PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 29, 2015
Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2015
This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to direct the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations on the use of inmate telephone and video services that enable persons incarcerated in correctional institutions to originate calls at payphones, telephones, or video kiosks designated for the personal use of prisoners.
The regulations must: (1) prescribe a maximum uniform per-minute rate and service connection or other per-call rate, (2) prescribe variable maximum rates depending on factors such as carrier costs and the size of the correctional facility, (3) require providers of inmate telephone and video service to offer both collect calling and prepaid debit account services, (4) prohibit or limit the payment of commissions by such providers to administrators of correctional facilities based upon the revenue of the service, (5) require such administrators to allow more than one service provider at a facility so that prisoners have a choice, and (6) prohibit or substantially limit any ancillary fees that are in addition to the per-minute rate and connection charge.
People & committees
Rep. Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3638 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3638 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3638 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3638 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.