Wireless Report

REGULATORY UPDATE >> The Wireless Report FCC enforcement in force; FAA rules on drones

By John A. Prendergast, Managing Partner, Blooston Law (jap@bloostonlaw.com)

John Prendergast

FCC Approves Ligado 5G Network Despite Concerns About Interference to GPS The FCC has approved satellite service provider Ligado’s application to deploy a low-power terrestrial nationwide network in the L-Band that will primarily support 5G and Internet of Things services. The approval has bipartisan support among the Commissioners, despite concerns in the industry about interference to GPS signals. Certain aspects of central station operations depend on GPS.

The Ligado proposal grew out of the failed efforts of Lightsquared, which was the subject of AICC comments several years ago. The project had festered for years in a cloud of controversy; and the FCC’s approval decision comes amid objections from 13 different government agencies, including DOD, Homeland Security, DOJ, FAA and NASA among others. All are concerned about interference to important military and safely-related communications that rely on GPS signals. According to the Press Release, Ligado has amended its application in recent years to significantly reduce the power levels of its base stations from 32 dBW to 9.8 dBW (a reduction of 99.3%), in order to address interference concerns. However, certain studies purport to show that even at the reduced power level proposed by Ligado, interference will still affect GPS receivers, since such receivers must be able to receive relatively weak signals from distant satellites. Interference could impair the ability of GPS to provide the precise timing needed for certain military applications, as well as synchronized Internet and mobile communications.

Ligado has also committed to providing a significant (23 megahertz) guardband using its own licensed spectrum to further separate its terrestrial base station transmissions from neighboring operations in the RadionavigationSatellite Service allocation. As such, Ligado is now only seeking terrestrial use of the 1526-1536 MHz, 1627.5-1637.5 MHz, and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz bands. The draft Order is conditioned to reflect these technical requirements. The order also requires Ligado to protect adjacent band incumbents by reporting its base station locations and technical operating parameters to potentially affected government and industry stakeholders prior to commencing operations, continuously monitoring the transmit power of its base station sites, and complying with procedures and actions for responding to credible reports of interference, including rapid shutdown of operations where warranted.

TV Channel Repacking Process Puts Television Signals Closer to Central Station Frequencies: Diligence Required

Certain TV broadcasters have started to send notices to Part 90 licensees, including central station alarm radio licensees, about the relocation of their television signal to spectrum immediately adjacent to the central station frequencies in the 460-466 MHz band. The most recent notices indicate that in the coming weeks, these broadcasters plan to change their television broadcast operations to Channel 14 (470-476 MHz). Alarm

company licensees that receive such notices will want to immediately begin monitoring their frequencies for interference, and take action to enforce their protection rights.

Some TV stations have been reassigned to channel 14 as part of the broadcast incentive auction and related “repacking” of television operations into a smaller portion of the broadcast band, so that the FCC could sell the remaining

TV spectrum for future 5G operations. The relocated channel 14 broadcast operations have the potential to create RF interference issues unless the broadcaster takes steps to mitigate outof-band transmissions (e.g., filtering). Private radio systems have co-existed with channel 14 broadcast operations in a fair number of markets prior to the repack, but the concern would be making sure that the new channel 14 operations are tuned/filtered properly from the start. Under FCC rules, TV channel 14 broadcasters have an obligation to “take adequate measures to identify and substantially eliminate objectionable interference which may be caused to existing land mobile radio facilities in the 460 to 470 MHz band.” All costs associated with the repack, including notification and coordination with land mobile radio operators and purchase, installation and testing of appropriate filtering components (for both the main and backup transmitter) are reimbursed to the broadcaster from Incentive Auction proceeds.

But before program test authority may begin, the broadcaster is required to submit documentation to the FCC showing that there will be no interference to land-mobile radio services. This is because TV channel 14 broadcasters have an obligation to identify and substantially eliminate harmful interference to incumbent land mobile radio operations including the alarm monitoring operations. But the broadcaster may not know it is causing interference unless alarm licensees report a problem. That is why it is important

that licensees who receive these channel 14 notice letters carefully monitor their licensed channels. Affected companies that have any questions can contact John Prendergast at Blooston Law.

FCC Provides COVID-19 Relief – Extends Certain Construction Deadlines

The FCC has issued a blanket extension of certain wireless construction deadlines, in response to a petition for waiver filed by the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA). EWA requested the waiver for certain Private Land Mobile site-based and mobile-only wireless system licenses, in order to provide them with additional time to satisfy their construction requirements in light of the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. In particular, the FCC is providing an additional 60 days to various site-based and mobile only licensees authorized under Parts 22, 80, 87, 90 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules with construction deadlines from March 15, 2020 through (and including) May 15, 2020.

In granting the petition in part, the FCC agreed with EWA’s assessment that the COVID-19 pandemic emergency is adversely affecting the ability of many site-based and mobile-only licensees to meet their construction deadlines. And unlike prior construction waivers involving a natural disaster that has impacted “discrete” portions of the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has involved the entire country, with the vast majority of states issuing “stay-at-home” orders to nonessential businesses and social distancing guidelines for workers – which are essential to ensure the public health and safety.

In a recent meeting following the release of this Order, the FCC stated it anticipated a reevaluation of the situation on or about May 1 st in order to determine if a further extension is warranted.

FCC Adopts 6GHz Band Rules for Unlicensed Devices

The FCC has adopted rules that make 1,200 MHz of spectrum in the 6 GHz band (5.925-7.125 GHz) available for unlicensed devices. Unlicensed devices would share this spectrum with incumbent licensed services under rules that are crafted to protect those licensed services and to enable both unlicensed and licensed operations to thrive throughout the band. Wireless alarm equipment manufacturers will want to determine what opportunities this new unlicensed spectrum allocation affords.

The Report and Order authorizes two different types of unlicensed operations: standard-power over 850-megahertz of spectrum in the 6 GHz band, and indoor low-power operations over the full 1,200-megahertz available in the band. An automated frequency coordination (“AFC”) system would prevent standard power access points from operating where they could cause interference to incumbent services. For low-power indoor operations, the FCC concluded that there would be no need for AFCcontrolled access since low-power devices would be (a) limited to indoor operation; (b) required to use a contention-based protocol; and (c) be subject to low-power operation. By limiting operation to indoor use only, the FCC determined that signal loss as the signal passes through walls would be sufficient to prevent harmful interference to incumbents. Additionally, the rules require a contention-based protocol which is similar to the private land mobile protocol for shared channels that ensure that transmitters are not transmitting over the same spectrum simultaneously. Simply put, the unlicensed device is not supposed to transmit the data packet until the frequency is idle. Finally, low-power indoor access points will be limited to lower power levels than standard access points that utilize an automated frequency coordination system to prevent harmful interference to incumbent 6 GHz licensees.

A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to permit very low-power devices to operate across the 6 GHz band to support high data rate applications including high-performance, wearable, augmented-reality and virtualreality devices. Specifically, the Further Notice will seek comment on making a contiguous 1,200-megahertz block of spectrum available for the development of new and innovative high-speed, short-range devices and on power levels and other technical and operational

measures to avoid causing interference to incumbent services. The Further Notice also seeks comment on increasing the power at which low-power indoor access points may operate.

In adopting this item, Chairman Pai stated “The coronavirus pandemic has temporarily changed nearly every aspect of our lives. Most notably, of course, millions of American adults and children are staying at home. Many of those households have multiple connected devices; parents and kids may be using laptops, tablets, and smartphones, all at the same time.” Pai continued that “even before anyone had heard of COVID-19, Wi-Fi already carried more than half of the Internet’s traffic, and offloading mobile data traffic to Wi-Fi was vital to keeping our cellular networks from being overwhelmed. In a very real sense, Wi-Fi is the fabric that binds together all our digital devices.” Pai stated that the order would “take a bold step to increase the supply of unlicensed spectrum: we’re making the entire 6 GHz band—a massive 1,200 megahertz test bed for innovators and innovation—available for unlicensed use. By doing this, we are effectively increasing the amount of mid-band spectrum available for Wi-Fi by almost a factor of five. This will be a huge benefit to consumers and innovators across the nation. Wi-Fi NOW’s Claus Hetting, a champion of Wi-Fi innovation, said it perfectly: “The truth is that this 6 GHz spectrum boost will launch the Wi-Fi industry into a new growth trajectory. It will boost Wi-Fi’s massive indoor dominance. And surely—with the help of emboldened entrepreneurs everywhere—it will bring low-cost Wi-Fi (and unlicensed) connectivity to places where it has never been.”

FCC Proposes $685K Fine for Marketing 32 Non-Compliant Microphones

The FCC has proposed a fine of $685,388 against Sound Around, Inc. (“Sound Around”) for apparently marketing 32 models of wireless microphones last year that did not appear to have been authorized in accordance with the FCC’s Rules. In this regard, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau had previously cited Sound Around with violation of the FCC’s equipment authorization requirements and directed it to cease marketing non-compliant radio frequency devices. Despite the issuance of the citation, Sound Around continued its alleged illegal practices and the FCC has now proposed a substantial fine.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.” Rule Section 2.803(b)(1) states that no person may market a radio frequency device that is subject to certification unless the device has been authorized and is properly identified and labeled. Similarly, pursuant to Rule Section 74.851(f) of the Commission’s rules, certain wireless microphones must be authorized in accordance with the certification procedures before they may be marketed in the United States. Marketing under the FCC’s equipment authorization rules means the “sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.”

Sound Around is a private company that sells audio and video electronics and accessories for the home, car, professional, and marine audio/video markets through its own websites, pyleusa.com and pyleaudio.com, and the websites of other retailers. These products include wireless microphones. Over the years, the FCC has taken various enforcement actions, including a Citation in 2011 for marketing noncompliant wireless microphones that were apparently capable of operating in restricted frequency bands as well as the 700 MHz frequency band, where they were no longer authorized to operate in the United States; a Letter of Inquiry in 2017 to which Sound Around allegedly responded well after the due date and with inconsistent and sometimes conflicting information. As a result, a further Letter of Inquiry was issued in 2019, which resulted in the discovery that certain models were not authorized by the FCC, others were operating on frequencies that did not match the authorized frequencies, some models were operating in the aviation band, while others were just uncertified.

The Communications Act requires the FCC to issue a citation to warn any entity of a violation when it is not the holder of an FCC authorization and whose violation does not involve conduct for which an authorization would be required before the FCC may then issue a fine. It is only if the entity then subsequently engages “in conduct of the type described in [the] citation,” that it may propose a monetary forfeiture. Here, the base amount of the fine is $7,000 (which when multiplied by the 32 models would total $224,000). However, the FCC determined that significant increases would be warranted based upon (a) Sound Around’s long-running (repeated and continuous) marketing of non-compliant wireless microphones going back to at least 2009 and (b) serious threats to public safety resulting from the marketing of two models that were operating in the Part 87 aviation bands.

This case demonstrates two things: (a) if warned of a violation, such conduct should cease and corrective action be promptly taken and (b) provide responses to the FCC when requested. In that regard, we urge our clients to promptly contact our office if you receive a letter of inquiry, violation notice or citation from the FCC, so that we can guide you through the process.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE By Sal Taillefer, Jr., Associate, Blooston Law (sta@bloostenlaw.com)

New Legislation

H.R.6604 - Commerce Spectrum Coordination Act of 2020 Sponsor:

Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9] (Introduced 04/23/2020)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 04/23/2020 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill establishes the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The duties of the committee would include advising and making recommendations with respect to (1) developing policies to maintain or strengthen global leadership in the introduction of communications technologies and services, (2) advancing spectrum-based innovation, (3) fostering increased spectrum sharing, and (4) identifying international opportunities to further U.S. economic interests through spectrum management.

It is unclear whether this body would have any authority to act on its own, but AICC will want to be aware of its recommendations, especially with regard to spectrum sharing and spectrum management that may affect spectrum used by alarm companies. H.R.6103 - Safe Stay Act Sponsor:

Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2] (Introduced 03/05/2020)

Committees:

House - Science, Space, and Technology; Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 03/05/2020 Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

This bill would amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to update the fire prevention and control guidelines to require the mandatory installation of carbon monoxide alarms

in all places of public accommodation. A carbon monoxide alarm is compliant under the Act if it is installed in accordance with the International Fire Code or National Fire Protection Association Standard 72, and the applicable UL standards referenced therein.

Many alarm companies protect hotels, and may need to revisit their monitoring agreements if this legislation should pass to add carbon monoxide monitoring as well as smoke.

No Update

S.2968 - Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act Sponsor:

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] (Introduced 12/03/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 12/03/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act requires entities that collect or process identifying customer information to give those customers certain rights regarding that information. Covered data includes information that identifies, or is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual or a consumer device, including derived data. It does not, however, include de-identified data; employee data; and public records.

While the bill appears to be targeted primarily at data brokers, it may also cover data collected and transferred by alarm companies for the purpose

of providing alarm service. Rights afforded by the bill include: the right to have covered data deleted; the right to affirmatively consent to changes to a company’s privacy policy; and the right to opt out of transfers entirely.

The bill also requires covered entities to meet specific requirements related to data security; requires them to process or transfer only that data that “is reasonably necessary, proportionate, and limited” to the service provided; and prohibits them from using covered data for marketing purposes.

In addition to the typical information one might expect – name, address, date of birth, and other account-type information – it is possible that video from alarm systems might reasonably be included. Alarm companies will need to be mindful of bills such as these.

H.R.5928 - FIRST RESPONDER Act of 2020 Sponsor:

Rep. Walden, Greg [R-OR-2] (Introduced 02/18/2020)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 02/18/2020 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This Act is titled the “Fee Integrity and Responsibilities and To Regain Essential Spectrum for Public-safety Operators Needed to Deploy Equipment Reliably Act of 2020” or the “FIRST RESPONDER Act of 2020”. Its purpose is to repeal the requirement to reallocate and auction the T-Band spectrum, to amend the Wireless

Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 to clarify acceptable 9–1–1 obligations or expenditures.

The alarm industry makes use of the T-Band, and has been opposed to its reallocation and auctioning since that action was adopted in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. The FIRST RESPONDER Act would repeal that section entirely.

The FIRST RESPONDER Act also requires the FCC to designate a list of acceptable obligations and expenditures for 911 fees collected by states and local governments.

S.3246 - SMART Act Sponsor:

Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA] (Introduced 01/28/2020)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 01/28/2020 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (All Actions)

This bill requires the FCC to conduct a public auction of the C-band. Relevant to the alarm industry, some portion of auction proceeds will be used to create a Next Generation 9–1–1 Trust Fund for the deployment of Next Generation 9–1–1 services.

This source of NG911 funding may finally give rise to some of the devices AICC is concerned about, i.e., those that feature direct, unscreened signaling straight to the PSAP that could potentially overwhelm emergency response capability.

S.151 – TRACED Act Sponsor:

Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] (Introduced 01/16/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation | House - Energy and Commerce

Committee Reports:

S. Rept. 116-41

Latest Action:

12/30/2019 Became Public Law No: 116-105.

This bill became law at the end of 2019. It generally requires the FCC to adopt such regulations as it deems necessary to ensure the consumer protection and privacy purposes of the § 227 of the Communications Act (a.k.a the TCPA). Beyond this general requirement, the bill includes several specific actions relevant to the alarm industry:

Section 3 revises the TCPA to clarify that if the FCC adopts an exemption to the TCPA pursuant to section 227(b) (2), then it must expressly include limitations on the classes of parties that are exempt, the classes of customers that are exempt, and the number of times calling parties may make calls to particular called parties.

The FCC has granted a few exceptions using its authority under 227(b)(2), including certain financial-related calls and certain healthcare-related calls. This section would require increased specificity when it comes to these types of exemptions.

Section 4 clarifies that the term “called party” refers to the current subscriber or customary user of the line, not the person the caller is intending to call.

The FCC adopted this definition along with a “one-call safe harbor,” but the Court of Appeals overturned both findings. AICC has taken a stance against this interpretation of the term “called party” because it puts the onus of determining whether a number has been reassigned on the alarm company making the call.

Section 5 eliminates the citation requirement before the FCC can issue forfeitures for violation of the TCPA, and extends the statute of limitation for such forfeiture assessments to four years.

This makes it easier for the FCC to issue forfeitures for robocalls on its own accord. It is separate from the civil penalty that creates grounds for the lawsuits we have seen.

Section 7 requires the FCC to adopt regulations to require the implementation of call authentication technology, and to adopt regulations to permit callers to block calls from unauthenticated numbers and take “reasonable steps” to ensure no calls are wrongly blocked because they originate from a carrier that is exempt from implementing authentication.

The FCC has already made clarifications similar to what is required in the legislation, and AICC has filed a petition for reconsideration requesting certain clarifications. The FCC has also sought comment on how to further implement call blocking services, and AICC filed comments.

Section 8 requires the FCC to take final agency action to ensure robocall blocking services provided on an opt-in or opt-out basis, as contemplated in the current call blocking proceeding, are provided with transparency and effective redress options for consumers and callers, at no additional line-item cost.

Transparency and redress options are of critical importance to the alarm industry. In its Petition for Reconsideration, AICC argued to the FCC that direct notifications to customers for opt-out call blocking were necessary to promote transparency, and also raised transparency concerns regarding how carriers offering alarm services might treat non-affiliated alarm services differently. In its comments in the NPRM proceeding, AICC urged the Commission to ensure there were effective redress options for customers and central stations to be able to get off block lists as soon as possible.

S.2204 - DART Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] (Introduced 07/23/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 12/11/2019 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

This bill empowers the FCC to carry out a pilot program under which voice service providers could block calls through the “use data analytics and caller identification authentication procedures,” and would not be liable if a lawful call is blocked if they were acting in good faith. It also provides for a list of numbers that may not be blocked that includes any numbers used by PSAPs or a similar facility used to originate or route emergency calls; government calls; and schools or similar institutions.

The FCC has already ruled that carriers may block calls based on certain analytics, and has provided clarification on the steps carriers that block calls must take to avoid liability. The FCC is also seeking comment on a Critical Calls list similar to the list called for in this bill, and has supported the inclusion of alarm industry members thereon.

DEFEAT Robocalls Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36] (Introduced 07/11/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

07/25/2019 Sponsor introductory remarks on measure.

This full title of this bill is the “Double the Enforcement and Fines of Everyone Associated with Terrible Robocalls Act of 2019,” and it would do exactly that: substantially increases the penalties associated with violations of the TCPA. In particular, it would increase the $500-per-violation civil damages to $1000.

As the alarm industry has seen first hand, the current penalties have already given rise to predatory litigation over TCPA “violations.” Doubling the amount awarded per violation would only exacerbate the issue. AICC should provide evidence of its experience to the bill’s sponsor.

H.R.4792 - Cyber Shield Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33] (Introduced 10/22/2019) Committees: House - Energy and Commerce Latest Action: House - 10/23/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

This bill establishes a voluntary program to identify and promote internet-connected products that meet industry-leading cybersecurity and data security standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes. Products that meet the standards established under this bill may bear a “Cyber Shield” label demonstrating certification, similar to the Five Diamond central station program.

As alarm devices will likely be candidates for such labeling, AICC will want to monitor the progression of this bill and, if passed into law, participate in the standards process to the extent possible.

S.2748, H.R.451 - Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] (Introduced 10/30/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 10/30/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Sponsor:

Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] (Introduced 01/10/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 01/25/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

These bills would repeal Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. This section provided that the FCC must reallocate the spectrum in the 470–512 MHz band (a.k.a. the “T-Band spectrum”), which is currently used by eligible public safety entities, by 2021. The Senate version was introduced at the end of October, but the House version has been idle since its introduction in January.

It is our understanding that several alarm companies operate in the T-Band. Accordingly, this bill deserves AICC’s support.

H.R.3836 - Wireless Infrastructure Resiliency During Emergencies and Disasters Act Sponsor:

Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18] (Introduced 07/18/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 07/19/2019 Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Amends § 332(c)(3)(A) of the Communications Act, which prohibits State and local government from having any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private mobile service by clarifying that they may regulate other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services, including reasonable requirements to promote resilient wireless communications infrastructure for situational awareness during a natural disaster.

State and local governments could already regulate “other terms and conditions” besides entry and rate, so the language proposed here appears to be

more for clarification than substantive revision to the law. Nevertheless, with specific language in the Act protecting State and local governments’ right to impose resilience requirements on communications infrastructure, more may be forthcoming.

S.2223 – AIRWAVES Act Sponsor:

Sen. Gardner, Cory [R-CO] (Introduced 07/23/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 07/23/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

This bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complete auctions during each of the next three calendar years that will grant new broadcast licenses 500 MHz of spectrum in frequency spectrum bands below 6 GHz. For the auctioned spectrum, the FCC cannot cause unreasonable interference with incumbents.

The FCC must also make available, by means unspecified, another 500 MHz above 500 GHz. There is no apparent protection for incumbents here.

Spectrum identified for these auctions may include unlicensed spectrum that may impact alarm operations. Fortunately, provisions are included for incumbent protection, but it will be necessary for the Alarm Industry to monitor for interference and seek redress if necessary.

H.R.2298 - Repeated Objectionable Bothering Of Consumers On Phones Act Sponsor:

Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14] (Introduced 04/12/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 04/30/2019 Subcommittee Hearings Held.

This bill requires the FCC to establish by regulation technical and procedural standards that require providers to verify that caller identification information being transmitted is accurate, unless the consumer requests it to be blocked. The FCC must also establish standards to require receiving providers to block unverified calls or texts or otherwise identify them as likely coming from an automated dialer. There is an exception that prohibits blocking PSAPs and emergency operations centers, however.

This legislation is much less specific than other pieces of robocall legislation, with the corollary being that the FCC has much more flexibility in implementing it. As we have discussed, the FCC is already heading down this path in the absence of legislation.

H.R.2355 - Regulatory Oversight Barring Obnoxious Calls and Texts Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18] (Introduced 04/25/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 04/30/2019 Subcommittee Hearings Held.

This bill would require the FCC to create within the Enforcement Bureau of the Commission a division that specifically addresses the issue of robocalls.

A division dedicated to robocall issues could potentially offer a faster route toward resolving call blocking issues.

H.R.1644 - Save the Internet Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-18] (Introduced 03/08/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Committee Reports:

H. Rept. 116-34

Latest Action:

Senate - 04/29/2019 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 74.

Roll Call Votes:

There have been 5 roll call votes.

The Save the Internet Act would purportedly restore several aspects of Title II regulation to broadband Internet access service, including: Prohibition of “unjust and unreasonable practices” (Sections 201 and 202); Investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement provisions (Sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217); Protection for consumer privacy (Section 222); Fair access to poles and conduits (Section 224); Protection for people with disabilities (Sections 225 and 255); and Universal service fund support for broadband service in the future (partial application of Section 254).

These provisions could reasonably provide some protection to alarm companies from predatory practices by competitors who also offer broadband Internet access services.

H.R.1954, S.952 - Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2019 Sponsor:

Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8] (Introduced 03/28/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 03/28/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Sponsor:

Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] (Introduced 03/28/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 03/28/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

These companion bills would prohibit the FCC from preventing a State or Federal correctional facility from utilizing jamming equipment.

AICC members have historically experienced issues with prison cell jammers jamming signals outside the prison, in particular alarm signals. The bill provides that jamming must be limited to the housing facilities of the correctional facility, but precise limitations have proven difficult to implement. This language is not likely sufficient to protect alarm company customers.

H.R.1818 - Kelsey Smith Act Sponsor:

Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4] (Introduced 03/18/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 03/18/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This bill amends the Communications Act to require providers of a covered service to provide location information concerning the telecommunications device of a user of such service to an investigative or law enforcement officer or an employee or other agent of a public safety answering point in an emergency situation involving risk of death or serious physical harm or in order to respond to the user’s call for emergency services.

AICC will want to monitor this legislation and participate in any effort to implement it, as necessary.

H.R.2136 - Open Internet Preservation Act Sponsor:

Rep. Smucker, Lloyd [R-PA-11] (Introduced 04/08/2019)

Committees:

House - Energy and Commerce

Latest Action:

House - 04/08/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This bill essentially codifies the no-block and no-throttling Open Internet rules that the FCC overturned. These rules are important to AICC’s members because several major ISPs whose members rely on to transmit their alarm data also offer competing alarm services.

Being able to block or degrade competitor’s data would put them at a substantial competitive advantage.

S.1212 - ROBOCOP Act Sponsor:

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] (Introduced 04/11/2019)

Committees:

Senate - Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Action:

Senate - 04/11/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Communications Act to expand and clarify the prohibition on inaccurate caller identification information and to require providers of telephone service to offer technology to subscribers to reduce the incidence of unwanted telephone calls and text messages.

In particular, the bill requires communications providers to offer the option to enable technology that identifies an incoming call or text message as originating or probably originating from an automatic telephone dialing system and prevents the subscriber from receiving a call or text message so identified unless (a) the call or text message is made or sent by a public safety entity, including a public safety answering point, emergency operations center, or law enforcement agency; or (b) the subscriber has provided prior express consent to receive the call or text message and has not revoked that consent.

AICC will want to participate in any associated FCC rulemaking to assure that alarm companies’ automated messages are not incorrectly blocked by carriers under the technology proposed here. The FCC is currently making progress on allowing carriers to block calls for customers, and AICC will want to participate in those proceedings as well.

AICC, continued from page 31 it is still within easy reach of alarm companies to create an alternate communication network, if for no other reason than to have an affordable, in-place backup should it be needed. Of course, an alarm company may also wish to invest in a trunked radio systems.

In a simple repeater system, the most expensive components are a repeater and base antenna, typically procured new in the few thousands of dollar range. With quick search on eBay at this writing, there are several usable repeaters for less than $1,000. The field radios can be procured at a reasonable cost depending on features and complexity. Some are available for less than $100 per handheld. A listed alarm company wishing to set up its own repeater can do so rather inexpensively. If an alarm company has the height or a tower at its own facility, there should be no need for any recurring cost to pay for rooftop or tower rentals. If a company’s service area is greater than can be accommodated by a centrally located repeater, a network of repeaters can be set up using the services of a local radio shop.

I have written about and spoke about this at various CSAA/TMA functions many times over the years. A few companies heeded my words. Disappointingly, many more just told me that they are happy with the cellular networks and did not see the need to go this way. But tropical storms, earthquakes, derechos and even our current pandemic have shown the vulnerability of the cellular networks. I sincerely hope you will consider using your own radio system at this point before no voice channels are available to our industry. This may be your last opportunity.