E&C Announces Subcommittee Markup of Bipartisan, Bicameral Privacy Legislation & Seven Other Bills

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Subcommittee Ranking Member Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) announced today that the Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee will hold a markup on Thursday, June 23, at 10:30 a.m. (EDT) in the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

“This week, we will take another major step in putting people back in control of their data and strengthening our nation’s privacy and data security protections by marking up the bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act,” Pallone, Rodgers, Schakowsky, and Bilirakis said. “We continue to welcome and encourage input as we begin this next step in the regular order process. The Subcommittee will also consider seven other bills, including legislation to protect children from dangerous products, prevent unwanted recording by smart devices, and defend horses from inhumane practices. We look forward to working with Committee members on both sides of the aisle to advance these important bills.”   

 The Subcommittee will consider the following bills:

 H.R. 8152, the “American Data Privacy and Protection Act,” which was formally introduced in the House today by Pallone, Rodgers, Schakowsky, and Bilirakis. 

 H.R. 3355, the “Save America’s Forgotten Equines Act of 2021” or the “SAFE Act,” which was introduced by Reps. Schakowsky and Vern Buchanan (R-FL).

 H.R. 3962, the “Securing and Enabling Commerce Using Remote and Electronic Notarization Act of 2021,” which was introduced by Reps. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), and 32 original bipartisan cosponsors.

 H.R. 4081, the “Informing Consumers About Smart Devices Act,” which was introduced by Reps. John Curtis (R-UT) and Seth Moulton (D-MA). 

 H.R.4551, the, “Reporting Attacks from Nations Selected for Oversight and Monitoring Web Attacks and Ransomware from Enemies Act” or the “RANSOMWARE Act,” which was introduced by Rep. Bilirakis.

 H.R. 5313, “Reese’s Law,” which was introduced by Reps. Robin Kelly (D-IL), Jodey Arrington (R-TX), and Ted Lieu (D-CA).

 H.R. 5441, the “Prevent All Soring Tactics Act of 2021” or the “PAST Act,” which was introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and 212 other original bipartisan cosponsors.

 H.R. 6290, the “Manufacturing.gov Act,” which was introduced by Reps. Paul Tonko (D-NY), Cindy Axne (D-IA), and Fred Upton (R-MI).

This will be a hybrid markup that includes both in person and remote member attendance via Cisco Webex video conferencing. Members of the public may view the markup via live webcast accessible on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s website. Please note the webcast will not be available until the markup begins.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Our language is included under Sec. 101 (b) (4) as a permissible service

1              (4) To prevent, detect, protect against, or re-

2             spond to a security incident, or fulfill a product or

3             service warranty. For purposes of this paragraph,

4             security is defined as network security as well as in-

5 t           trusion, medical alerts, fire alarms, and access con-

6             trol security.

Analysis of American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) Discussion Draft Released June 3

The following information and analysis is being shared with TMA members courtesy of The Security Industry Association (SIA).

Over the last week, SIA Government Relations has been collecting and analyzing feedback from their members on the bipartisan data privacy discussion draft under consideration in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which was released June 3).  SIA has concerns pertaining to some specific issues addressed in the language as it appears that could have sweeping impact on the use of video surveillance systems, alarm systems and biometric technologies (see below).

SIA Government Relations will be working quickly to raise concerns about these issues with the key Congressional offices to ensure they are addressed, as it is likely this measure would clear committee before the July 4 recess and possibly the House by August on its current trajectory.  Subcommittee markup could occur as early as next week.

Below is described SIA’s analysis and member input received as of June 14th. Additional analysis of the House bill (and a competing Senate bill released by Sen. Cantwell that may also receive consideration this month) is also provided.

Framework: The overall framework ADPPA does not align with the GDPR and existing state data privacy laws in important respects, fails to preempt laws harmful to businesses and consumers, e.g., the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA), and includes a private right of action sure to encourage abusive class action lawsuits. Specific to our industry, significant and interrelated flaws in the definition of key terms and provisions make it incompatible with the effective use of many security systems, among other negative impacts. Without substantial revisions the measure would have serious – and likely unintended – negative impact on public safety.

Security Systems: The draft’s broad definition of “biometric information” combined with the prohibitions on its collection, processing, and transfer in Sec. 102(a)(3) would essentially prohibit the commercial use of security cameras of any kind without obtaining the “affirmative express consent” of all individuals who are recorded – consent a malicious actor is unlikely to provide. Apart from this concerning outcome, this would create an insurmountable burden in the security setting, when such cameras are ubiquitous components of security systems widely used and accepted for protecting most businesses, commercial facilities, schools, transit systems, and connected public spaces in the country – and virtually every business and non-profit organization is considered a “covered entity” subject to requirements under the bill.

By including “facial imagery” (versus biometric measurements) in the definition of “biometrics”, any photo or video recording of a face becomes “biometric information” under the draft, regardless of how it’s used. Significantly, data privacy laws in five states already specifically exclude photographs, video recordings and derived information from their definition of biometric information. Additionally, all current state data privacy laws include some form of an exception for security and anti-fraud purposes and/or cooperation with law enforcement. Likewise, the general exceptions in Title II Sec. 209 of the discussion draft include (albeit narrowly) “to detect or respond to a security incident” and “to protect against fraudulent or illegal activity.” However, the Title I’s Section 102(a)(3) prohibition with respect to biometric information appears to supersede the exceptions in Title II, rendering these limited security and anti-fraud exceptions inapplicable to photo and video data.

Similarly, due to the overly broad definition of “precise geolocation information” in the bill, the transfer prohibition in Section 102 (a)(2) likely encompasses the date, time and location information typically associated with photo and video data when it is created and included when it is transmitted, impeding operation of security and life safety systems. For example, remote video verification for intrusion detection systems is increasingly utilized to reduce false alarms. Use of this technology may include the transmission of facial imagery along with this associated information. It is objectively impossible to obtain consent from all individuals that may trigger such alarms. Additionally, while the exceptions in Section 209 apply to “covered data” in the draft text, this does not also explicitly include “sensitive covered data” (like biometric information and precise geolocation information).

For the reasons outlined above, it is imperative to, among other things, 1) provide a more robust and workable security exception in Section 209, 2) clarify that Section 209 exceptions apply to practices in Title 1 and to sensitive covered data, and 3) exclude photos and video from the definition of “biometric information.”

Consent: Instead of aligning with GDPR and the latest state data privacy laws providing for a “clear affirmative act” to signify consent, the discussion draft would require a similar sounding – but different – “affirmative express consent” which could be inferred to negate the ability to use notice and consent mechanisms like signage, etc. Affirmative express consent” as defined in the draft should be replaced with the common definition of consent used in existing state data privacy laws in Colorado, Virginia, Utah and Connecticut.

Law Enforcement: All current state data privacy laws include an exception to requirements when it comes to cooperating with or assisting law enforcement investigations, including Connecticut’s data privacy law enacted last month. Subsection (a)(9) on law enforcement cooperation in Section 209 of the draft (which is currently bracketed for review) should be retained and expanded to include facilitation with a law enforcement investigation.

Government Contractors: Related to law enforcement and other functions, there are many private entities that collect, process and/or transfer information to federal, state or local governments as a contractor, including acting upon their behalf in some cases. It appears under the bill’s framework that government entities, while not covered entities, could be considered third parties in this arrangement. Therefore, it should be clarified that contractors acting in this capacity are considered service providers and not covered entities.

First Responders and Alarm Systems: Additionally, to address the third-party issue above, the exceptions should be clarified in Section 209 to include covered data that may be transmitted to first responders (as third parties) for responding life safety emergencies, such as fire, etc. in addition to security incidents.

Publicly Available Information: Information about individuals that is available to the public is not private and thus is excluded from the definition of covered data. However, the draft substantially narrows the commonly accepted definition of “publicly available information” used across existing state data privacy laws with additional caveats. This definition should be adjusted to align with definitions in existing state laws to ensure publicly available information continues to generally mean information lawfully available to the general public through government records, widely distributed media or required to be displayed in public by local, state or Federal law.

Biometrics Definition/Provisions: As currently drafted, data could be included as “biometric information” that is not actually biometric or does not present a privacy risk, because there is no requirement that such data is used to identify a specific individual. The definition should be aligned with all existing state data privacy laws in the U.S. that address biometrics, by requiring an identification capability or purpose for data to be considered biometric information. Also, unless the Section 102 prohibition with respect to biometric information is altered or removed, it will effectively prevent beneficial applications of biometric technologies for access control and security, where the collection of biometric data and use of analytics is necessary to distinguish between enrolled/non-enrolled individuals.

Facial Recognition: Under Section 404(k) any state law solely addressing facial recognition is not preempted. This section should be removed. Facial recognition data is not fundamentally different than all other biometric data. Software-specific templates are created based on biometric measurements that are compared with enrolled data for similarity to make probabilistic match determinations. While some states have specifically restricted or regulated use of facial recognition by law enforcement and/or other government entities, no state has enacted a law specifically regulating or restricting use of this technology by the private sector entities covered by the ADPPA. At the same time, commercial use of facial biometrics around the world for applications like identity protection and authenticated access to accounts and services is rapidly growing. For these reasons it makes little sense encourage future state laws that might be at odds with the principles and structure of national data privacy rules, and no reason why the rules specific to biometric information contemplated in ADPPA would be insufficient to protect such data.

Latest Update on Pending Privacy Legislation, June 8th

Proposed Data Privacy Bill Stands a Shot at Becoming First Comprehensive Federal Privacy Law

A discussion draft of a comprehensive data privacy bill was released last Friday by a bipartisan group of legislators in the House and Senate. Consumer rights advocates say the proposed compromise legislation is the biggest step to date toward granting individuals meaningful privacy protections.

The draft bill, currently known as the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (the “Data Privacy Act”), would allow users to opt out of target advertisements and to sue Internet companies that improperly sell their data. It is sponsored by US Reps Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who are Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and US Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. However, insiders say the legislation faces an uphill battle without the support of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who is chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. Cantwell is believed to support more liberal priorities for online user rights.

BLOOSTONLAW TELECOM UPDATE 4 June 8, 2022

“This bipartisan and bicameral effort to produce a comprehensive data privacy framework has been years in the making, and the release of this discussion draft represents a critical milestone,” Pallone, Rodgers, and Wicker said. “In the coming weeks, we will be working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build support and finalize this standard to give Americans more control over their personal data. We welcome and encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this effort to enable meaningful privacy protections for Americans and provide businesses with operational certainty. This landmark agreement represents the sum of years of good faith efforts by us, other Members, and numerous stakeholders as we work together to provide American consumers with comprehensive data privacy protections.”

As summarized by a House Energy and Commerce Committee press release, the Data Privacy Act would:

  • Establish a strong national framework to protect consumer data privacy and security;
  • Grant broad protections for Americans against the discriminatory use of their data;
  • Require covered entities to minimize on the front end, individuals’ data they need to collect, process, and transfer so that the use of consumer data is limited to what is reasonably necessary, proportionate, and limited for specific products and services;
  • Require covered entities to comply with loyalty duties with respect to specific practices while ensuring consumers don’t have to pay for privacy;
  • Require covered entities to allow consumers to turn off targeted advertisements;
  • Provide enhanced data protections for children and minors, including what they might agree to with or without parental approval;
  • Establish regulatory parity across the internet ecosystem; and
  • Promote innovation and preserve the opportunity for start-ups and small businesses to grow and compete.

The legislation would give individual users new rights to access, correct and delete their digital data, and companies would be responsible for informing third parties to make changes to the data of users that have submitted a verified request. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be required to maintain a public registry of data brokers and create a mechanism of users to opt out of targeted advertisements and other data sharing practices. Individuals would be permitted to sue companies, but only after a four-year waiting period after the legislation is enacted. They would also need to notify state and federal officials before proceeding, and they could not pursue their legal action of a government prosecutor takes up their case.

Proposed exceptions in the current draft (at Section 209) would generally allow collection, processing or transfer of covered data for narrowly-tailored purposes such as completing transactions, when data is collected to perform system maintenance, diagnostics or when addressing security incidents, among other things. The draft bill also provides exemptions for small entities that earned gross annual revenues of $41 million or less for the prior three years, that did not collect or process the covered data of 100,000 individuals in a year (except for processing payments and promptly deleting covered data for requested products/services) and that did not derive more than half their revenue from transferring covered data. These smaller entities may choose to delete, rather than correct, and individual’s covered data.

The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a nonprofit research group that receives funding from tech companies such as Apple and Google, issued the following statement upon the release of the proposal:

“This draft shows that there is a bipartisan path forward on long-overdue legislation to protect consumers’ privacy. Americans want and desperately need legislation to protect their personal data and promote trust in the online world. While it’s not perfect, the draft is a hopeful first step. We urge Congress to move forward with the legislative process and pass legislation by the end of this year.”

 

Cisco, Juniper, Fortinet gear targets in China attacks on telecoms, US gov warns

Three U.S. government agencies urged operators to patch their systems and take several other steps to boost security, warning state-sponsored attacks from China have been targeting routers within their networks since 2020.

In a joint advisory, the National Security Agency (NSA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said attackers have spent the last few years sniffing out and exploiting vulnerabilities in network devices such as small and home office routers and network attached storage devices. They listed gear from Cisco, Citrix, Fortinet and Netgear among the most commonly targeted devices.

Proposed Privacy Legislation May Impact Monitoring Companies

The United States House of Representatives has just introduced a privacy bill that has been endorsed by the Chairman and Ranking Republican of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ranking Republican of the Senate Commerce Committee.

The bill establishes rules for when and how data can be shared. We would also point out that the bill does require explicit consent from your customers to share information and must report to them when you do. On P. 17 there is a discussion of Geolocation services which might impact TMA members.

We think the alarm monitoring industry would be exempt based upon the exemptions on P. 39 items (1), (3), & (6), but we are providing a definition of alarm monitoring and writing clarifying language specific to alarm monitoring in item (3).

Update:

House leaders swipe at Chamber over privacy bill letter

With a key House panel set to hold a hearing on a bipartisan, bicameral consumer data privacy proposal next week, Republicans were upset to see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce already bashing the bill.

The group was circulating a draft letter saying the American Data Privacy and Protection Act “is unworkable and should be rejected,” CNBC reported on Thursday.

The influential business group complains the proposal doesn’t go far enough in preempting state laws while also creating a “private right of action” that would allow individuals to sue companies if they believe their data is being misused.

“A national privacy law should be a true national standard but the bill’s preemption language carves out fifteen different state laws including those in California and Illinois,” the group wrote. “This legislation would create a new national patchwork of privacy laws.”

The draft proposal would give consumers more control over their personal data, including limiting information that can be collected on the front end, supporters say.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, was especially unhappy over the Chamber letter.

“It is disappointing to see the Chamber – who has urgently called for a national privacy framework for years – suddenly change their tune like this,” Sean Kelly,CMR’s spokesperson, said in a statement.

“They are not being constructive by asking Congress to abandon ongoing bipartisan, bicameral efforts on a federal privacy standard,” said This draft bill is going through the regular order process, and includes policies that have been public and received comment in one form or another for several years. We are continuing to welcome and encourage stakeholder feedback, especially from those who still believe a federal data privacy standard is urgently needed.”

This is just the last flare-up between the Chamber and Republicans on the Hill. The big business lobby, once an ally to Republicans, has faced increased skepticism from GOP lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

House Energy and Commerce’s Consumer Protection and Commerce subcommittee has a hearing set for Tuesday on this issue, so we’ll definitely hear a lot more on this proposal.

Important: Potential Solution for Replacement of Certain 3G Devices

From AICC

Status of AT&T 3G Sunset

Yesterday, February 22nd, was the day that AT&T was scheduled to start its 3G shutdown. AICC has been working to have AT&T delay the shutdown until later in 2022, but thus far no extension has been granted. As a practical matter, it will likely take several weeks for AT&T to shut down 3G nationwide, so in certain parts of the country alarm service providers may have a brief period of time to continue replacing 3G units before AT&T service goes down.

Temporary Roaming Solution

A partial solution has been brokered by the FCC just last week to help remaining 3G users: Certain 3G units can roam on T-Mobile, which will not shut down its 3G network until July 1, 2022, giving the alarm industry and others an additional four months to replace those units that are compatible with the roaming arrangement. This is not a global solution, but will hopefully apply to about 25% of existing 3G alarm radios, including certain PERS units as well as fire/burglar/CO radios. However, by delaying the deadline for replacing a sizable percentage of the 3G units, this solution can allow the industry to focus first on those units that cannot roam. Certain alarm industry members have tested the roaming solution with good results so far.

It appears that the roaming solution will apply to your units if (1) they are on the Cisco Jasper platform, and (2) have a SIM card that is configured to allow roaming. Your aggregator/equipment vendor may be able to let you know if you have units that fall into that category; and AT&T should be able to do so as well. We encourage you to explore the use of this solution ASAP, and to implement it right away if it is available for any of your customers’ alarm radios.

To start the process, we recommend starting with your aggregator/equipment vendor. They can reach out to their AT&T reps to start the process. However, it appears that some AT&T reps have not yet been trained with regard to the roaming solution, so if you encounter push back or other problems, you or your vendor should contact:

Susanna Biancheri
AT&T Network & Engineering Operations
847 212 4191 (Mobile)
sb2321@att.com

Local MD CBS Affiliate Shares Impact of 3G Sunset on PERS

TMA member Daniel Oppenheim, Affiliated Monitoring, was interviewed by a local CBS affiliate in MD on the potential impact of the 3G Sunset on PERS customers, with a focus on the impending AT&T deadline (2/22). The interview aired on Monday, February 14th.

VIEW VIDEO

Interview Transcription:

They’re called Personal Emergency Response Systems, think of those “Help I’ve fallen and can’t get up!” devices your loved one might have. 

Many of these mobile PERS devices and other devices use 3G wireless mobile technology to communicate and pass signals. 

Wireless carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are completely shutting down their older networks to make room and free up spectrum for 5G which, according to the CTIA is “…23x more spectrally efficient and up to 156,000x faster than 2G.”

When carriers sunset their 2G and 3G networks, many older devices that connect to those wireless networks will go dark.

According to industry experts, millions of medical alert devices, older fire and burglar alarms, crash prevention systems in cars, breathalyzers, ankle monitors, sensors that track school buses, older tablets and smartwatches may not work. Some new tech like EV charging stations operating on older networks could also be impacted.

Jill Myers’ mother Elaine is 90 years old and lives alone in Montgomery County, Maryland. She says her mother is independent but has fallen a couple of times so she bought a mobile personal emergency safety device to help keep Elaine safe.

Myers said, “It provides me comfort knowing that it’s not going to be one of those, as you say, ‘I’ve fallen but I can’t get up’ [situations] and she doesn’t have access to anybody.

Here’s the shared concern about the 5G switch: When a senior like Elaine has an emergency, she presses a button on her device. That device sends a signal to a base station in the house. That base station makes a call to a monitoring service or emergency responders and it must connect to a 3G antenna on a cell tower to do it.

However, when cell companies turn off 3G in favor of 5G, that call will go nowhere, leaving anyone who needs help hanging.

Tom Kamber is the executive director of the Older Adult Technology Services from AARP and he said this could be a life or death situation for many elderly people.

Kamber said, “We’re talking about are life-saving devices. We’re not talking about somebody’s stereo speakers switching out on them while they’re listening to a Beatles record.” He added, “This is a situation where these devices are designed to save lives.”

These network upgrades have been in the works for years. And according to the FCC, each carrier has a different deadline for sunsetting.

Planned Phase-Out of 3G

  •     AT&T announced it will finish shutting down its 3G network by Feb. 22, 2022.
  •     Verizon will finish shutting its 3G network by Dec. 31, 2022.
  •     T-Mobile will finish shutting down Sprint’s 3G CDMA network by March 31, 2022 and Sprint’s 4G LTE network by June 30, 2022.

Daniel Oppenheim is the president of the Medical Alert Monitoring Association and he acknowledges the industry has had three years to upgrade systems. While normally that would have been plenty of time, the pandemic and supply chain issues have bogged things down.

“When companies were able, and seniors were more comfortable letting people into their home, we were not able to get devices because of the supply chain,” Oppenheim said. “So it’s been very difficult for these companies to even get products to be able to swap out and work with their customers to get them to 4G or 5G before this deadline,” Oppenheim said.

Both the industry and safety advocates are asking companies to delay the shutdown of the 3G network.

At this point, the industry experts who spoke with WUSA9 said it’s unclear just how many people are using these devices that haven’t been upgraded, but they estimate that number is in the millions.

WUSA9 asked AT&T to provide hard numbers on how much of its traffic still runs on 3G, but the company declined.

An AT&T spokesperson said, “For the last three years, careful planning and coordinated work with our customers has gone into the transition to 5G.  Forcing a delay would needlessly waste valuable spectrum resources and degrade network performance for millions of our customers.”

But Kamber says there’s more at stake here.

“A PERS button is called a Personal Emergency Response System for a reason because it’s needed for emergencies and frankly if one person listens to this broadcast and finds out that their PERS system is outdated, you know, we could be saving a life here.

The Wireless Association told WUSA9, “Thanks to billions of dollars of investment by the wireless industry, more than 99% of Americans have access to three or more 4G/LTE networks, and 5G networks are coming online for more communities across the country every day.”

It added, “Wireless providers have successfully transitioned customers from old to new generations before, and the same consumer-focused transition is happening right now. 3G customers should reach out to their providers to find out more information and discuss options.”

We also reached out to the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that regulates this industry.  An FCC spokesperson told us, “We take such concerns seriously and continue to engage with carriers on their plans.”

Virginia 757/948 Area Code Overlay Relief Implementation Committee Announcement

Please see the attached information about the Virginia 757/948 area code overlay as it relates to actions that may need to be taken by providers of Alarm, Security, and Elevator equipment.

It is imperative that alarm, security, and elevator alarm companies reprogram alarm panels in their customers’ premises if they currently are programmed to dial out seven digits to reach the alarm monitoring bureau.  If they are dialing out seven digits now, they must be reprogrammed to dial out a ten-digit number which includes the 757 area code plus telephone number.

As co-chairs of the Industry’s Virginia 757/948 Area Code Overlay Relief Implementation Committee, we are pleased to share the attached information to advise your company of the start of mandatory 10-digit dialing on 4/9/2022.

This reminder notice is similar to the letters that were sent to you on May 15, 2021 and September 3, 2021.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Laura Dalton and Nicole Febles

Co-Chairs for the VA 757/948 Area Code Overlay Industry Committee

Laura Dalton, Verizon                        Nicole Febles, T-Mobile
914-821-9686                                    973-960-0913

Laura.r.Dalton@verizon.com            nicole.febles@t-mobile.com

 

House Budget Proposes $10B for NG911

The House Energy & Commerce Committee released its portion of the Budget Reconciliation Act on August 24, which appropriates $10 billion for Next Generation 911 (“NG911”).  The funds are to remain available until September 30, 2026 and be used for equipment and services to implement, operate, and maintain NG911 and to cover associated training costs.  The bill also provides an additional $80 million to establish the Next Generation 9-1-1 Cybersecurity Center to coordinate with government officials on cybersecurity guidelines and prevention tactics as well as $20 million in funding to establish a 16-member Public Safety Next Generation 9-1-1 Advisory Board to make recommendations for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

VA 757/948 Area Code Overlay – REMINDER – Alarm, Security, and Elevator Letter

Please reference this letter for information about the Virginia 757/948 area code overlay as it relates to actions that may need to be taken by providers of Alarm, Security, and Elevator equipment.

Beginning on September 11, 2021, it is imperative that alarm, security, and elevator alarm companies reprogram alarm panels in their customers’ premises if they currently are programed to dial out seven digits to reach the alarm monitoring bureau.  If they are dialing out seven digits now, they must be reprogrammed to dial out a ten-digit number which includes the 757 area code plus telephone number.

As co-chairs of the Industry’s Virginia 757/948 Area Code Overlay Relief Implementation Committee, we request that you please share the attached information with your membership to advise them of the start of permissive 10-digit dialing on 9/11/2021.  Prior to the start of Mandatory Dialing in April 2022, we will modify this notice and send it to you for a second distribution.

If you have any questions, please contact us:

Co-Chairs for the VA 757/948 Area Code Overlay Industry Committee

Laura Dalton, Verizon
914-821-9686
Laura.r.Dalton@verizon.com           

Nicole Febles, T-Mobile
973-960-0913
nicole.febles@t-mobile.com