careful management was necessary to ensure that
the Commission—from Commissioners’ offices to the staff in agency Bureaus and
Offices—could function in a timely, appropriate manner. Accordingly, as supervising
head, it was crucial to keep abreast of all activities of the lawyers within the Division. To this end, I provided as much detailed feedback as possible on items the
team leaders sent to me for review, and I made affirmative efforts to become more
knowledgeable in areas of law in which they were subject matter experts. Similarly,
I communicated promptly to Division leaders the policy choices and requests for
legal advice made by Commission and Bureau leadership. I also held a weekly meeting that was attended by the Division Chief, the two deputy chiefs, the six assistant
general counsels who served as team leaders for different areas, and representatives
from the Office of General Counsel’s Transactions Team and Litigation Division.
Prior to each meeting, the assistants circulated a report detailing all pending and
recently resolved business in the areas within their purview. At the meeting itself,
I offered updates on upcoming Commission meetings or other issues affecting the
Division. I then asked each attendee to discuss any substantive or administrative
matters with the group. This process allowed me to ensure that the Division’s work
was proceeding smoothly and allowed team leaders a better sense of how to manage
their team members with respect to ongoing and future projects. I also consulted
frequently with the Division Chief and/or individual team leaders one-on-one in
order to resolve more sensitive issues not suited for group-wide discussion. I offer
this detailed description of my work as Deputy General Counsel to demonstrate that
my management style was, and would be, engaged, efficient, and collegial.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/
agency, and why?
I believe the top three challenges facing the Federal Communications Commission
are as follows:
(1) Optimizing private sector incentives to invest in, create, and maintain cutting edge communications networks, products, and services. As mentioned
above, the hallmarks of the communications industry are innovation and
change. And generally speaking, consumer welfare is maximized when the marketplace offers improved technology at competitive prices. When the Commission acts, it should be mindful of the importance of the communications indus-

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

24
try to our international competitiveness, economic growth, and Americans’ quality of life.
(2) Solving the ‘‘big’’ problems. The Commission should resolve important matters that have long simmered on its dockets without final resolution. Chairmen
and Commissioners of both political parties have struggled with these issues,
and often for good reasons. However, industry and the public would benefit from
decisive Commission action. Uncertainty about the rules of the road poorly
serves carriers and, ultimately, consumers. I would make a sincere commitment
to help the agency make difficult but necessary policy choices in important matters were the Senate to afford me the privilege of serving as a Commissioner.
(3) Adopting spectrum policies that meet the demands of the broadband age.
American consumers’ greater use of increasingly sophisticated communications
technology is putting unprecedented demands on communications networks and
spectrum. In particular, mobile broadband data usage is exploding as more consumers use their mobile devices to watch videos, surf the Internet, and more.
Given these trends, the Commission will need to allocate and establish service
rules for the spectrum within its jurisdiction in ways that ensure efficient, technically feasible use (consistent with statutory guidelines).
B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and
other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts.
During my employment at Verizon Communications Inc., I contributed to a 401(k)
plan (with a proportionate matching amount contributed by the company). That
plan, over which I still have control, is managed by Fidelity Investments, and all
funds are invested in diversified index funds.
I currently receive a monthly stipend from Jenner & Block LLP, where I am a
non-equity Partner in the Litigation Department, which would stop were I to be confirmed. I also participate in the Firm’s Profit Sharing Plan (401(k)), which is also
managed by Fidelity Investments. All funds are invested in a diversified index fund.
I do not have any other financial arrangements with the Firm.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain
employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain.
I have no commitment or agreement to maintain my affiliation with the District
of Columbia Bar (where I serve as a Member of the Nominations Committee) or the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy (where I serve as a Member of the Executive Committee for the Administrative Law Practice Group). As set forth in the
ethics agreement I signed on October 24, 2011, should I be confirmed, I will resign
from my positions as a Member of the Nominations Committee and a Member of
the Executive Committee for the Administrative Law Practice Group respectively.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which
could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated: None.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you
have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or
acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict
of interest in the position to which you have been nominated.
I do not believe my employment at Verizon Communications Inc. between 2001
and 2003 would give rise to an actual or potential conflict of interest (or the appearance of such) with my prospective appointment to the Federal Communications
Commission, but I list it here given that it is an entity subject to regulation by the
agency.
Since beginning at Jenner & Block LLP on April 25, 2011, I have done a limited
amount of work for a few clients. Out of an abundance of caution, the complete list
of my clients is as follows: AOL, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp.; Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P.; Charter Communications, Inc.; General Dynamics Corp., C4 Systems; Guggenheim Partners, LLC; The Nielsen Company; and Securus Technologies,
Inc. During this time: (1) I have not appeared before the Federal Communications
Commission, Executive Branch agencies, Congress, or any court in connection with
my work for these clients; (2) my name has not appeared on any comments, briefs,
or any other written work submitted on their behalf; and (3) to preclude conflicts,
my firm has established a screen as appropriate to prevent my colleagues from discussing specific matters with me.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged
for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modifica-

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

25
tion of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public
policy.
• During my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission (between 2007
and 2011), I was asked very occasionally to review proposed legislation. I was
not asked to recommend the passage, defeat, or modification of such proposals
so much as to explain their likely effects. Unfortunately, I cannot recall which
specific bills I was asked to review. Additionally, the bulk of my work within
the Office of General Counsel at the Commission involved analysis of proposed
agency actions—or, in a few cases involving litigation, final agency actions—for
consistency with substantive communications laws as well as general administrative laws.
• My employment at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during 2003 and 2004
and again between 2005 and 2007 required frequent involvement in the legislative process on issues as varied as compensation for asbestos-related injuries
and immigration reform. I also staffed the Senators for whom I worked at oversight hearings of Executive Branch agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• My work in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice between 2004 and 2005 also involved legislative analysis and advocacy, primarily
with respect to national security; for instance, I met with staff for Senator
Dianne Feinstein in 2004 to discuss the reauthorization of sixteen expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I helped draft a letter to the Senator explaining the purpose and importance of those provisions.
• Finally, in 2001, while I was working at Verizon Communications Inc., Senior
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel John Thome and I met one time
with House Energy and Commerce Committee staff to discuss the company’s
views on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items.
Should I be confirmed as a Member of the Federal Communications Commission,
I would resolve potential conflicts of interest by (1) identifying the proceeding(s) to
which the potential conflicts pertain and gathering all relevant facts; (2) discussing
the nature of the potential conflicts with and seeking guidance from the Designated
Agency Ethics Official and other attorneys responsible for ethics issues in the Office
of General Counsel; and (3) taking the appropriate action to ensure compliance with
applicable ethics laws and regulations, as set forth by Congress, the agency, and the
bar, respectively.
C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the
subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, please explain: No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so,
please explain: No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of
any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or
discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please
explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination.
I am a member of the Kansas and District of Columbia bars, admitted on October
13, 1998 and December 3, 2001, respectively. In the late summer of2003, after I became a staffer for Senator Jeff Sessions on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I received a notice (possibly a second notice) from the Kansas Bar informing me that
my bar dues had not been paid. Thereafter, I sent the Kansas Bar a check for the
requisite amount. Unfortunately, the check arrived several days after the deadline
for payment had passed (per a notation made by the Kansas Bar on the letter that
I had sent and that was returned), and on October 6, 2003, my Kansas license was
suspended. Similarly, my District of Columbia license was suspended for nonpayment of dues, effective September 30, 2003. After this time, I recall having a
conversation with Senate Ethics staff in which I described these circumstances and

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

26
was told that Senate staffers doing policy work exclusively were not required to
maintain an active bar license. I also was informed by Senator Sessions’ office that
the office did not require that lawyers on staff maintain an active bar license.
Nonetheless, I sought to reinstate both licenses in late 2003. According to the
Kansas Bar’s instructions for reinstatement, one requirement was that I submit an
application for reinstatement. Similarly, in order to get my District of Columbia bar
license reinstated, I had to take and certify completion of the Course on the District
of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and District of Columbia Practice, and
I also had to submit a statement that I was not suspended by any disciplinary authority. See D.C. Bar Bylaws, Art. III, § 3(a), available at www.dcbar.org/inside_the_bar/structure/bylaws/article03.cfm#sec3. I took the required District of Columbia Bar course; submitted all necessary forms; paid all applicable fees and
charges; and finished the remaining steps needed in order for the respective bars
to accept my applications for reinstatement. On June 10, 2004, my Kansas license
was reinstated to active status, as was my District of Columbia license on June 18,
2004. I was a member in good standing of each bar before September 30, 2003, and
without exception, I have been a member in good standing of each bar since June
18, 2004. However, I greatly regret the oversight that resulted in the administrative
suspensions between those dates and will not allow such an oversight to happen
again.
I also would note that on March 26, 2009, the Kansas Bar informed me that the
suspension of a license under these circumstances is an administrative matter that
does not involve a reprimand, a breach of ethics, or any other kind of disciplinary
sanction. On the same day, the District of Columbia Bar confirmed that this was
an administrative suspension only, and that my work during this time did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law because I did not appear in court, sign legal
briefs, or do other work typically done by lawyers performing traditional legal functions. (In connection with the background check requisite for nomination to this position, I proactively conveyed the information above to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.)
D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees?
I would do everything within my power as a Commissioner to ensure that such
deadlines are met.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect
congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and
disclosures?
I would do everything within my power as a Commissioner to ensure that Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers are protected from reprisal.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters
of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of
the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
´ OF AJIT V. PAI
RESUME
Experience
Jenner & Block LLP. Partner (April 2011 to present). Member of Litigation Department and Communications Practice.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel. Special Advisor
to the General Counsel (March 2010–April 2011); Deputy General Counsel (December
2007–February 2010); Associate General Counsel (July 2007-December 2007). Led
team of over 40 lawyers in handling wide variety of matters involving the cable,
Internet, wireless, media, satellite, and other industries. Also was responsible for
non-communications legal matters, including fiscal law, intellectual property, and
environmental law. Finally, argued before and prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in National Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n. Inc. v. FCC;
briefed the Court in CTIA-The Wireless Ass’n v. FCC; drafted comprehensive revision of agency rules and procedures; and led Commission response to broadest Congressional investigation in recent history.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Property Rights. Chief Counsel (February 2005–June 2007). Managed all Subcommittee business, budget, and staff; was lead counsel on Supreme Court nomina-

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

27
tions, constitutional law, national security, communications, media, Internet regulation, antitrust, and other issues; and served as general counsel for Senator’s personal office, handling full range of personnel and ethics matters.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy. Senior Counsel (May 2004–February 2005). Worked on issues and initiatives relating to national security, communications, and judicial administration; assisted in consideration of judicial and executive nominations; handled Department’s implementation of Executive Order
13,353, establishing the President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties; and counseled Associate Attorney General in his representation of the Department at American Bar Association’s annual meeting.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and
the Courts. Deputy Chief Counsel (March 2003–May 2004). Served as lead counsel
on national security, constitutional, communications, antitrust, and other issues.
Verizon Communications Inc. Associate General Counsel (February 2001–March
2003). Drafted amicus brief to the Supreme Court in National Cable & Telecomms.
Ass’n, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (2002); helped draft Federal and state
court briefs, see, e.g., Verizon New Jersey Inc. v. Ntegrity Telecontent Servs.. Inc., 219
F.Supp.2d 616 (D.N.J. 2002); conducted depositions; counseled business executives
on variety of critical competition issues; worked extensively with business and engineering teams to establish wireline broadband standard-setting organization; ran
antitrust compliance training program; submitted comments to Federal Communications Commission in connection with proposed rulemaking; and prepared general
counsel for Congressional hearing on communications and antitrust issues.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force.
Trial Attorney, Attorney General’s Honors Program (December 1998–February
2001). Worked on proposed transactions and requests for regulatory relief, including
the then-largest proposed merger in history and the first successful petition for longdistance market entry following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Responsibilities included drafting application for temporary restraining order to enjoin prospective merger; interviewing and second-chairing depositions of telecommunications executives; evaluating Section 271 petitions for regulatory approval;
drafting motions, affidavits, third-party communications, and other documents for
use in regulatory proceedings and litigation; reviewing documents produced by parties pursuant to ‘‘second requests’’ and other compulsory antitrust process; and coordinating regulatory review with Federal Communications Commission, Federal
Trade Commission, and other antitrust agencies.
Hon. Martin L.C. Feldman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Law
Clerk (September 1997–September 1998). Conducted research, drafted orders, and
assisted in preparation for trial in admiralty, antitrust, bankruptcy, employment
discrimination, and other cases.
Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA. Summer Associate (June 1997–September
1997). Permanent offer extended.
Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA. Summer Associate (June 1996–September
1996). Permanent offer extended.
Education
University of Chicago Law School J.D., 1997.
• University of Chicago Law Review. Editor (1996–97); Staff Member (1995–96).
• Semifinalist, Hinton Moot Court Competition (1997). Winner of Thomas J. Mulroy Prize.
• Harvard University. B.A. with honors in Social Studies, 1994.
Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society. Member (1990–94); Vice President (1992–93). Quarterfinalist, World Debate Championships, Melbourne, Australia
(1994).
Publications
Comment, ‘‘Should a Grand Jury Subpoena Override a District Court’s Protective
Order?‘‘, 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317 (1997). Proposal adopted, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 138 F.3d 442,445 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); In re
Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 162–63 (3d Cir. 2002).
Article, ‘‘Congress and the Constitution: The Legal Tender Act of 1862,’’ 77 Oregon L. Rev. 535 (1998). Originally drafted during law school and nominated by
University of Chicago Law School faculty for Casper Platt Award, which recognizes
the most outstanding student paper (1997).

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

28
Miscellaneous
• Member in good standing of Kansas and District of Columbia Bars.
• Awarded the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship by the German Marshall
Fund of the United States.
• Member of District of Columbia Bar Association (Member, Nominations Committee) and Federalist Society (Executive Committee Member, Administrative
Law Practice Group).

The CHAIRMAN. And it will be so. Thank you very much, Mr. Pai.
And you have a very warm way of talking, too, a very inclusive
way. So when you say that you are a good listener, I truly believe
that. And I also think it is incredibly important.
Mr. PAI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. FCC is a very complex organization. And it deals
in such cerebral matters and technical matters that the human relations aspect of it, within the FCC and then also reaching out to
the public becomes very important. Because most people don’t
know what you do and if they do, they are probably afraid of you.
And so those personal skills are incredibly important.
I would like to start the questioning with a question to each of
you. It is a question which Jessica Rosenworcel has heard many
times before, because I always ask it as the very first question.
Senator Olympia Snowe and I were responsible for establishing
a program which we are very fond of, called the ‘‘e-Rate’’, and a lot
of other people helped. It has done a fantastic job in helping with
closing the digital divide. I thought at the time that, when it
passed, that California would be way out, a high number in the
percentage of classrooms which were covered. And in fact it was
only 15 percent. On the other hand, Houston, which I figured
might have had a lower, they went wireless and within 2 days they
were at 100 percent.
So I mean there is this vast variation. In West Virginia the numbers were very low. Now they are very high, as they are across the
country. But also, the e-Rate program is not just making a connection, but keeping that connection current, and having the technology to keep it so, so it can continue to close the digital divide.
So, my question is very simple but profoundly important to me.
Will you both promise me that you will support the e-Rate program?
Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes.
[Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. That’s one.
Mr. PAI. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
you on the e-Rate program and I support the program.
The CHAIRMAN. Good.
[Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. One of the reasons I say that is that there is a
tendency sometimes with the FCC to look at e-Rate-related money,
which is for the moment fungible, and then to apply that to things
which have nothing to do with the e-Rate. Or others will try to
make that grab of money.
That is something which causes me vast heartache. So I am
going to incorporate that in your ‘‘yes’’ answer, that you will keep
your eye out for that.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

06:23 Jul 17, 2012

Jkt 075046

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT

SCOM1

PsN: JACKIE

Attachment 2

ABOUT SECURUS
AT SECURUS, WE’RE COMMITTED TO CONNECTING WHAT MATTERS®
Securus Technologies provides leading edge civil and criminal justice technology solutions that improve public safety and
modernize the incarceration experience. Thousands of public safety, law enforcement and corrections agencies rely on
Securus for secure, simple and powerful technology solutions that are always accessible and easy to use.
With hundreds of patents and scores of engineers, technologists, designers and thinkers innovating solutions, the technology here is second to none. Securus is committed to being the
best provider of high-tech software solutions, with the most product and service offerings of the highest quality that provide the best economics for our customers while maintaining the
best customer service in our industry.
From connecting family and friends to those incarcerated… to connecting correctional facility personnel to critical information… to connecting inmates to technology… to connecting the
dots for investigative leads… to connecting emergency dispatchers and responders to those in need… Securus Technologies is committed to serve and connect by providing emergency
response, incident management, public information, investigation, verification, communication, information management, inmate self-service, and monitoring products and services in order
to make our world a safer place to live.
Securus Technologies is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and serves more than 3,400 public safety, law enforcement and corrections agencies and over 1.2 million inmates across North
America.

The Securus Difference
Superior, revolutionary technology that is modern, relevant and continuously evolving to meet your needs
Collective intelligence from more than 2,200 law enforcement and corrections agencies providing unbeatable lead generation
Largest facility communications provider and the only full spectrum solutions provider in the sector
Product and service combinations that provide unique, full criminal lifecycle solutions from pre-incarceration incident management through post-incarceration
monitoring
Dedicated to innovation with more than 140 patents and industry-leading R&D investment

Company Fast Facts
Founded in 1986 and headquartered in Dallas, TX
Regional offices located in Carrollton, TX; Allen, TX; and Atlanta, GA
30 years of experience serving the corrections industry
Serving approximately 3,400 correctional facilities and more than 1.2 million inmates in 48 states
In-sourced customer call center and technical support teams that operate 24x7x365
Industry's number one innovator, with more than 140 patents issued and approximately 90 pending
Largest team in the industry with approximately 1,300 Associates nationwide
SAS 70 and Sarbanes-Oxley compliant
Approximately 150 Field Services team members located within close proximity to the facilities we serve
Secure Call Platform (SCP) is the leading platform in the industry with more than 2,200 installations
More than $19 million each year in reinvestment back into the company

Industry News
Interesting and informative articles pertaining to our industry and our company

Securus Provides Over $1.3 Billion in Prison, Jail and Government Funding Over ( http://www.finwin.com/demo/index.cfm?
tab=News&story_id=17511423&distributor=DTN,RTT,PRN,BW&showLatest=false )

View All

(/industry-news)

Securus History
Our timeline from company formation through the innovations and acquisitions propelling us to present-day industry leader

Learn More

(/securus-history)

Customer Integrity Pledge
Our pledge of integrity guiding our interactions with all of our customers, including agencies, inmates and their family and friends

Learn More

(/customer-integrity-pledge)

Press Releases
Catalog of published press releases with pertinent information about our company

Securus Technologies Compares Over-the-Counter Phone Rate versus Securus' Average Rate (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/aboutus/-/asset_publisher/y4UgIo5YBorO/content/securus-technologies-compares-over-the-counter-phone-rate-versus-securus-average-rate?
inheritRedirect=false&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.securustechnologies.com%2Fzh%2Faboutus%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_y4UgIo5YBorO%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn3%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D4)
Securus Releases Data on Calling Rates - Dramatic Reduction in Rates and Fees (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/aboutus/-/asset_publisher/y4UgIo5YBorO/content/securus-releases-data-on-calling-rates-dramatic-reduction-in-rates-and-fees?
inheritRedirect=false&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.securustechnologies.com%2Fzh%2Faboutus%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_y4UgIo5YBorO%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn3%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D4)

View All

(/about-us/press-releases)

Correctional Officer Memorial Fund
Our financial assistance program supporting families of fallen correctional officers

Learn More

(/corrections-officer-memorial-fund)

Customer Testimonials
Real statements from real customers on how they feel about doing business with us and using our technology solutions

Learn More

(/customer-testimonials)

“

Leading edge civil and criminal justice technology solutions that improve public safety and modernize the incarceration experience.

I am a firm believer in customer service and Securus seems to pride itself in providing great customer service. In this day and
age of ever-changing technology, Securus has stayed ahead of the game by consistently looking for ways to make it easier for
inmates, inmates's families, and most of all, Sheriff Department's personnel.

”

— County Sheriff's Office, Illinois

Securus Publishes Results of Patent Portfolio Analysis Completed by Three (3) Indepen…
Press Release

六月 12, 2017

View All

(/about-us/press-releases)

Securus Publishes Results of Patent Portfolio Analysis Completed by Three (3) Independent Intellectual Property
Consulting Firms
Securus Patent Portfolio Has Substantially More Value, Greater Size/Coverage, Is More Significant, and Higher Quality
Than Global Tel*Link’s Patent Portfolio
Innography Analysis Indicates Securus’ Patent Strength is Almost 3X as Great as GTL’s
DALLAS, TX June 12, 2017/Business Wire/ -- Securus Technologies, a leading provider of civil and criminal justice technology solutions for public safety, investigation, corrections and
monitoring, announced that it engaged three (3) independent consulting firms to analyze its patent portfolio against the patent portfolio of Global Tel*Link (GTL), and is presenting
the results of those studies again to our customers, lenders, and associates/employees.
“We issued a formal ‘Patent Portfolio Bake Off’ Challenge to GTL that went unanswered so we did something that was even better, I believe,” said Richard A. (“Rick”) Smith,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies.
“We used our outside counsel to engage three (3) independent, well-known, intellectual property consulting firms to compare and contrast our patent portfolio with GTL’s patent
portfolio. Outside counsel did not disclose who their client was, so the comparison was independent, intellectually honest, and non-biased,” said Smith. “Counsel didn’t even tell
the consulting firms what the list of patents was for each company. Securus didn’t provide any help or assistance to aid their analysis at all.”
The key findings of the studies are provided below:

Study

Key Findings

Securus’ worldwide active patent portfolio is 1.8X the size of GTL’s
Securus has over 2X more US based grants than GTL
Securus has more filings than GTL in every jurisdiction common to both parties
Securus’ portfolio is cited 5X more than GTL by other parties
Securus’ portfolio was developed over a longer period of time

Study 1

GTL cites Securus’ portfolio 10X more than Securus cites GTL patents
Securus has 3X the number of US grants ranked “excellent” and “good”
Securus has more US grants ranked “excellent” and “good” than GTL in every technology category
Securus’ US portfolio covers a broader range of technologies than GTL’s
Study 2
(Innography
Analysis)

Innography is widely used in the patent industry as a way to measure patent strength in an environment of litigation. Think of Innography
as a measurement of a patent portfolio’s “value” in a litigation environment. Innography measures these components:
Age of patent

Number of citations

Remaining life

Number of claims

Published year

Patent strength score

Year filed

Number of inventors

Relevance

Jurisdiction (country)

Number of patents

And more

Based on the above Innography Analysis, Securus’ cumulative patent strength score was 8040 versus the GTL cumulative score of
2445. So, Securus is the clear winner.
Study 3

This patent portfolio analysis reviews these components:
Number of patents
Assignee analysis
Priority, filing and publication trend
Geographical pressure

Patent overall scores
Litigation analysis
Patent classification

Based on the above components, the cumulative Securus score was 6820 versus the GTL score of 3225. So, Securus was the clear
winner.

“The three (3) independent patent portfolio analyses clearly show that by virtually any qualitative or quantitative measurement, Securus’ patent portfolio is much stronger, broader,
and valuable than the other company’s portfolio,” Smith said.
“We did this work, spent this time, and paid a significant amount of money to make clear to everyone that you can use the legal system and file patent infringement cases and
patent invalidations to cloud facts for a while, but the truth on the superior numbers and value of our patent portfolio will eventually prevail. I have recently reached out to the CEO of
GTL and their owners to close out all existing and future litigation associated with patents. I pray that they will accept our olive branch. If not, we will aggressively pursue the $115
million settlement payment from GTL that I have justified in the past. The future of this litigation is in their hands,” concluded Smith.
ABOUT SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and serving more than 3,450 public safety, law enforcement and corrections agencies and over 1,200,000 inmates across North America, Securus
Technologies is committed to serve and connect by providing emergency response, incident management, public information, investigation, biometric analysis, communication,
information management, inmate self-service, and monitoring products and services in order to make our world a safer place to live. Securus Technologies focuses on connecting
what matters®. To learn more about our full suite of civil and criminal justice technology solutions, please visit SecurusTechnologies.com. (http://SecurusTechnologies.com)

Tweet

赞0

About Securus (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/about1)
Securus History (/securus-history)
Press Releases (/about-us/press-releases)
Social Responsibility (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/corrections-officer-memorial-fund)

Careers
General Information (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/general-information)
Opportunities (https://careers-securustech.icims.com/)

Legal / Regulatory
Tariffs (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/tariffs)
Patents (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/patents)
Privacy (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/privacy)

Contact Us (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/contact-us)
Site Map (https://www.securustechnologies.com/zh/site-map)

Attachment 3

abundance of caution, the complete list of those clients is as follows:
AOL, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Cmp.; Cerbems Capital Management,
LP.; Charter Communications, Inc.; General Dynamics Corp., C4
Systems; Guggenheim Pmtners, LLC; The Nielsen Company; and
Seeurus Technologies, Inc. During that time: (I) I did not appear before
tl1e Federal Co1nmunications Co1n111issio11, executive branch agencies,
Congress, or any cmut in connection with my work for these clients; (2)
111y t1a111e did not appear on any coi11111e11ts, briefS, or any otl1er writte11
work submitted on their behal±; and (3) to preclude conflicts, my firm
established a screen as appropriate to prevent my colleagues from
disc11ssi11g specific 111atters with 111e.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage,
defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration
and execution of law or public policy.
• During iny ti1ne at tl1e Federal Co1n111u11icatio11s Co1111nissio11, I a11d/c.)r
my staff have been asked on occasion to review legislative proposals.
I also have issued a number of official statements suppmtive of the
passage of particular bills. See, for example, Chairman Pai Statement
on Bipartisan Suppmt for the Gigabit Oppottunity Act, available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/20 l 7/db062 l/
DOC-345457 Al.pdf; Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on
House Passage of the FCC Process Reform Act of2013, available al
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-3260 I 8A l .pd[
Recently, I co-authored an op-ed with a Congressman urging passage
of a public safety measure. See "Passing the Kelsey Smith Act Will
Help Law Enforcement Save Lives," The Hill (May 25, 2016),
available al http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/techno Jogy/280741-passing-the-kelsey-smith-act-wil1-hel p-lawenforcement-save#. VO WfuNlfugO (co-authored with Representative
Kevin Yoder). Finally, I have testified many times before Congress;
often, I have noted favorable consideration of bills and/or suppmted
enactment of those bills. See,for example, Testimony before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpmtation at 1-2
(March 2, 2016), available at
https://apps. fee.gov I edocsyub lie/attachmatch/DOC-338045A I. pdf
(Kari's Law Act of2016).
30

Attachment 4

Media Contact:
Matthew Berry, (202) 418-2005
matthew.berry@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release

FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Announces Agenda for Field Hearing on Contraband Cellphones
WASHINGTON, March 28, 2016.—Today, Commissioner Ajit Pai announced the agenda and panelists
for the April 6, 2016, field hearing in Columbia, South Carolina on inmates’ use of contraband
cellphones. The event will be hosted by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.
The field hearing is open to the public. It will be held at the South Carolina Bar Conference
Center, 1501 Park St., Columbia, SC 29201. The hearing will also be livestreamed at
http://www.scbar.org/PaiContrabandHearing.
Opening Remarks (2:00–2:20 PM)
Governor Nikki Haley
Commissioner Ajit Pai
Panel One: Problems (2:25–3:10 PM)
Robert Johnson, Captain (Ret.), South Carolina Department of Corrections, shot six times in a
hit ordered by an inmate using a contraband cellphone
Homer Bryson, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, on behalf of the Association
of State Correctional Administrators
Laura Hudson, Executive Director, South Carolina Crime Victims’ Council
Mitch Lucas, Assistant Sheriff, Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, and President, American Jail
Association, on behalf of the National Sheriffs’ Association
Panel Two: Solutions (3:15–4:15 PM)
Marjorie Conner, outside counsel for solution vendor CellAntenna
Gerard Keegan, Assistant Vice President, CTIA, a wireless industry trade association
Bryan Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections
Dan Wigger, Vice President and Managing Director for solution vendor CellBlox
“I am honored that this distinguished group has agreed to participate in this field hearing,”
Commissioner Pai stated. “Their testimony will shed additional light on the public safety threats posed

by inmates’ use of contraband cellphones, as well as the steps we can take to help law enforcement
combat this problem.”
###
Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai: (202) 418-2000
Twitter: @AjitPaiFCC
www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official
action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Attachment 5

Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

April 7, 2016

Submitted Online Only
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
RE:

Ex Parte Submission
Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband
Wireless Devices Use in Correctional Facilities
WC Docket No. 13-111

Dear Ms. Dortch:
Attached for Filing on WC Docket No. 13-111 is a letter from the Human Rights
Defense Center regarding the non-disclosure of a Securus employee/panelist at the April 6,
2016 FCC Field Hearing on contraband cellphones.
Thank you for your time and attention in this regard.
Sincerely,

Paul Wright.
Executive Director, HRDC

P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Phone: 561-360-2523 Fax: 866-735-7136
pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

April 7, 2016

Submitted Via Email Only
Commissioner Ajit Pai
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

RE:

April 6, 2016 FCC Field Hearing
Failure to Disclose Identity of a Securus Technologies Employee
Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband
Wireless Devices Use in Correctional Facilities
WC Docket No. 13-111

Dear Commissioner Pai:
The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) respectfully requests clarification with
regard to the undisclosed participation of a Securus Technologies (Securus) employee in
the Field Hearing on Contraband Cellphones conducted yesterday in Columbia, South
Carolina.
Dan Wigger, one of the panelists selected to discuss Managed Access systems, was
introduced in the hearing’s Agenda as “the Vice President and Managing Director for
solution vendor CellBlox.” 1 While this may be true, the Agenda failed to mention that
CellBlox was purchased by Securus Technologies in January 2015 (Attachment 1) and
that Securus announced its hiring of Mr. Wigger in March 2015 to “be responsible for the
day-to-day management of our Managed Access Systems (MAS) business that installs
proprietary high tech software, preventing contraband wireless device use in prisons and
jails in the United States.” (Attachment 2).
1

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/04/commissioner-pais-field-hearing-contraband-cellphones

P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460
Phone: 561-360-2523 Fax: 866-735-7136
pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

Page |2
We believe that the panel’s intentional non-disclosure of Mr. Wigger’s employment
by Securus misleads the public, media and government officials into mistakenly thinking
they are hearing unbiased and objective testimony, which perpetuates the lack of
transparency and openness that permeates the ICS industry.
Mr. Wigger’s presentation at yesterday’s Field Hearing was nothing more than
Securus Technologies advertising its Managed Access product. As you know from
questions submitted by HRDC prior to the Field Hearing, we are very concerned that ICS
providers, including Securus, will use contraband cellphones detections as yet another way
to price gouge prisoners and their families as they have been allowed to do in the prison
phone industry for decades. As you are aware, the unscrupulous business practices of ICS
providers, including Securus, have been well documented on FCC Docket WC 12-375,
resulting in what has been accurately described by Commissioner Clyburn as “the most
egregious case of market failure” she has seen in her 17 years as a regulator. Further, it would
have been worth noting Mr. Wigger’s affiliation with Securus at the hearing given that Securus
has filed suit challenging the FCC’s 2015 order implementing rate caps and other reforms of the
prison phone industry, which directly impact Securus’ bottom line.
Were you aware that Mr. Wigger is employed by a company owned by Securus? If so,
were the other participants at the hearing aware of this? Why wasn’t Mr. Wigger’s employment
affiliation with Securus disclosed to the public and media at the Field Hearing?
We look forward to your clarification regarding this issue. Thank you for your time and
attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright.
Executive Director, HRDC
Attachments
cc (by/email):
Governor Nikki Haley
Bob Wells, Executive Director, South Carolina Bar Association
Chairman Thomas Wheeler
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Commissioner Ajit Pai
Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Matt DelNero, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
Gigi Sohn, Counselor to Chairman Wheeler
Rebekah Goodheart, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Clyburn
Travis Litman, Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Rosenworcel
Nicholas Degani, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Pai
Amy Bender, Legal Advisor to Commissioner O'Rielly

Attachment 1

4/7/2016

Securus Technologies Purchases CellBlox - Key Provider of Technology That Limits Contraband





fl

(/)

Securus Technologies Purchases CellBlox - Key
Provider of Technology That Limits Contraband
Wireless Use in Prisons and Jails
Securus Further Expands Industry Leading Technology Portfolio to Include a Second
Proprietary Managed Wireless Access System (MAS) Provider - CellBlox.
Jan 14, 2015, 13:10 ET from Securus Technologies (http://www.prnewswire.com/news/securus+technologies)











Securus Technologies Inc.
Facebook ()

Twitter

Pinterest

DALLAS, Jan. 14, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Securus Technologies, a leading provider of civil and
criminal justice technology solutions for public safety, investigation, corrections and monitoring,
announced today that it has purchased the assets of CellBlox, Inc., a leading provider of Managed
Access Systems (MAS) that limit the use of contraband wireless units in prisons and jails in the
United States.

"We continue to build on our industry leading proprietary high-tech solutions portfolio of products
that we provide to the government sector and our agreement to acquire CellBlox, Inc. is a great
addition," said Richard A. ("Rick") Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies, Inc.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/securus-technologies-purchases-cellblox--key-provider-of-technology-that-limits-contraband-wireless-use-in-pris…

1/5

4/7/2016

Securus Technologies Purchases CellBlox - Key Provider of Technology That Limits Contraband

"We not only have exclusivity in the United States to the Vanu Tactical MAS product – but now own
all of the technology of CellBlox, Inc. – and that further expands our MAS product set with more
people and more sophisticated hardware and software that greatly limits the use of contraband
wireless units in the restricted areas of prisons and jails in the United States. We want to be the #1
provider of this technology and with this acquisition – we are," said Smith.

"Both Vanu Tactical and now CellBlox have developed proprietary technology that sorts out
legitimate wireless device use and lets those calls/messaging proceed in a normal way but does
not allow contraband units/signals to leave the facility and we are now the #1 provider of that
technology in the United States," said Smith.

D. Edward LaChance, Chief Executive Officer of CellBlox, Inc. said, "Eliminating the use of
contraband wireless units in restricted areas in prisons and jails utilizing an elegant technology
solution has been our sole focus since we established CellBlox – and our team here has
accomplished that in a big way. Securus is the perfect company for CellBlox's technology
solutions to reside in – they have the largest number of products, they embrace creative IT
solutions, they invest heavily in technology, they were easy for us to deal with, and they have the
largest sales team in the sector – so there was no other choice for us."

Steel Pier Capital (SPC), a privately held, operationally driven private equity firm based in New York
City, with its limited partners and global network of investors has financially backed CellBlox as a
portfolio company since 2010.

About CellBlox, Inc.

CellBlox, Inc. is headquartered in Huntsville, AL and is an emerging industry leading provider of a
superior Managed Access System (MAS) product. The CellBlox MAS leverages existing managed
access technology which has been used in International markets for the last 15 years combined
with CellBlox state of the art DAS, proprietary scanning and policy engine and CellBlox integrated
operating system provides unsurpassed flexibility, scalability and responsiveness through dynamic
configuration and remote management. CellBlox is unmatched in its ability to meet the demands
of the cellular managed access market. The initial target market for CellBlox is unauthorized use of
cellular phones in secured facilities. The CellBlox team is working with federal and state authorities

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/securus-technologies-purchases-cellblox--key-provider-of-technology-that-limits-contraband-wireless-use-in-pris…

2/5

4/7/2016

Securus Technologies Purchases CellBlox - Key Provider of Technology That Limits Contraband

to refine and deploy the revolutionary CellBlox product. CellBlox has offices in Huntsville,
AL; Cambridge, MA; Atlanta, GA; and Washington D.C. You can learn more about CellBlox by
visiting www.cellblox.com (http://www.cellblox.com/).

About Securus Technologies

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and serving more than 2,600 public safety, law enforcement and
corrections agencies and over 1,000,000 inmates across North America, Securus Technologies is
committed to serve and connect by providing emergency response, incident management, public
information, investigation, verification, communication, information management, inmate selfservice, and monitoring products and services in order to make our world a safer place to live.
Securus Technologies focuses on connecting what matters™. To learn more about our full suite of
civil and criminal justice technology solutions, please visit www.securustech.net
(http://www.securustech.net/).

Photo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100831/DA57799LOGO
(http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100831/DA57799LOGO)

SOURCE Securus Technologies

RELATED LINKS
http://www.securustech.net (http://www.securustech.net)

Journalists and Bloggers

The news you need, when you need it.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/securus-technologies-purchases-cellblox--key-provider-of-technology-that-limits-contraband-wireless-use-in-pris…

3/5

Attachment 2

Securus Expands Executive Team to Manage
Expanded Portfolio of Products and Acquisitions
Securus Technologies hires Messrs. Jon Secrest and Dan Wigger.
Mar 17, 2015, 18:34 ET from Securus Technologies, Inc.
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news/securus+technologies%2C+inc.)















fl

(/)

Securus Technologies Inc.
Facebook ()

Twitter

Pinterest

DALLAS, March 17, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Securus Technologies, a leading provider of civil and
criminal justice technology solutions for public safety, investigation, corrections and monitoring,
announced today that it has added two (2) executives to manage its expanded portfolio of
products and acquisitions.

Jon Secrest, Vice President of New Growth Opportunities, and Dan Wigger, Vice President and
Managing Director of Managed Access Systems both recently joined Securus.

"These additions to our Executive Team were easy for me to justify," said Richard A. ("Rick") Smith,
Chief Executive Officer of Securus Technologies. "I have worked with Messrs. Secrest and Wigger
for nine (9) and three (3) years respectively at our previous company, Eschelon, Inc. – a regional

competitive business focused local exchange carrier that we took public in 2005 and sold to a
competitor in 2007. We generated over $700 million in economic value at Eschelon during our
work there. Both of these executives were instrumental in what we accomplished at Eschelon –
they have the personal attributes of good work ethic, they are smart, they have quality academic
credentials, they know how to exceed customer expectations, they know how to grow and create
useful products – so they fit well with the Securus executive team."

Mr. Secrest will be responsible for New Growth Opportunities including working with our long list of
recent acquisitions to integrate and expand their product offerings. Jon started his business
career in 1982 at Paragon Cable and had steadily increasing responsibilities through his position at
ADC Telecommunications where he was the Vice President of Global Marketing and the Chief
Marketing Officer of Enterprise Networks. Mr. Secrest has a BA in Marketing and Economics and
graduated Magna Cum Laude from Augsburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Mr. Wigger will be responsible for the day-to-day management of our Managed Access Systems
(MAS) business that installs proprietary high tech software, preventing contraband wireless device
use in prisons and jails in the United States. Dan started his business career in 1991 at Pacific Bell
and had steadily increasing responsibilities through his position at Integra Telecom where he was
the Vice President of Operations. Mr. Wigger has a BS in Business Administration and graduated
Cum Laude from California State University.

"At the end of this year and every year from now on – when we look at the report card for Messrs.
Secrest and Wigger, we will see value added far in excess of their salaries," said Smith. "So good
for inmates, friends and family, our prison and jail partners, and our investors."

ABOUT SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and serving more than 2,600 public safety, law enforcement and
corrections agencies and over 1,000,000 inmates across North America, Securus Technologies is
committed to serve and connect by providing emergency response, incident management, public
information, investigation, biometric analysis, communication, information management, inmate
self-service, and monitoring products and services in order to make our world a safer place to live.
Securus Technologies focuses on connecting what matters®. To learn more about our full suite of
civil and criminal justice technology solutions, please visit SecurusTechnologies.com.

Attachment 6

8/8/2017 Ajit Pai on Twitter: "This afternoon, I was informed that @POTUS @realDonaldTrump designated me the 34th Chairman of the @FCC. It is a dee…

 Home

 Moments

Search Twitter

 
Ajit Pai 



Have an account? Log in

Follow

@AjitPaiFCC





This afternoon, I was informed that @POTUS
@realDonaldTrump designated me the 34th
Chairman of the @FCC. It is a deeply
humbling honor.

 PM - 23 Jan 2017
Ajit Pai1:41


© 2017 Twitter
About Help Center
@AjitPaiFCC
Terms Privacy policy
1,201 Retweets 2,127 Likes Cookies Ads info
Chairman of the Federal

Communications Commission.
370
 1.2K
RTs, likes ≠ 
endorsements.

2.1K

 Washington, DC
  @AjitPaiFCC · Jan 23
Ajit Pai 

 fcc.gov/leadership/aji…



Replying to @AjitPaiFCC

 Joined May 2012

I look forward to working with the new Administration, @FCC colleagues,
members of #Congress, and the public on behalf of all Americans.



55



118

300

  @AjitPaiFCC · Jan 23
Ajit Pai 

There is so much we can do together to bring the benefits of the digital age to all
Americans and to promote innovation and investment.



78



161

387

  @AjitPaiFCC · Jan 23
Ajit Pai 

From broadband to broadcast, I believe in a 21st-century version of Jefferson's
2nd Inaugural: we are all Republicans, we are all Democrats.



87



110

307

Michael Wild @michaelwild2198 · Jan 23
please leave Net Neutrality in place. Vast number of average Americans want
https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/823646831196389376


1/1

Attachment 7

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1658521

Filed: 01/31/2017

Page 1 of 3

Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
January 31, 2017

Mark J. Langer, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
333 Constitution Avenue, NW Room 5523
Washington, DC 20001
Re: Global Tel*Link, et al., No. 15-1461 & consolidated cases
Dear Mr. Langer
As the Court is aware, argument is set in these cases on February 6. I will be
presenting the Commission’s argument in this matter.
The Order under review was adopted by a 3-2 vote on October 22, 2015.
Since then, there have been significant changes in the composition of the
Commission. In particular, two commissioners who voted for the Order recently
have left the Commission (Commissioner Rosenworcel on January 3, 2017, and
Chairman Wheeler on January 20, 2017). On January 23, 2017, Commissioner Pai
was designated FCC Chairman.
As a result of these changes in membership, the two Commissioners who
dissented from the Order under review—on the grounds that, in specific respects, it
exceeds the agency’s lawful authority—now comprise a majority of the
Commission. See Dissenting statement of Commissioner Pai; see also Dissenting
statement of Commissioner O’Rielly.
In particular, a majority of the current Commission does not believe that the
agency has the authority to cap intrastate rates under section 276 of the Act. I am
therefore informing the parties and the Court that we are abandoning, and I am not
authorized to defend at argument, the contention—contained in Section I of our
brief—that the Commission has the authority to cap intrastate rates for inmate
calling services.
If the Court reaches the issue, we are also abandoning, and I am also not
authorized to defend, the argument (contained in a portion of section III.B of the

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1658521

Filed: 01/31/2017

Page 2 of 3

brief) that the Commission lawfully considered industry-wide averages in setting
the rate caps contained in the Order.
I will continue to defend at oral argument the significant remaining portions
of the Order pursuant to the brief respondents filed in these cases.
Given that the government’s position at argument has changed, the
Commission has ceded ten minutes of its allotted argument time to Mr.
Schwartzman, counsel for the “Wright Petitioner” intervenors, who will be
prepared to defend all aspects of the Order.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David M. Gossett
David M. Gossett
Deputy General Counsel
cc: counsel of record per ECF

USCA Case #15-1461

Document #1658521

Filed: 01/31/2017

Page 3 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GLOBAL TEL*LINK, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
) No. 15-1461 and
) consolidated cases
)
)
)
)
)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David M. Gossett, hereby certify that on January 31, 2017, I electronically
filed the foregoing Letter with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case
who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.

/s/ David M. Gossett
David M. Gossett
Deputy General Counsel
Federal Communications Commission

Attachment 8

Media Contact:
Mark Wigfield, (202) 418-0253
mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release

CHAIRMAN PAI STATEMENT ON D.C. CIRCUIT
INMATE CALLING DECISION

-WASHINGTON, June 13, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai
issued the following statement today on the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in Global Tel*Link v. FCC:
“Today, the D.C. Circuit agreed with my position that the FCC exceeded its authority when it
attempted to impose rate caps on intrastate calls made by inmates. Looking ahead, I plan to work
with my colleagues at the Commission, Congress, and all stakeholders to address the problem of
high inmate calling rates in a lawful manner.”
###
Office of Chairman Ajit Pai: (202) 418-2000
Twitter: @AjitPaiFCC
www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes
official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Attachment 9

8/9/2017

Here’s What Happened After Trump’s FCC Got To Oversee Inmates' Phone Service | HuffPost



Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you.

US




EDITION

POLITICS

08/09/2017 06:12 pm ET

Here’s What Happened After Trump’s FCC Got
To Oversee Inmates’ Phone Service
“Families unfortunately can expect that the government is going to continue to
protect these companies.”
By Dana Liebelson












AARON BERNSTEIN / REUTERS

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

WASHINGTON ― Mandy Martin, a 40-year-old woman living in Louisiana, talks to her husband on the
phone for about an hour a day. But because he’s incarcerated at the Southern Correctional Center in
Tallulah, those calls sometimes cost her more than $500 month. It’s money that “I really don’t have,” she
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heres-what-happened-after-trumps-fcc-got-to-oversee-inmate-phone-calls_us_598b6c83e4b0449ed5079bd4?lc

1/6

8/9/2017

Here’s What Happened After Trump’s FCC Got To Oversee Inmates' Phone Service | HuffPost

told HuffPost in an interview. With other expenses, she said she’s maxed out three credit cards and has



Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you.

had to rent out her house.

“I’ve tried to talk to him to tell him, ‘look, we really need to cut down on these phone calls,’” Martin said of
her husband who is serving a 5-year sentence for theft. But, “it keeps him out of a state of depression
being able to pick up and call...that’s the only thing he feels in control [over], is being able to talk to his
family.”
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Donald Trump has been scrutinized of
late for facilitating an aggressive expansion of the conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, as well
as attempting to scrap strong net neutrality protections. But lost in the noise is how Trump’s FCC chair, Ajit
Pai, abandoned the Obama administration’s attempt to cap exorbitant rates and fees that companies
charge for phone service in prisons and jails—which impacts inmates and their families, like Martin. 
Regular contact between inmates and family members can lower recidivism and help with rehabilitation.
And until the 1990s, inmates could make calls at about the same rates as other people, according to The
New York Times. But over the next few decades, private phone providers sent rates and fees
skyrocketing.
In October 2015, the FCC voted 3-2 to cap state and federal prison phone rates at 11 cents a minute, and
jail rates at 14 to 22 cents a minute. The FCC also discouraged commissions, which Democrats have
described as kickbacks to prison operators. Prison phone providers sued to block the rule, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put a hold on the rate caps in March 2016, although
the cap on ancillary fees — charges tacked onto to inmate calls — was permitted to go into effect. In
August 2016, the FCC, in an effort to appease opponents, slightly raised the rate caps (13 cents a minute
for prisons, for example). But providers were able to block those, too until the legal fight is resolved.
One of the dissenters in the FCC’s 2015 vote was then-Commissioner Pai, whom Trump later picked to
chair the agency. He called the action “well-intentioned” but unlawful, and also talked about contraband
cellphones being “thrown over prison fences stuffed into everything from footballs to dead cats.”
Under Pai, the FCC changed course. One week before February oral argument in appeals court, the
agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it would no longer defend a
key component of the Obama administration’s rule, namely, that the agency had the authority to cap instate rates. (The agency did, however, defend the FCC’s authority to regulate interstate calls, which refers
to calls between states.) 

“Obviously, they’re not trying to help us, they’re trying to make
money.
—Mandy Martin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heres-what-happened-after-trumps-fcc-got-to-oversee-inmate-phone-calls_us_598b6c83e4b0449ed5079bd4?lc

2/6

8/9/2017

Here’s What Happened After Trump’s FCC Got To Oversee Inmates' Phone Service | HuffPost

In June, the court struck down the the regulations on in-state calls. Advocates see the Trump



Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you.

administration’s position as a key factor. The court’s decision “relied in large part on the fact that the FCC
would not put forward a defense” for the agency’s authority to regulate in-state phone rates and fees, said
Lee Petro, pro bono counsel for prisoner advocates, the Wright Petitioners, a group of inmates’ family
members and loved ones. 
There was the feeling that “if the FCC isn’t going to defend its authority, why are we even here?” said
Carrie Wilkinson, a campaign director for Human Rights Defense Center. (The appeals court issued
a clarification order last week affirming that “we have carefully analyzed the contested provisions of the
FCC’s Order and found that they cannot survive review.”)
The court’s order is not yet in effect as the Wright Petitioners have requested a rehearing.
More than 70 percent of all inmate calls are in-state, Petro claimed, so “the lack of price caps has
permitted companies like Securus to charge more than $11 for a fifteen minute intrastate call for more than
60 correctional facilities in Michigan.” (A spokesman for Securus Technologies did not respond to a
request for comment.)
Martin, the woman from Louisiana, said she’s already feeling the impacts. She sent HuffPost an email
exchange showing that in February 2017, the local rate for Correct Solutions Group, her inmate phone
company, was 25 cents per minute, plus tax. After the June court ruling, she said that jumped. Correct
Solutions’ website shows a current Louisiana rate of 30 cents per minute. (Correct Solutions did not
respond to a request for comment. Neither did LaSalle Corrections, which operates the Southern
Correctional Center.)
“Obviously, they’re not trying to help us, they’re trying to make money,” she said.
For now, advocates are focusing on the petition for a rehearing, as well as actions on the state level. But
going forward, Wilkinson said, “families unfortunately can expect that the government is going to continue
to protect these companies and their profits, and not look out for the American people.”

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST

The Huffington Post’s Jail Deaths Project  15
Suggest a correction

Dana Liebelson 

Reporter, HuffPost

MORE:
Donald Trump

U.S. News

Law

Sociology

Prison

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/heres-what-happened-after-trumps-fcc-got-to-oversee-inmate-phone-calls_us_598b6c83e4b0449ed5079bd4?lc

3/6

 

 

Prison Profiteers - Side
Advertise here
Prison Phone Justice Campaign