News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by UncleEntity on Friday July 27, 2018 @07:38PM (#17630392)
Do the inmates have to use the "free" tablets?

What I mean is is there some service that they only have available via the tablets and not some other means? Paper letter vs email, video chat vs in person visit, &etc...

Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by duskwuff on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:18PM (#17630634)
> Do the inmates have to use the "free" tablets?

More or less, yes.

Services like JPay are frequently used in the prison system to replace existing systems, not just to supplant them. It may be made the only way to deposit money into the prison commissary, for instance. Or the availability of video chat through JPay may be used as an excuse to limit the availability of in-person visits. And so on.

Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by ngoel36 on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:42PM (#17631209)
Supplant = replace :)
Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by danso on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:34PM (#17630724)
I've linked to it elsewhere in this thread (as a response to someone who appears to be ignorant that prison services are an industry), but here's a YC announcement for Pigeon.ly, a YC15 batch that "is building a profitable new category of services for the 20M ppl with family in prison":

https://blog.ycombinator.com/pigeon-dot-ly-yc-w15-a-startup-...

https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/24/pigeon-ly/

Pigeon.ly's creator is an ex-convict who served 4 years of prison time for marijuana business. His first-hand experiences with the cost of telecommunication services is apparently what sparked his startup idea:

> One of these ideas was a way to make prison calls cheaper. There are only a couple of companies that handle the vast majority of communications in and out of prisons because messages and letters need to be carefully screened. Because of this market concentration among players like Securus and JPay, it means that prisoners — who are already vulnerable and often lower-income — get gouged.

> Three hundred minutes can cost $70.

> “While I was there, my eyes really started opening up. I started noticing how grossly inefficient everything was,” he said. “I thought, I know I can solve this problem. This is a real market.”

Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by thedudemabry on Saturday July 28, 2018 @05:25AM (#17632383)
While I support any effort to improve the situation of anyone being denied communication with their family, lowering the bullshit vendor costs of such a system seems like a cynical approach to what should be a human rights issue. The free market by definition can't operate on a population of a captured sub-population that can't weaponize their own capital to buy better rates.

We need to elect politicians that recognize the horrors inflicted upon incarcerated folks and their families and provide communication with family as a cheaply-provided right, not as a strange sub-contracted service provided within the silly prison economy.

Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by gowld on Friday July 27, 2018 @11:01PM (#17631274)
You and the OP article (The wonderful Erica Bryant) both make smart reference to

> family in prison

Too many people have no compassion for prisoner, so it's important emphasizing that exploitation of prisoners rolls over into exploitation of innocent family members.

Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by tylerhou on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:05PM (#17630570)
Yes, according to the article, for prison banking and refunds.

The services you mentioned are okay, but having a state-approved monopoly over essential services is not okay.