Prince George's County - Speed Monitoring Systems - Maryland Route 5 PG 315-26
HB 401 would require State correctional facilities to pay the costs charged by telephone service providers for incarcerated individuals’ authorized telephone equipment and telephone service, rather than passing those costs on to incarcerated people or call recipients. It also prohibits facilities and providers from charging incarcerated individuals or third parties for those calls, while preserving the ability of facilities to discipline misuse by disabling phone access in disciplinary situations. The bill defines covered telephone services broadly to include landline, wireless, cellular, VoIP, and similar voice-communication services, but excludes video communication.
The bill also creates a temporary Costs of Telephone Communications Advisory Committee to study no-charge prison phone programs, review Maryland’s current contracts, usage data, and costs, and recommend ways to implement a no-charge calling program efficiently and at lower cost. The committee would include legislators, correctional officials, the Public Defender, prosecutors, advocates, formerly incarcerated people, currently incarcerated people, and labor representatives, and would report its findings by December 31, 2025. The substantive no-charge requirements would take effect July 1, 2026, while the committee provisions would sunset in 2026.
HB 401 would amend the Correctional Services Article by revising the funding structure for correctional facility telephone-related costs and by adding a new subtitle establishing no-charge telephone communications for incarcerated individuals. It would shift financial responsibility for authorized inmate phone use to State correctional facilities, prohibit direct billing of incarcerated individuals and call recipients, require a 10-to-1 inmate-to-phone ratio, and preserve visitation rights by preventing phone access from substituting for in-person visits. The bill would also authorize disciplinary restrictions on phone use and create a one-year advisory committee to inform implementation.
The bill appears generally supportive of expanding access to prison phone calls without charge, reflecting a reform-oriented approach focused on family contact, reentry, and reducing the financial burden on incarcerated people and their families. The inclusion of a broad advisory committee suggests an effort to balance advocacy goals with operational and fiscal concerns. No vote tally or committee transcript is available in the provided context, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely concern who should bear the cost of prison phone services, how much the program would cost the State, and whether correctional facilities can operationally implement a no-charge system. The bill anticipates disputes over provider charges by stating that facilities are not required to pay amounts they dispute, indicating potential friction with telecom vendors. Other likely concerns include maintaining security and discipline, preserving visitation incentives, and the fiscal impact on correctional budgets and contract negotiations. The advisory committee’s inclusion of correctional officers, prosecutors, public defenders, advocates, and labor representatives suggests these issues were expected to be debated from multiple perspectives.