New Bill Language Staves Off Alarm Industry Worries

Did the alarm industry get it all wrong with concerns over H.R. 3630 and S. 1466? Yes, say the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA).

According to NENA, the association representing 9-1-1 call centers, the bills do not require non-human-initiated calls or alarm signals to be sent directly to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). Indeed, the offending language that was originally in an earlier version H.R. 2620 was removed from H.R. 3630. Read exact language of the bill here (pdf).

According to the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), H.R. 3630 represented a "grave threat" to the security industry and would lead to increased false alarms.

NENA issued this "Myths and Facts - H.R. 3630" statement to quell the fears of the alarm industry:

Will H.R. 3630 allow nonhuman-initiated emergency calls to be sent directly to PSAPs?
No. Nothing in the Bill would neither authorize nor require nonhuman-initiated calls or alarm signals to be sent directly to public safety answering points, either through current systems or future NG9-1-1 systems. Next Generation 9-1-1 will enable consumers to send voice, video, text, images, and other data to 9-1-1, but nothing in H.R. 3630 addresses the standards related to NG9-1-1, or the existing industry processes for verifying nonhuman-initiated alerts before sending them to PSAPs.

Would the Bill direct the FCC to create rules requiring Next Generation 9-1-1 centers to accept alarm signals or other alerts?
No. The only rulemakings authorized by the Bill would have the FCC create a special “Do-Not-Call” registry to prevent telemarketers from calling 10-digit non-emergency lines at PSAPs, and identify unnecessary regulations that could impede the roll-out of NG9-1-1.

Why does H.R. 3630 include “nonhuman-initiated event alerts” in the definition of “Emergency Call?”
By including a broad definition of “emergency call,” the Bill would make sure that grant funding is available to enable IP access to NG9-1-1 systems and Emergency Services Internetworks (“ESInets”) by, for example, Central Station Alarm providers. This will prevent costly conversions to legacy telephone-network protocols and enable richer data exchange between central stations and PSAPs. Without this flexibility,

Does the FCC administer the grant program established in the Bill?
No. The provisions relating to the grant program, including the definition of “Emergency Call,” relate only to the National 9-1-1 Office, a joint program office of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at the Department of Transportation. The definition is not applicable to any proceeding of the FCC.

According to Trey Forgety, director of governmental affairs at NENA, the association also opposes "the sending of unverified signals to PSAPs, but we don't want to foreclose the flexibility for Central Stations to send data to PSAPs in IP form."

According to Brad Shipp, executive director of FARA, a group representing public safety responders, says, "The bill sets up a commission and alters grant requirements to help coordinate the implementation of Next Generation 911. It does not mandate anything – It just sets out to coordinate things. So in short, H.R. 3630 will not cause a problem for 911 centers, it will help them. As I read it, it may even encourage electronic transfer of dispatch data to 911 center from central stations."