New rates for inmates shift focus to laptops for Oklahoma families
Oklahoma families with loved ones confined switched to state-issued tablets, made available to prisoners statewide in 2021 after the banning of physical mail from entering state prisons in September 2024 curtailing the flow of contraband drugs into facilities.
The Federal Communications Commission in July of 2024 changed the rules to end exorbitant phone and video call rates that have burdened incarcerated people and their families for a very long time.
According to FCC officials, under the new rules, the cost of a 15-minute phone call will drop to $0.90 from as much as $11.35 in large jails and, in small jails, to $1.35 from $12.10 beginning January 1, 2025.
Authorities capture 2,840 lbs. of marijuana in shipping scheme, 6 arrested
Communications services, such as video conferencing and video visitation breakdown is as follows: *Compliance with the new rate caps will be phased in based on the size of the correctional institution and other factors.
Audio Rate Caps (Permanent) (Per minute)
Video Rate Caps (Interim) (Per minute)
Tier (ADP)
Current Caps
New Caps
Current Caps
New Caps
Prisons (any ADP)
$0.14*
$0.06
N/A
$0.16
Large Jails (1,000+)
$0.16*
$0.06
N/A
$0.11
Med. Jails (350-999)
$0.21
$0.07
N/A
$0.12
Small Jails (100-349)
$0.21
$0.09
N/A
$0.14
Very Small Jails (0-99)
$0.21
$0.12
N/A
$0.25
* Current cap figures that include a $0.02 additive for facility costs, which equates to the allowance made for facility-incurred IPCS costs reflected in contractually-prescribed site commissions, the closest available comparison. ADP means average daily population.
Oklahoma Watch first reported, the new FCC regulation capping prison and jail phone call rates. Additionally highlighting, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) and Securus Technologies agreed to lower the state's phone call rate from 14 cents per minute to 6 cents per minute. Securus under the amended contract who took over Oklahoma's prison phone system in 2020 charging 20 cents per minute will no longer receive $3.5 million per year contract agreement in Oklahoma.
Securus will now beginning paying ODOC $580,000 over 12 months for tablet e-messaging and media rights, according to the latest contract agreement, reported by Oklahoma Watch.
Oklahomans are now shifting their focus as the FCC who has no regulating authority over tablet e-messaging as a pending lawsuit filed by Securus and Pay Tel alleging that the FCC exceeded its authority under the Martha Wright-Reed Fair and Just Communications Act is ongoing.
Implementation of rate cuts continue as federal courts decline any pause due to pending cases.
To read the Oklahoma Watch full article click here.
*The Department of Corrections and Prison Policy Initiative have not responded at the time of this publishing.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Yahoo
Man in Wisconsin caught with stolen unicycle arrested for allegedly spitting at police
MADISON, Wis. (WFRV) – A man in Wisconsin was arrested late at night on July 9 after allegedly spitting on police who found him with items that had been found missing from a person's garage. According to the Madison Police Department, officers noticed an injured man walking through a parking lot around 11 p.m. on Wednesday, holding a unicycle, a liquor bottle and a bag of tools. FCC requesting info, experiences from Cellcom customers impacted by long-term outage The man reportedly started spitting at officers as they approached him, and he was arrested for discharging body fluids at officers. While being booked in for the charge, other officers were sent to a home in the 100 block of West Johnson Street for a report of a garage break-in. According to the release, a woman arrived at home and found somebody had broken into her garage, reporting that an unicycle, a bike lock and a liquor bottle were missing. The suspect reportedly injured themselves breaking out of a window. Wisconsin high-speed pursuit of over 100mph ends in 21-year-olds arrest for OWI All of the missing items were in the arrested man's possession when he was taken into custody. No additional details were provided. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Yahoo
Media Companies Like Paramount Should Think Twice Before Settling With Trump
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM's home for opinion and news analysis. Paramount Global, which owns CBS News, recently made a perilous decision to settle the lawsuit that Donald Trump brought against them last year. Trump's suit asserted that CBS' 60 Minutes illegally edited a Kamala Harris interview in order to hurt his chances in the 2024 presidential race. Before settling, Paramount validly argued Trump's legal theories were meritless and violated the company's First Amendment rights. Yet the media conglomerate settled the suit for $16 million, which it reportedly will pay toward Trump's presidential library plus other costs, although Trump asserted that the settlement is worth double that sum. The settlement decision by Paramount's board of directors carries huge legal and reputational risks — including potential bribery charges — while degrading the independent investigative journalism Americans rely on. Many legal experts agreed from the beginning that Paramount had a strong defense, citing constitutional protections to make editorial decisions. But the company's choice to settle reportedly appears to have hinged on an unrelated $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by Trump ally Brendan Carr, doesn't approve this merger by October, the deal could fall apart and board chair Shari Redstone could lose a reported $2 billion payout. While Trump's lawyers and Carr deny the lawsuit is related to these FCC proceedings, Paramount staff appeared to see a link, as did Trump himself. And as Paramount's board struggled with the prospect of facing bribery charges if it settled the suit, internal pressures for CBS News to provide more favorable coverage of Trump sparked major internal discord, resulting in two high-profile news division resignations. Paramount found itself in a tough situation, no doubt. But the grave risks of settling with Trump are bad for the business, its shareholders, and its employees — and it represents a dangerous sign for democracy. These stakes are clear in the potential legal risks Paramount is still facing post-settlement. First, three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) — warned Redstone in a May 19 letter that under federal law, paying Trump to help finalize merger approval could potentially be bribery of a public official. Such a charge has a five-year statute of limitations. The senators suggested that any 'scheme to curry favor with the Trump administration' compromises journalistic independence and raises corruption concerns. Immediately after the settlement, Wyden reupped these issues and asked state prosecutors to pursue criminal charges, while Warren called for an investigation. State-level problems have surfaced, too. In California, two powerful senators who chair relevant committees already launched an inquiry, inviting two former CBS News executives to testify. The lawmakers suggested a settlement could violate California's laws against, for example, unfair competition and misuse of corporate funds, while penalizing competitors who resist political interference, distorting the media marketplace, and chilling the investigative journalism Californians depend on. On top of that, Paramount's shareholders have already threatened legal action. The nonprofit Freedom of the Press, which owns Paramount stock, promised to sue the company if it settled with Trump and recently hired two powerhouse lawyers in preparation. On June 5, the nonprofit told Paramount's board a settlement could cause 'catastrophic' harm to the company and destroy shareholder value. They also said a settlement could illegally breach the board's duties of care and loyalty to shareholders, constitute bribery, and violate anti-competition laws in several states — which could multiply legal fees and liability. Other long-term hazards abound. For example, a future president could take a very different look at the matter than Trump. A future Congress could hold high-profile hearings and refer the matter for Department of Justice investigation. A future DOJ could investigate potential lawbreaking, including the bribery angle. An FCC under the stewardship of a new chair could also launch investigatory proceedings. And attorneys involved in the settlement could face state disciplinary proceedings or disbarment if there is a finding that they acted illegally or unethically. Aside from the legal risks, the trusted brand of CBS News and its credibility with the American people will likely crater. More broadly, the settlement represents yet another example of independent media companies kowtowing to an administration that appears intent on weakening perceived enemies. As the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal wrote: 'The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like. It's a low move in a free country with a free press.'
Time Magazine
07-07-2025
- Time Magazine
Leaders Must Learn the Art of Dealing with Donald Trump
Donald Trump threatens schools and businesses to pay the tributes he demands or suffer the consequences. Trump is a bully when it comes to perverting government powers for illegitimate partisan purposes. Some leaders recently have succumbed to such efforts and paid the piper, while others have resisted. Private entities such as media companies dependent on FCC clearance, law firms reliant upon access to government buildings like court houses and requiring security clearances to defend clients, and universities reliant on government research funds are being victimized for political retribution, while other institutional leaders stand by traumatized and fearful. The leaders of Harvard and law firm Paul Weiss, represented by the same Trump-friendly lawyer, Richard Burck of Quinn Emanuel, took opposite paths in dealing with the same adversary Donald Trump. Can they both be right? Trump's allies threaten to cripple these enterprises even though the Constitution is on the side of his victims. The draining, long appeals process endangers an enterprise's perishable assets in the loyalty and well-being of its constituents, ranging from customers, employees, and clients to partners, researchers, and students. Paramount paid $16 million to the Trump Library fund to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against it, following itsCBS's 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris last year, which her then-campaign rival, Trump, did not like. Six months earlier, Disney agreed to pay an equal amount for an ABC broadcast to which Trump objected to. In both cases, as there was no misconduct, there were no apologies offered and no admission of guilt, in an effort to protect their reputations by refusing contrition for their journalism. Similarly, several law firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Kirkland & Ellis were threatened by Trump to have access to federal buildings and government security clearances cancelled and their clients were threatened with commercial repercussions if they continued to do business with the firms. Some firms settled preempting a White House executive order. Given their clients' needs for such access and their clients' fiduciary duties to their shareholders, they made concessions in the way of offers of legal work that was already covered by the existing donated time and for causes these firms already long addressed. Thus, the concessions gave Trump an illusion of victory and a dignified path for retreat, truly winning nothing. While their peer firms, such as Jenner Block, Perkins Coie, and Wilmer Cutler, are rightly celebrated for resisting similar Trump threats, the nature of the business mix of these litigation-focused firms had less flight risk of corporate transaction lawyers. Some universities, such as Columbia, have made concessions while others, such as Harvard, have resisted federal government intrusion into private strategic decisions and freedom of academic expression. Harvard, like other universities, had governance failures and had shown an indifference to pockets of antisemitism, which had not been properly addressed. The Harvard of today is very different than the Harvard of two years ago in the eyes ofinternal critics such as Steven Pinker who salute Harvard's progress against ideological filters. Even the Anti-Defamation League's assessment of antisemitism on campuses has shown marked improvement at Harvard – with the school, led by a Jewish president and a Jewish board chair, now no worse than the average U.S. university, if not better than both. But Trump still brandishes the specter of institutional antisemitism, among other false accusations, to try to seize government control of Harvard's admissions, faculty staffing, and curriculum decisions for its own political biases. Harvard has been fighting Trump's unconstitutional intrusion into the strategic decisions of a private enterprise and winning four times in a row in federal lawsuits against Trump. After losing multiple court rulings to Harvard, Trump's threats against the university appear to be imploding. Last week, after his fifth court loss, this one permanently blocking his halt of international visas to Harvard students, Trump tried to declare victory with a conciliatory tone on his Truth Social posting 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.' Yet still billions of dollars of research grants are at risk on top of the confiscatory new tax provisions targeting the endowments of such wealthy schools, costing billions more. Late last month, Harvard's president and provost confirmed to major donors that talks with the Trump White House had resumed. Trump also hinted that a deal with Harvard was imminent, but some Harvard faculty worried about the terms of a prospective deal appearing to look like capitulation, while others worried that the university's battle over purist principles of academic freedom was quixotic and too costly. Both Garber and Paul Weiss managing partner Brad Karp have been criticized for their different approaches to conflict with Trump. The context was different between such cases. Paul Weiss attracted White House vindictiveness when its chairman Brad Karp attempted to rally the legal community to defend peer firms which had been previously targeted. Initially, the legal community not only failed to defend peers targeted by the White House, but firms, such as Sullivan Cromwell, benefited from such disputes for commercial and partisan purposes. Isolated, Karp had to fortify his firm and mollify Trump with face-saving concessions while gaining numerous new clients during this period of distress. Only later did several hundred mid-sized law firms come to support large firms under the White House attack. By contrast, hundreds of colleges and universities rallied immediately to the defense of Harvard and 60 other schools under attack from the White House. An immediate wave of a hundred schools catalyzed a massive collective statement of defiance of such intrusion into campus life. The victims are not just collegial organizations such as law firms and universities. The nation has seen many icons of American enterprise victimized in the same way Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC were attacked. Various firms such as Amazon, Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola, Walmart, Harley Davidson, AT&T, Ford, GM, Merck, and Bank of America were wrongly attacked by Trump for partisan reasons, many for merely speaking the truth about the devastating consequences for Trump's reckless tariffs, along with other revenge trade practices. Trump even told Harley riders to buy foreign made bikes instead of Harley when the company had to close one US factory and open one in Asia to import bikes in the EU due to EU retaliatory trade barriers in reaction to Trump tariffs. The silence of the business community to such White House overreach has been deafening. While the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce have spoken up, it's time for other influential but more cautious organizations, like the Business Roundtable, to learn the lessons the universities taught the law firms. The difference receptions that Garber and Karp have received make clear that the most effective way to deal with Trump is through collective action but if abandoned by peers, leaders can make needed cosmetic concessions to allow their adversary a dignified path for retreat. Leaders must learn this wisdom.
