Search CE Pro

Print  |  Email  |  Share  |  News  |  Follow on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or RSS

HR3630 Passes; Damage to Alarm Industry ‘Beyond Description’

House passes HR3630, which allows security systems, PERS and other automated devices to text or dial 911 directly, bypassing alarm central stations. Senate debate begins.

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed HR3630 that will allow for non-human alarm signals to be sent directly to 911 centers, bypassing the alarm industry's screening process that eliminates so many false alarms. The bill passed the house despite the efforts of the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), which calls says the bill will do harm "beyond description" to the security industry and to 911 centers themselves. Now it is moving on to the Senate for debate.

Lou Fiore, chairman of the AICC, says the "bill was hastily put together with aspects that will have detrimental actions."

"In the bill, the FCC is asked to to formulate rules for Next Generation 911 centers whereby texting and video and data can be sent directly to 911, bypassing central stations," he says.

Alarms are specifically mentioned "through voice, text, or video and related data" and "nonhuman-initiated automatic event alerts, such as alarms, telematics, or sensor data, which may also include real-time voice, text, or video communications."

"While this does not force alarms to be sent directly to 911 centers, the mere fact that it will allow such types of signaling will create products to exist. The harm this would do the functioning of 911 centers and to the culture of alarm verification we have so successfully implemented is beyond description," says Fiore.

AICC is encouraging all integrators to contact your U.S. Senator and send them the letter below.

The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) has a major concern that the NG 9-1-1 section of H.R. 3630 the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 as currently drafted could result in overwhelming the Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) with calls that do not require emergency services.

The Alarm Industry Communications Committee is comprised of the Central Station Alarm Association (monitoring and installation companies), the Electronic Security Association (predominately installers), and the Security Industry Association (manufacturers of alarm equipment including Personnel Emergency Response Systems (PERS).

The problem could well result in 9-1-1 operators being flooded with automatic sensor generated calls, from security devices, as well as Personnel Emergency Response System (PERS) calls. The alarm industry which currently screens these calls before they are forwarded to 9-1-1 centers knows from experience that the vast majority of these calls from burglar and fire alarm systems as will has from PERS systems do not require dispatch. The overwhelming majority of PERS calls (99%) do not require the dispatch of emergency services. In many cases the senior is seeking just to talk with someone or has inadvertently set off the alarm. Currently the alarm industry screens all these calls before they are sent to the 9-1-1 operator to determine whether emergency services need to be dispatched. On an annual basis we screen over a 100 million calls a year. Of that, the industry resolves in the high 90% without a referral to 9-1-1 operators.

In an earlier FCC proceeding the Chiefs of Police, Fire Chiefs, and Sheriffs in the above attached filing supported the AICC position in opposition to direct unscreened calls from alarm systems to PSAPS because it would overwhelm the system.

H.R. 3630 in P. 294 in Section 4265 (e) (4) (B) definition of an emergency call “nonhuman-initiated automatic event alerts, such as alarms, telematics, or sensor data, which may also include real-time voice, text or video communications.”, we believe that sensor driven calls to the 9-1-1 center will overwhelm PSAPs and render them unable to respond to real emergencies.

While we support allowing human generated texting as an adjunct or replacement for voice, as drafted the bill would allow for sensors to be installed that would result in emergency signals being sent directly to the 9-1-1 center without verification. We also are concerned that Personnel Emergency Response Systems (PERS) could be set up to send messages directly to the 9-1-1 center. Currently, there is no technology that would enable 9-1-1 centers to electronically screen out such calls. 20 years ago companies devised systems whereby a homeowner or business could repeatedly send emergency messages using tape dialers directly to police and fire dispatchers. Police and fire services around the country had to enact laws to ban the practice because it was crippling their ability to field real emergency calls. With today’s technology one could easily put a sensor into an alarm system which would directly dial, text or communicate over the Internet to 9-1-l centers.

The AICC is concerned that the FCC would use the authority in the bill to move forward with their desire to allow sensor driven calls to 9-1-1 centers unless Congress changes the existing language in the bill.

We have drafted language to address this issue:
On P. 294 (e) (5) (B) which addresses Next Generation 9-1-1 services The term ‘Next Generation 9-1-1 services’ means an IP-based system comprised of hardware, software, data, and operational policies and procedures that—
“(B) processes all types of emergency calls, including voice, manually initiated text messaging, data, and multimedia information, provided that any data messages must be verified before being sent to the Public Service Answering Point.”

Possible report language:
“To minimize the danger that Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) may be overwhelmed by false or unintentional emergency communications, device initiated data must be verified before being sent to a PSAP.”
An alternative way to address the issue would be to add on P. 286 in Section 4265 (a) (4) add in the Reports Section after the period, “Prior to approving the use of non-human initiated alerts, the Commission shall be required to make a finding to Congress whether prior verification would significantly minimize the incidence of calls which do not require an emergency response.”

This would require the FCC to verify to Congress prior to authoring non-human initiated alerts that PSAPs have the ability to screen out calls that do not require a response.

Behind every successful custom installation is a CE Pro

And CEPro magazine is there keeping you up-to-date on the latest products, techniques, designs and business practices. From HDBaseT 2.0 to cat5e wiring, from UHDTV to wireless lighting control, CEPro explains how they work and how best to use them. Each issue delivers constructive, real-time content to help you find innovative ways to successfully build and maintain your business.
Discover how to make smart use of today's current technologies...and those that are emerging...subscribe today!

Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter

Article Topics

News · Home Automation and Control · Security · All topics

About the Author

Jason Knott, Editor, CE Pro
Jason has covered low-voltage electronics as an editor since 1990. He joined EH Publishing in 2000, and before that served as publisher and editor of Security Sales, a leading magazine for the security industry. He served as chairman of the Security Industry Association’s Education Committee from 2000-2004 and sat on the board of that association from 1998-2002. He is also a former board member of the Alarm Industry Research and Educational Foundation. He is currently a member of the CEDIA Education Action Team for Electronic Systems Business. Jason graduated from the University of Southern California.

8 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)

Posted by John Nemesh  on  12/14  at  12:08 PM

What a shocker…the GOP controlled House passes a bill that will be detrimental to the American public?  No!  Really?

Posted by Julie Jacobson  on  12/14  at  01:23 PM

OK, John, that’s a little silly. That bill has like a bjillion parts to it, of which this is just an itty bitty piece.

3630 also goes by the name of:
—EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011
—Extended Benefits, Reemployment, and Program Integrity Improvement Act
—JOBS Act of 2011
—Jumpstarting Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum Act of 2011
—North American Energy Security Act
—Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2011
—Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act

Posted by Rich  on  12/14  at  11:50 PM

Julie:  Silly?  Remove it from the Bill.
They always stick little surprises into big Bills.  Bill 3630 has 6 names?  Must be for simplicity’s sake.  Stupid me.

Posted by OBVIOUS  on  12/15  at  12:40 PM

If congress passed a bill that allowed you to rape a dog would you?

Just because a bill is passed that allows you to do something it doesn’t mean you have to.

The reality is up to the security dealer to be smart enough to still use a central station.

Posted by Julie Jacobson  on  12/15  at  12:46 PM

Security dealers, yes. Manufacturers no. The fear is that they will sell DIY products that will direct-dial 911, no security monitoring (verification) required.

Currently, many jurisdictions fine homeowners for false alarms. Imagine what might happen under this new scenario.

Posted by OBVIOUS  on  12/15  at  01:49 PM

I thought this was a place for professionals. This has absolutely no effect on a professional security dealer.

As far as false alarms it seems to me that all this will do is create revenue for the municipalities, I could care less about that. Once a DIY gets fined twice he will start looking into how he can still have a security system but not be fined, he will have to go to a security dealer.

Again this has no effect on this industry. If you can’t explain to client why this isn’t a good idea then you don’t deserve the job. You weren’t going to get the DIY guy anyway.

Posted by Julie Jacobson  on  12/15  at  01:55 PM

OBVIOUS wrote: Again this has no effect on this industry. If you can’t explain to client why this isn’t a good idea then you don’t deserve the job.

Indeed, and that’s why the story is relevant to the industry.

Posted by paulcunningham  on  12/15  at  03:51 PM

Also as noted in other CEPro articles there are police departments around the country that now require some sort of visual confirmation before dispatching any officers. How does this law, if passed, affect those places?

Page 1 of 1 comment pages
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Sponsored Links

  About Us Customer Service Privacy Policy Contact Us Advertise With Us Dealer Services Subscribe Reprints ©2015 CE Pro
  EH Network: Electronic House CE Ideas Store Commercial Integrator ChannelPro ProSoundWeb Church Production Worship Facilities Electronic House Expo Worship Facilities Expo