and reasonable. (6) Unemployment has risen sharply as a result of the COVID–19 pandemic, straining the incomes of millions of Americans and making it even more difficult for families of incarcerated persons to pay the high costs of confinement facility communications services. (7) Certain markets for confinement facility communications services are distorted due to reverse competition, in which the financial interests of the entity making the buying decision (the confinement facility) are aligned with the seller (the provider of confinement facility communications services) and not the consumer (the incarcerated person or a member of his or her family). This reverse competition occurs because site commission payments to the confinement facility from the provider of confinement facility communications services are the chief criterion many facilities use to select their provider of confinement facility communications services. (8) Charges for confinement facility communications services that have been shown to be unjust and unreasonable are often a result of site commission payments that far exceed the costs incurred by the confinement facility in accommodating these services. (9) Unjust and unreasonable charges have been assessed for both audio and video services and for both intrastate and interstate communications from confinement facilities. (10) Though Congress enacted emergency legislation to allow free communications in Federal prisons during the pandemic, it does not cover communications to or from anyone incarcerated in State and local prisons or jails. (11) Mrs. Martha Wright-Reed led a campaign for just communications rates for incarcerated people for over a decade. (12) Mrs. Wright-Reed was the lead plaintiff in Wright v. Corrections Corporation of America, CA No. 00–293 (GK) (D.D.C. 2001). (13) That case ultimately led to the Wright Petition at the Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96–128 (November 3, 2003). (14) As a grandmother, Mrs. Wright-Reed was forced to choose between purchasing