After Preserving In-Person Visits, Clay Jenkins Takes Aim at County Jail Phone Commissions

If Securus is to make NO profit on inmate telephone calls, why would they even provide the service?  It's not a non-profit charity organization.  Maybe the County would like to establish a non-profit to provide this service.  Given their wonderful performance in the selecting any technology products and service, it should work like a charm, right?

Jenkins sounds like a statesman. Let's see if he can keep it up now that he is out of the shadow of JWP. 

I agree with Jenkins and Watkins. Aside from the ethical problems in profiting off of inmates' communications to the outside world, it is also a question of security. An inmate who has regular contact with his loved ones is less likely to get anxious and lash out while incarcerated.

@CitzenKim

Good point about the county's record. But NObody has said that Securus is to make NO profit, so your "if" scenario is groundless.

@GeorgeB123

Yep, he's making bold yet considered moves, and staying transparent about his motivations and goals.  

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul

I may be reaching, but is there a connection between JWP and Securus?

@wcvemail @CitzenKim ""I'm not saying calls should be free," he said at Tuesday's meeting of the Dallas County Commissioners Court, "but families should be charged what they actually cost.""

@wcvemail @CitzenKim "Jenkins isn't worried about how much profit Securus or the county makes, he doesn't think either one should make any at all."

@wcvemail @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul I can assure you are reaching and there is no connection. Funny thing, to see potentially any vendor to the county be suspect, without anyone checking the character of the vendor..

@CitzenKim @wcvemail

"actual cost" as born by whom? We don't have nationalized tele service, so it's apparently up to the county to persuade AT&T to establish and maintain a separate, no-profit operation for phone calls to jails.

I'm against exorbitant charges, and I'm especially against a private company trying to curtail inmates' visit access, but nobody rides for free. 

@CitzenKim @wcvemail

Your better reading trumped my skim, you're right and I stand corrected.

@wilme2 @wcvemail @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul

Perhaps, Wilme, but "I can assure you" implies that you're privy to the JWP investigation details. If you are disclosing official info, then you're at least breaking policy, if not the law. If you are not truly privy to that investigation, then "I can assure  you" is pretentiously misleading at best, and certainly knee-jerkingly defensive on JWP's behalf. 

As to the "character" of the vendor, remember the old joke whose punchline is, "We've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just haggling over price."

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul @wcvemail

You're right, given his tenure, his power, and his greed.

@wcvemail @CitzenKim So AT&T, being a publicly traded company would be OK to provide the jail phone service, but in your mind a private company is not?  AT&T is long out of the inmate business because they didn't want to develop the specialized call recording and investigative technology required by modern corrections facilities.

@wcvemail @CitzenKim NP it happens.  How did you not get "first" on this one? 

@wilme2

I overlooked the possibility that you're defending the vendor, perhaps as an employee or even a principal. If you are, then be proud to out yourself as such. And if you are, then consider what Paul said about the overall cloud on "potentially any" county vendors.

@wilme2

No, you mistook me, perhaps my writing. My point actually dovetails with your last sentence, that is, county commissioners would have no chance of convincing AT&T to set up an entire operation just to break even on eventual per-call costs. SOMEbody has to pay to set the thing up and maintain it, as I said, nobody rides for free. Your company or similar will do just fine, so long as there's no dictation of county jail visit policy in order to drive revenues.

@wcvemail 

I am. And given our business practices across the country we have earned being above suspicion.  But given this is still in the procurement stage, and things are obviously wonky, saying anything more on the subject is inappropriate...

@wilme2

In general, I sincerely say "Good Fortune!" to you and your company, and may your good business practices continue to keep you above suspicion. May you grow a thick skin until JWP's stench is clear, also.

In particular, is the personal visit curtailment the ONLY way to ensure enough break-even-plus revenue on the video business? Don't you think that's too drastic for families and the locked up? Aren't there other business-driving tactics you've used around the country in other jurisdictions?

Not incidentally, former Polycom employee and AT&T contractor here, I know your technology and underlying economics.

@wcvemail It is a reach to say you understand the underlying technology without actually looking to see what we are doing.  Sure, connecting the phone call is easy and you would be right on that end.  But the many, many, many layers of security and configurations we provide to corrections facilities would make your head spin.  A single call may touch a hundred servers in our data centers for verification and investigation. We offer services like Voice Bio-metrics to make sure the inmate is really the one making the call, netural networking software to allow investigators to track organized crime, and geo-fencing to make sure a call isn't placed to a cell phone of a smuggler waiting to throw contraband over the fence.

@wilme2 @wcvemail

Yeah, I reached, but that's what makes me the go-gettin', good-lookin' sonuvagun that I am.

All that cool stuff, market on THOSE features, rather than trying to change county policy to drive revenues. Make the county pay for those features, rather than curtailing in-person visits to channel (heh) users.