RE: Response to #CommActUpdate White Paper No. 3 Competition Policy and the Role of the Federal Communications Commission

Transcription

1 8150 Leesburg Pike Suite 700 Vienna, VA June 13, 2014 Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC RE: Response to #CommActUpdate White Paper No. 3 Competition Policy and the Role of the Federal Communications Commission COMMENTS OF THE ALARM INDUSTRY COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE The Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC), on behalf of its members 1 hereby files comments on competition in communications and the role of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Alarm service providers utilize many types of communication technologies and services in their provision of alarm services, including 1 Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA), Electronic Security Association (ESA), Security Industry Association (SIA), Bosch Security Systems, Digital Monitoring Products, Digital Security Control, Telular Corp, Honeywell Security, Vector Security, Inc., ADT LLC., AES- IntelliNet, Alarm.com, Bay Alarm, Intertek Testing, NetOne, Inc. (formerly, Security Network of America), United Central Control, AFA Protective Systems, Vivint (formerly APX Alarm), COPS Monitoring, DGA Security, Security Networks, Universal Atlantic Systems, Axis Communications, Interlogix, LogicMark, Napco Security, Alarm Detection, ASG Security, Security Networks, Select Security, Inovonics, Linear Corp., Numerex, Tyco Integrated Security, FM Approvals, the Underwriters Laboratories, CRN Wireless, LLC and Axesstel.

2 traditional telephone service, wireline and wireless broadband services, and the Internet. AICC's primary concerns are to ensure (1) that there are reliable and stable communications networks and services, no matter the technology, and that those networks are consistent; (2) that spectrum should be available for alarm services and the rules applicable for spectrum use should be fair and stable; and (3) that alarm data is not blocked or hindered in its transmission by any network or service provider. It is not clear that a hands-off regulatory environment will achieve these results. AICC member companies protect over 30 million residential, business and sensitive facilities and their occupants from fire, burglaries, sabotage and other emergencies and, consequently, are an integral part of the public safety network. Protected facilities include government offices, power plants, hospitals, dam and water authorities, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants, banks, schools and universities. In addition to these commercial and governmental applications, alarm companies protect a large and increasing number of residences and their occupants from fire, intruders, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Alarm companies also provide Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) service for obtaining medical services and ambulances in the event of medical emergencies. Because AICC's members act as the first line of defense during emergency situations for so many homes and businesses, it is essential that the communication networks they utilize are reliable and stable and transmit alarm data and signals accurately. The ability to promptly and accurately respond to an emergency can mean the difference between life and death for those we protect. The majority of alarm customers still rely on TDM-based telephone service as their underlying communication service and a majority of customers of PERS service are connected by TDM-based telephone service. Because the TDM-based network was engineered to be highly 2

3 reliable, with quality of service standards and with an independent power source, traditional TDM-based telephone service provides alarm customers with a highly reliable service that met the standards necessary for fire protection and other life/safety applications. In addition, TDMbased service allows other necessary functions for alarm services, including line seizure, the detection of a loss in communications path and the proper encoding and decoding of tone messages sent by the alarm panel. As TDM-based networks are transitioned to Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and with the advent of alternative communication providers and services, these traits must be preserved, and support for the millions of existing alarm systems currently installed at customers' premises should be continued, through compliance with appropriate standards. 2 The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) developed a standard for voice services used in connection with fire protection, NFPA 72, to ensure that service providers using new technologies continue to meet the rigorous quality assurance, operational stability and consistent features that were the hallmarks of the traditional networks operated by telephone companies. Although these standards were developed for communication networks used for fire protection, the standards also ensure reliable and accurate communications for all alarm services, including premise intrusions and the dispatch of medical emergency services. 2 Alarm systems in millions of homes, although installed in most cases in a TDM-world, are technologically sufficient to work with all communication technologies, if the appropriate standards are incorporated into the new technologies. As these wired and wireless broadband systems are installed, customers do not have to-- and should not be required to - "upgrade" their alarm systems. Further, alarm systems being designed by broadband providers and offered as part of service bundles, do not offer enhanced life-saving protection. 3

4 Pursuant to NFPA 72, a managed facilities-based voice network (MFVN) should be functionally equivalent to traditional TDM-based telephone service provided by authorized common carriers with respect to dialing, dial plan, call completion, carriage of signals and protocols, and loop voltage treatment. In addition, MFVN must provide a number of features, including 8 hours of standby power supply capacity for MFVN communications equipment located at the protected premise or field deployed and 24 hours of standby power supply capacity for MFVN communications equipment located at the communication service provider's central office. NFPA 72 also requires MFVN providers, when providing service to a new customer, to give notice to the customer of the need to have any connected alarm system tested by authorized fire alarm service personnel to make certain that all signal transmission features have remained operational, including the proper functioning of line seizure and the successful transmission of signals to the supervising station. 3 It is not clear if any broadband networks and service providers provide a voice or data service that meets all of these standards throughout their networks. Most broadband service providers do not provide sufficient back up power at the customer premise and throughout their network to ensure operation during emergencies. For example, it is AICC's understanding that AT&T U-verse customer service equipment is provided with only four (4) hours of back-up power and not the required eight (8) hours of back-up power. Some broadband providers continue to unintentionally disconnect the customer's alarm system during the installation of 3 In addition to ensuring that life-saving functions are preserved, following these standards will ensure that millions of current users are not forced to incur costs to unnecessarily, and potentially inappropriately, change components and systems or amend personal utilization habits that have proven to be very reliable. Failing to do so threatens to impede the advancement of broadband as it may cause consumers to channel resources in an inefficient direction. Existing alarm systems work well now and will work well in the IP world if the standards are followed and provided broadband installers are trained to reinstall alarms and full functionality is tested. 4

5 broadband service, without providing notice to the customer that the customer should contact his or her alarm provider to ensure that the alarm system is made compatible with broadband services. Some IP-based services do not properly encode and decode alarm signals or may do so on an inconsistent basis. Some IP-based service providers have made changes to software or hardware that affect the proper transmission of alarm signals. For example, some IP-based broadband providers make periodic and sometimes automatic changes to various technical parameters of their service, like compression, without notification, which impacts the functioning of alarm services. It is important to note that there are millions of installed alarm devices in homes and businesses that cannot automatically detect if the line seizure feature has been disconnected or bypassed or if alarm signals are not properly encoded or decoded. In this circumstance, the first time a customer may realize his or her alarm service is not working properly may be after an emergency because the appropriate emergency service personnel are not dispatched to the premise. Anytime an alarm customer's communication service is changed, the communications provider and its technicians must fulfill the notification obligation in NFPA 72, as it is critical to the lifesaving element of alarm systems. However, it appears that broadband providers are capable of meeting these standards. For example, Verizon has represented to the FCC that they meet these standards in New York City. Therefore, regulation may be necessary to obtain compliance with these standards. And, the importance of meeting these standards would justify regulation. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) also should comply with minimum backup power requirements, to ensure the reliability of 5

6 these networks and services. Specifically, every cell site in a CMRS system should have a mandatory eight (8) hours of power backup and every Internet Service Provider also should have a mandatory eight (8) hours of power backup. With regard to other aspects of regulating telecommunications under the Communications Act, AICC has the following observations/requests: Competition in the provision of licensed wireless services is vital; but history has also shown that the availability of unlicensed spectrum has spawned a revolution in technology development that has significantly changed our professional and personal lives. Alarm service subscribers have benefited from this revolution, as the alarm industry has been able to develop dozens of technologies such as wireless cameras, window contacts, and panic buttons that provide enhanced capabilities at a reduced cost. Unlicensed devices can be deployed quickly and with a minimum of disturbance and/or impact to protected premises (which may include historic properties). A revised Communications Act should ensure that for most future spectrum allocations, a portion is set aside for addressing the exploding need for unlicensed spectrum. The FCC is to be credited with taking this approach in formulating the licensing scheme for the upcoming 600 MHz incentive auction, wherein the Commission has created certain guardbands that will help prevent interference in the case of full power broadband operations, but will also provide an opportunity for low power unlicensed operations. In addition, when an unlicensed allocation is made, it must be protected to the greatest extent possible against incursions by higher powered operations that can deprive the unlicensed band of its usefulness. When all unlicensed users play by the same rules, it is possible to have tens of millions of consumers utilizing devices ranging from baby monitors to garage door openers. If the rules are changed midstream, consumers suffer because they have spent billions of dollars investing in radios that can be compromised and must be replaced. 6

7 In a similar vein, when a wireless common carrier provides a radio service that spawns the deployment of millions of devices by consumers and businesses, the Communications Act should ensure that any termination of the service will make reasonable accommodation for the transition of existing users without creating undue costs. With respect to the rollout of newer digital technologies, allowing wireless common carriers to shut down their older 2G networks without sufficient guidelines and regulations to protect individuals and businesses who rely on these networks creates a problem for AICC and its members that is similar to the AMPS analog cellular shutdown several years ago. Allowing wireless common carriers to make a purely economic decision of whether and when to shut down their 2G wireless networks, without reasonable regulation to ensure adequate notice and transition rights to users (allowing for a reasonable opportunity to recoup costs) is not in the public interest. The same holds true for more advanced wireless networks that are being deployed now and in the future. In making future spectrum allocations, the FCC should ensure that some portion of at least one band suitable for higher powered land mobile voice and broadband be made available for quasi-safety entity use, by entities such as central station alarm companies and the FCC-designated Critical Infrastructure activities. As broadband capabilities develop, alarm companies need to be able to transmit video images to field personnel, armed guard responders, and public safety personnel. Other advanced capabilities are under development for the alarm industry, and no doubt for other Critical Infrastructure industries. Such entities may be able to gain maximum use of such spectrum through the use of cognitive radio and other advanced technologies to avoid interference. Finally, to ensure the continued effectiveness of the alarm systems protecting millions of Americans, alarm data must be transmitted accurately and promptly from the end user premise to the central station along the entire communications path. Thus, it is vital that alarm data is not blocked or hindered by any communications service provider, including broadband Internet 7

8 access service providers and ISPs. Moreover, communications service providers (including broadband Internet access service providers and ISPs) should not be allowed to discriminate in favor of their own offerings over those of an unaffiliated provider. 4 Further, communications providers should disclose information concerning their practices that would impact or interfere with the proper functioning of the end user customer s alarm system. Respectfully submitted, ALARM INDUSTRY COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Louis T. Fiore, Chairman 4 It also is important during the transition to broadband that technicians installing broadband do not hinder the existing alarm system or use the service call as an opportunity to interfere with the customer's relationship with their existing alarm service provider. This would include a technician that renders the existing alarm inoperable, even accidentally, or who suggests that the existing alarm system is inoperable or inferior with a broadband connection. Such anticompetitive conduct should not be allowed. 8