The Monitoring Association (TMA) was incorporated on November 30, 1950 in Illinois as the Central Station Electrical Protection Association (CSEPA). In 2025, we mark the 75th anniversary of our vibrant, professional community.
We invite you to spend some special moments with us throughout this year as we reflect back over the past seven decades in celebration of many achievements and those who served with distinction as leaders within our esteemed community.
Each month, we’ll publish historical narratives from our archives here. You’re invited to share your own, personal memories along with us! See how below.
Our year-long celebration will culminate at our 2025 TMA Annual Meeting, October 4-8th at the Ritz-Carlton, Rancho Mirage in magnificent Palm Springs, CA. Please make plans to join us there!
TMA’s Founding - 1950
On a cold night in 1949, eight men met in the Merchandise Mart in Chicago. Their purpose in gathering that evening was to talk about forming an organization of approved central offices that would present their view to the Underwriters Laboratories and the Casualty Insurance Bureau and that would allow them to compete against industry giants such as Grinnell, ADT, etc.
The actual beginning of the Central Station Electrical Protection Association (CSEPA) took place in a suite at the Broadmoor in June during the 1950 National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association’s (NBFAA) meeting.
TMA was incorporated on November 30, 1950 in Illinois as the Central Station Electrical Protection Association (CSEPA).
1950-1957
CSEPA’s first meeting took place in Chicago in 1951. The original bylaws dictated that the nearest competitor had to be one of the sponsors of prospective members and required a unanimous vote for acceptance. This resulted in one company per city, since most of the members did not want to have their direct competitors join. Only independent UL-Listed central stations were allowed in the association, to the exclusion of large companies such as ADT and AFA. By virtue of the fact that there were very few independent UL Central Station companies, CSEPA was a very exclusive club.
George Smith essentially ran the Association from his Dallas office and used PO Box 299 as the address. His secretary, Mrs. Beatrice Welsch, performed the duties of managing the association. Until the 1970s, the Association was ran from the office of the President.
CSEPA’s Members Spurred Innovation
The years immediately following World War II were exciting times for those in the security alarm business. While the construction boom and an increase in the crime rate benefited a sector of the industry, central station companies were struggling against Grinnell, who by 1957 was grossing 91.3% of central station revenues.
The charter members of CSEPA readily shared ideas with each other, leading to improve the performance of their Central Offices. Soon, CSEPA began to attract the attention of key figures in the security field. The willingness of members to experiment, test new concepts, and most of all, keep each other informed, made the young organization a very successful undertaking.
Tom Lewin remembers:
“The old central station burglar alarm systems were called “direct-wire” or “direct line” systems, and these were the ones which received the top UL ratings. Fire alarm and watchman control (supervision) system used what were called “McCulloh” Circuits which permitted the use of many control panels/boxes wired “in series” over telephone circuits. These circuits could be “linked” at the various telephone company central offices throughout a metropolitan area which meant that the monthly costs could be shared and split between many customers (subscribers). As the size of metropolitan areas grew, most central stations also used these McCulloh circuits for burglar alarms, enabling central station service to be provided to distant buildings – often ten or fifteen miles from the central station.
Typically, telephone line charges were based on mileage, so by using one line from the central station to a distant telephone exchange, the cost of that one long line could be shared between ten or more customers close to the distant telephone exchange. This made central station burglar alarm service affordable for most businesses.
Of course there were no digital communicators or even voice tape dialers which could use regular telephone lines to send alarm information to central stations the way home alarm systems now operate, and radio transmission was totally out of sight and generally not even available at any price.”
Central Stations had in those earlier days only two sources of suppliers: Potter Electric Signal and Jim McDowell’s Central Station. Both were manufacturing and selling sprinkler supervisory equipment, but their catalogues were very scanty!
The various manufacturers of fire alarm boxes sold directly to the construction industry, and supplied field personnel to supervise the installations. It was only when the original warranties expired—usually after a year—that the independent alarm companies could participate in this lucrative field.
Changes in the technology used were occurring at rapid pace and the founding members of CSEPA were there when they happened.
Among these early breakthroughs was an alarm screen, developed by Frank Guibert, that dramatically reduced the cost of labor and materials through the use of new tools and techniques. Mr. Guibert also participated in field testing the first micro-wave movement detector, developed for the alarm industry by Paul Corbell.
Ted Snowdon of the Underwriters Laboratories introduced many independent inventors of security devices to CSEPA. Our members responded by testing their inventions, among them, radar eyes, capacity alarms, fence alarms and electric eyes.
Sam Bagno’s first invention in the security field was a supersensitive eye, which used a very small neon-type bulb as a light source. It had six stages of amplification, could operate at fantastic distances, but unfortunately, was also very troublesome. It was the members of our association who kept independent inventors like Mr. Bagno in business. Many felt that because they did not maintain research facilities, they should help independent inventors.
Mr. Snowdon’s confidence in our members’ ability to properly test and evaluate electronic devices was entirely justified. The first capacity alarm for safes available to the industry was developed by the Mosler Safe Co. and tested by a member of CSEPA for U.L. approval. Mr. Bagno’s electric eye, capacity alarms, ultrasonic alarm and terra alarm were all tested by members of CSEPA.
These tests were costly. They involved leasing long lines to reach areas with fluctuations in the power supply, enduring powerful radio signals, fog andcorrosive fumes. Bob Shirley, Frank Guibert and others spent many hours, even days testing and retesting equipment. They discovered, for example, that a barking dog would set of the terra alarm, and that the first solid state ultrasonic alarms, when used in an office building, were affected by the heat given off by office machines in adjoining offices.
Among the early members of CSEPA were Pat Devine and the late James W. Flotron Jr. of Potter Electric Signal Co. The impact they made on the industry will remain for a long time. They oriented the Potter Co. in the direction of the independent alarm operator, producing equipment, such as the right angle impulse register—this device used less than half the tape needed by the skip dash register. In addition, Pat Devine used his talents to produce such instrumentation as the Dynalarm vault protection system. This equipment alone enabled the independent alarm operators to secure a large volume of banking business. For many years, the Potter Co. supplied the industry with a complete line of instrumentation needed to set up a modern central station. And because Potter also operated a central station, it was able and ready to assist with all phases of central station operations.
According to CSEPA Founder Frank Guibert,
“Many of our members may be said to be in business because Potter Co. believed in the industry. Financing by letting bills become overdue, technical advising and materials development were the ingredients necessary to nurture the growing association. Potter Co. was lavish in that regard.”
If it hadn’t been for the advent of CSEPA, it is doubtful that the development of the market for central station equipment would have progressed much faster than it did during the first half of this century, when only eight independent, certified central offices were opened.
When Ademco started to direct its efforts at the end of the decade toward the creation of central office equipment, a new era in the alarm industry began. Among these early inventions was the magnetic contact with a relatively slow transfer time between the front contact and the back contact. (The transfer time of the micro-switches is a few hundredths of a second, and monitoring equipment did not always respond to such fast action.)
Holmes and ADT recognized the value of such equipment and started to purchase basic devices from outside suppliers. The industry as a whole began to have more respect for all its members, large or small, operator or supplier.
The maturing of CSEPA into a highly respected and recognized association led to one conclusion: The best interests of the industry, operators, subscribers, law enforcing agencies and insurance companies could best be served by a single organization of central office operators. Bylaws of the Association were amended—a move seconded by the large multiple office operators, such as Holmes, AFA and ADT.
In 1958, CSEPA and ADT petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reserve channels for central station use. CSEPA formed its Alarm Industry Frequency Advisory Committee (AIFAC), now known as the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) to push for exclusive frequencies for the industry. Jeremiah “Jerry” Courtney, a Washington attorney, was hired to assist the Association in this endeavor. George Smith, Bob Shirley, and Sara Jackson were some of the movers and shakers of this early committee. ADT, while initially barred from the CSEPA, joined in the frequency effort with AIFAC and agreed to pay half of the legal costs.
Encouraged by George Smith, then-Senator Alan Bible made a series of phone calls during one of their meetings and gained the Association some key contacts with FCC staff to attain the frequencies. Hal Gray, who knew one of Senator Bible’s Administrative Assistants, helped also to gain the Senator’s support.
Adapted from Frank E. Guibert’s “Reflections from an Old Timer”
Portions of Mr. Guibert’s memoir first appeared in the CS Newsletter, January-February 1978 and July-August 1980. Additional information contributed by Lessing Gold, Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., and Eugene Maliszewskyj.
“I wonder how many of our members think of CSEPA as something that created itself? How wrong they are. I signed the original incorporation papers on behalf of the Newark District Telegraph Co. about 30 years ago and since then the names Smith and Shirley seem to be present whenever things had to be done. Add such names as Pat Devine, Gray (Harold), Neumann (Pete), McDowell (James), Stackler (Sidney and Ed), Jackson (Sara), Leich (Harold), Flotron (Jim), Snowdon (Ted) and Pillsbury (Don) and you have a good idea as to who made the present day CSEPA possible,” wrote Frank E. Guibert, one of CSEPA/CSAA’s founding fathers.
“How does one manage to remember the events that have taken place over three decades? It’s simple. The events are part of the lasting impressions made by the devoted people of our industry. Allow me to introduce some of these personalities.”
Harold (Hal) W. Gray Jr., a true fire alarm expert, a top committee man who continually chaired the most important committees of both CSEPA and NBFAA. He was a general in the US Air Force and a veteran of both World War II and Korea. His close relationship with the Military, members of Congress and the Fire Services were invaluable to CSEPA and the industry.
Bob Shirley, who with Harold Leich gave us the Dudley Tour system, and operated a radio controlled station 90 miles away. He was the technician, the tester, instrumental in providing the industry with a tour (Watchman) system, competitive with unobtainable equipment. The man who encouraged inventors like Sam Bagno, the man who suggested, improved, tested and bought every electronic circuit or device, and gave the industry an honest analysis of its merits. The man so close to the Advisory Committee of the Underwriters Laboratories. Not for one term, one year, or a few years, but always, as a director brought to the board a lifetime of knowledge.
Jim (James) McDowell, who introduced the ionization smoke detector to this country for fire protection and the vibration detector for burglar alarm purposes, and who for many years served as treasurer of CSEPA.
Jim Flotron and Pat Devine. Jim, the go-ahead executive; Pat, the designer with infinite patience and devotion to the security aspects of our industry. Pat Devine is responsible for some of the earliest electronic devices that we have.
George Smith Jr. and Jeremiah Courtney, the fathers of the radio frequencies allotted to the alarm industry. George Smith was the master at relations with government agencies, and with other organizations, such as the NFPA. Surely the member with the longest service as a valuable officer. Many years ago George and Frank Guibert approached the ADT and asked them to collaborate in an appeal to the Federal Communications Commission for our own frequencies. The time and money spent by the few companies in the association was considerable. Without the help of ADT, George would have had to present arguments based on demands by a fraction of the industry. This tireless pioneer (note his long service on the Signaling Committee of National Fire Protection Association, plus many Washington-oriented endeavors) always sought the best for the Association.
Jeremiah Courtney, general counsel to the Central Station Alarm Association for more than 20 years. He was instrumental in getting the Federal Communications Commission to allocate frequencies for exclusive use by the central station alarm industry for alarm signalling and two-way communications. Over the years he has participated in many FCC rule making actions on behalf of CSAA, helping to structure the regulations in a way that is most beneficial to the central station alarm industry.
John Poile, a man so critical to CSEPA and the industry that he was asked to remain as President for two terms; whose very detailed notes of the industry’s dealings with AT&T in the 1970s, helped central stations get a large settlement in their lawsuit against AT&T in the 1980s.
Pete Neumann, affable, settler of differences, not the technician in electronics, but the master technician in relations between members. The soft touch of Pete Neumann can never be forgotten.
Sara Jackson, bold, efficient, and to say the least very charming. Her astute business sense was an asset that is invaluable to any organization. Her classic remark many years ago that an ADT official from the Denver office, on a business visit, had reached her living room, but never her kitchen, was typical of Sara’s ability to assess any situation.
Don Pillsbury, truly an encyclopedia of casualty insurance in all its phases. Meet George Saunders of Underwriters Laboratory with modern ideas about the relationship between industry and testing bureau.
1959-1967
Fighting for Basic Rights – The 1960s
The 1960s was a decade full of unrest in society. The phrase “Question authority” became popular. Society questioned its traditions, beliefs, and customs. Images of Vietnam War protests and racial unrest seemed to be everywhere. On the plus side, the speed of technological innovation was increasing.
The alarm industry also reflected some of these trends. For example, independent alarm companies, the Davids of the industry then, decided to challenge the Goliath Grinnell in court. The Grinnell anti-trust action was the real beginning of the independent central station industry. The central station enjoyed many triumphs with the opening of markets following Grinnell’s divestiture and the FCC’s decision for exclusive alarm frequencies. In 1962, the digital dialer was invented. After some refinements, this equipment would revolutionize the central station industry.
In 1960, the FCC responded to Alarm Industry Frequency Advisory Committee’s (AIFAC) petition to reserve channels for central station use with a proposal to establish an Industrial Protection Radio Service. Ten frequency pairs were proposed for the protective industry’s mobile communications requirements, but restriction on the use and assignment of these frequencies continued to be debated between the FCC and CSEPA into 1981.
In 1961, Noel Story, from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, filed an anti-trust suit against Grinnell, ADT, AFA, and Holmes. In 1964, Judge D. J. Wyzanski of the U.S. District Court in the District of Rhode Island ruled against Grinnell et al. in almost all counts. Grinnell’s attorney took the case to the Supreme Court, where two years later, the Justices also ruled against Grinnell. The case was then remanded back to Judge Wyzanski. who ordered Grinnell to divest itself of AFA, Holmes, and ADT. The defendants were prohibited from acquiring central station companies and ADT had to sell up to $200,000 in accounts to independent alarm companies in 30 cities. Between 1967 and 1971, Norm Rubin, Jerry Nirenberg, and Sam Abrams, a Washington attorney, assisted many CSEPA members in collecting damages from ADT and Grinnell in individual and class suits.
Our Own Frequencies
In the middle of this havoc in the industry, CSEPA filed a petition in 1963 requesting an exclusive set of frequencies under the Industrial Protection Radio Service, that could be assigned to individual operators within the industry.
After a long battle, the FCC finally agreed in 1968 to allocate five pairs for the exclusive use of the alarm industry in areas with urban populations of 200,000 or more. Two of the five were reserved nationwide. Initially, these frequencies were only allocated to Central Stations in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. When Sara Jackson, who operated in Denver, learned that Denver did not get the frequencies, she and Jeremiah Courtney, CSEPA’s communications attorney, met with every FCC Commissioners to get frequencies for all cities. She ultimately prevailed.
During Tom Lewin’s presidency during its Annual Meeting at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago, the Association removed its by-laws’ restriction of one company per area,. “There was great resistance to the idea because by then the number of independents had increased and members were apprehensive about having their competitors receive the benefits of CSEPA membership,” remembers Lewin.1
Building an Industry
With the opening of doors both in the industry and in the association, the central station industry was ready to take off. Many new players such as Honeywell, Baker (who later changed its name to WellsFargo), Burns, and Wackenhunt entered the central station industry by purchasing independents.
Three late-1960s Congressional Acts promoted the idea of electronic security: the Federal Bank Protection Act of 1968, the Safe Streets Act of 1967 and the Small Business Protection Act of 1967.
The first act set high security standards for all banks; The second Act founded the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), which studied how private security could supplement public law enforcement. LEAA and others in the government were very interested on the potential value of alarms to control crime, but bemoaned the high cost of alarms and services. A report developed by the Small Business Administration under the Small Business Protection Act and reviewed by LEAA praised the effectiveness of monitored alarm systems. It talked about the importance of access to telephone lines and remarked on the monopolistic stand of the telephone company The report also has a section on how police departments could be used as central stations.
In order to prevent potential governmental efforts to regulate the industry and to bring central stations under police supervision, CSEPA established the Alarm Industry Committee for Combating Crime (AICCC) in 1969 and appointed George A. Smith, Jr. as its Chairman and principal spokesman. Others in the industry such as ADT and Holmes joined this effort, uniting former enemies.
The Committee testified before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Crime Against Small Business giving a demonstration of alarms and sharing hard statistics about the effectiveness of monitored alarm systems in detecting and in calling the police to the crime site. Network television filmed the testimony—this helped to attract a larger number of Senators who were impressed by the size and technological sophistication of the industry.
One of the tasks of LEAA was the distribution of block grants to police departments. LEAA distributed a grant to the Cedar Rapids Police Department to install 1,000 alarms in businesses and monitored them at the Police Department. John Mabry remembers a confrontation with Cedar Rapid’s Police Chief at a meeting of the Retail Association of the U.S. The Chief told the audience that the alarm contacts for which he paid $2.00, the alarm industry was charging $40-$80. He bragged about how successful he was in capturing thieves. Mabry, who was there as a representative of CSEPA, remembers saying, “In Cedar Rapids, the big crime on Saturday night is when someone breaks into the filling station and steals a quart of oil. You have never have had to handle a break in at 47th Street (in NY) or in a 20-story building because the highest building in Cedar Rapids is three stories high.,” The audience, needless to say, loved it!
The eventual elimination of the “Cedar Rapids Problem” was one of the early successes of the AICCC.
1Lewin, Thomas M., Man Under His Fellow Man: The Life and Times of Thomas Michael Lewin, p. ???
CSEPA’s Presidents in the 1960s were Frank Guibert (1959-1961), Newark District Telegraph, Bricktown, NJ; Harold W. Gray Jr. (1961-1963), Pacific Fire Extinguisher Co., San Francisco, CA; Tom Lewin (1963-1965), Automatic Alarm Co., Minneapolis, MN; George A. Smith Jr. (1965-67), Smith Detective Agency and Nightwatch Service Inc., Dallas, TX; Emerson Booher (1967-69), Dayton Electronics, Dayton, OH; and Robert W. Shirley (1969-71) Merchants Police Alarm Corp., Milwaukee, WI.
1968-1975
Protecting the Industry – The 1970s
Until the early 1970s, CSEPA continued to be a very exclusive group. Fully aware of the magnitude of the battles ahead, the Association looked for new members during the presidency of William Koch.
The Alarm Industry Committee for Combating Crime (AICCC) continued to work hand-to-hand with LEAA and others to defend the industry from government intrusion and to establish better relations between public police and private security. It also worked on an alarm industry’s model state statute on burglar and hold-up business licensing with LEAA.
A Technological Transformation
In the 1960’s, AFA Protective Systems, Inc. had developed a Multiplex transmission system that transmitted alarm signals over voice grade telephone lines. These circuits were more efficient because they were capable of going further distances and had the capability of connecting many more premises to a single circuit. Also each premise protected was interrogated every 25 seconds in order to determine the status of the system on each polling sequence. In recent years as the cost of leasing telephone lines became prohibitive and the quality of the telephone service declined, the next generation of transmission systems came into use. This was known as the Digital Communicator. This new means of transmission utilized the existing on-premise phone lines thus eliminating the need for leasing dedicated circuits. For almost 100 years, one national company and several large regional companies dominated the central station industry. However, the introduction of the Digital Communicator technology coupled with an explosion in publicity relating to crime and arson attracted hundreds of new entrepreneurs to the rapidly expanding protective service industry.
With the increase in market opportunity, many novices entered the alarm industry. Due to errors in installations, false alarms started to become a serious problem, which led in 1972 to the enactment of the first false alarm ordinances. The first two cities to have false alarm ordinances were Pasadena, CA and Lower Merion Township, PA. Many others followed.
CSEPA started the Alarm Industry Facility Committee (AIFC) in response to concerns about the elimination of metallic circuits, which were then widely used. The Committee met early 1973 with representative from AT&T to discuss these and other concerns, such as their fees increase for 1000-series circuits. During this meeting, AT&T reconfirmed that they were going to discontinue metallic circuits. Illustrative of the attitude of AT&T in those times, a second presenter who was going to talk about rates, asked to be referred to a “Doctor Rates,” because as he explained, “I fix them (The rates) up and after what I have to say, you’ll need a doctor!”1
After several meetings and getting nowhere, the Committee found out that some of the changes that AT&T was planning to do could result in putting out of service all private line subscribers. On top of this, AT&T started increasing its monthly charges for private line transmission.
Nineteen seventy-four was a year of several firsts. S.N.P. Security Services of New Wales, Australia became CSEPA’s first foreign member and fifty-third member. On the social side, CSEPA’s First Annual Golf Tournament was held on Nov. 12, 1974 in Atlanta, GA at the Canongate Golf and Country Club.
This was also the year in which the Membership Committee, the Affirmative Action Committee and the Standards Review Committee were formed. At the end of that year, Charles Perry was hired CSEPA’s Executive Director.
Some of the mid-decade issues explored by CSEPA in its meetings and publications were the electronic protection of retail stores; third-party liability; pre-employment screening (psychological tests); methods of signal transmission through the use of point-to-point microwave links; school premise security (thefts, vandalism); UL standards; access control system units; safety standards for anti-theft alarm and devices; safety standards for household fire warning systems and telephone facility service problems.
CSEPA/CSAA have always been known for its unforgettable meetings. One that became famous for a different reason was CSEPA’s 1975 Annual Meeting at La Costa Country Club, CA. The U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell was the keynote speaker. In addition, the Department of Justice was sponsoring a reception for our members. The day before the meeting, John Mabry, who was in charge of the meeting, received a call from the FBI saying that both the Attorney General and the reception were cancelled. Mabry investigated further and found out that the administrators of the La Costa C.C. were “connected” and that a raid was imminent. As soon as the meeting ended, the Department of Justice raided the Country Club!
In 1975, CSEPA announced that it would accept advertising for its October newsletter, CS Newsletter. Ads cost $400/year for a full B&W page. ADEMCO became CSEPA’s first advertiser, soon followed by Detection Systems.
1976-1984
Early 1976, CSEPA filed a petition with the FCC to change the industry’s classification of radio licenses from business radio service to public safety radio service, requesting that frequencies be set aside. To garner additional support, Attorney Lessing Gold, representing CSEPA in a meeting with LEAA’s Private Security Advisory Council (PSAC), requested that the FCC and other government agencies classify services offered by our industry as “emergency services” so as to qualify for preferential rate consideration. He also recommended that:
Ø the telephone industry be required to continue to provide metallic phone lines until the development of other technically feasible and economically affordable alternatives;
Ø that they prevent the enforcement of proposed restrictions on the use of metallic circuits by central stations; and
Ø that the FCC recognize central stations as high priority radio users to authorize their recognition as a public safety radio service, clearing the way for allocation of exclusive radio frequencies.
Both AICCC and NBFAA supported the appointment by PSAC of a special emergency task force to study CSEPA recommendations.
In the summer of 1976, CSEPA hired the firm of Jeremiah Courtney to be its counsel, appointed Raymond Lloyd as its Executive Director and hosted a display of new equipment at its Spring Meeting.
A new threat appeared in the horizon with the introduction by Congress of the Consumer Communications Reform Act of 1976 to replace the Communications Act of 1934. One of the intents of this and later versions of the Act was to modify the 1956 Consent Decree, thereby freeing AT&T to enter other industries and offer other services. CSEPA hired its first lobbyist in 1978 to influence the rewrite of the Act.
CSEPA members started a letter-writing campaign to the FCC asking to be recognized as providing emergency services in an attempt to effectively lobby against the revision of the 1934 Act. The 1976 Act did not pass, but variations of it continued to be presented during each Congressional session. CSEPA worked on each of the versions through the years to ensure that the central station industry’s rights were considered.
Some arguments used by the industry throughout the years to prevent the waiving of the Consent decree were that if revoked, Bell companies would be free from the obligation to lease private lines to alarm companies on request; that the Bells would enjoy unfair advantage due to their industry’s costs knowledge; and that local exchange carriers would be free to deny, curtail, limit or discontinue the private line service which was absolutely essential to the life safety services provided by the industry. CSEPA proposed that “if we are to be legislated into a competitive situation with the telephone companies—then the telephone companies must have separate companies operating with non-affiliated officers and BOD.”
The Act of 1976 was reputed to be the most sponsored Act by Congress until that time. That a small Association was able to lobby effectively to stop its passage is a testimonial of the quality of the work of the Association and its members.
In 1977, Attorney General Griffin Bell announced the reorganization of LEAA, a move that caused consternation amongst our members since the Association had spent a lot of time developing support at LEAA.
A new organization was created to broaden the scope of research and information activities in fire and crime prevention-fund research on reduction of false alarms; research ways to improve location safety; grant scholarships for studies; underwrite community education programs. The organization was called the Alarm Industry Research and Educational Foundation (AIREF). Its founders were CSEPA, NBFAA, and the Washington Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (WBFAA).
At the end that year, CSEPA members voted to have two meetings: an Annual Meeting (moved to October) and a Spring Meeting to take place in conjunction with the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) meeting, which many of our members attended.
At the beginning of 1978, CSEPA was fighting FCC Docket 21417, which would have permitted the discontinuance of direct wire and McCulloh circuits. This was believed to be by many, among them then-CSEPA’s President Richard Clark, to be one of the most serious issues in industry history.
That same year, CSEPA battled the use of our frequencies by proprietary central stations and the deletion from Part 90 of the FCC rules of a precise definition of central station protection services. Its request to transfer Central Stations to the special emergency radio service was denied by the FCC, but they allowed point-to-point use of the five 450 MHz frequency pairs for alarm circuit purposes.
On October 30, 1978, the FCC granted CSEPA’s request amendment to FCC rules allowing Central Station licensees to use five UHF business radio service channels on secondary basis for alarm signaling and point-to-point communications – Central Stations were only allowed to use the five frequencies for communications related to the actual operations of the CS and in areas in which they operated a commercial Central Station service. In addition, only Central Stations that furnished service to the public were allowed to use the frequencies. Three UHF channels were redesigned for the exclusive use of our industry’s use within the 75 miles of the 87 largest Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMA). The FCC also acted on a request by CSEPA and restored a precise definition of central stations to its new Part 90 rules and recognized FMRC as rating agency of CS entities.
In the spring of 1979, CSEPA surveyed its members to find out if the Association should remain separate or merge with NBFAA. An overwhelming number of members (close to 90%) believed that CSEPA should continue as a separate organization. The survey was prompted when NBFAA announced that it would no longer fund AICCC and the government relations’ efforts of CSEPA. NBFAA rejoined the Committee soon after the survey.
At that same time, AICCC presented the Senate Judiciary with testimony on proposed amendments to the Justice Systems Improvement Act of 1979: In its testimony, AICCC requested that LEAA bepositioned as a catalyst to improve cooperation between public and private security; that central station participation in LEAA’s projects is critical since these programs affect the industry; and that our industry be allowed to participate in anti-crime programs, especially crime prevention.
In April, a new committee—the Alarm Industry Telecommunications Committee (AITC)—and 3 sub-committees—finance and fundraising; public relations; and a steering committee—were formed to work on FCC issues. Members of the committee were CSEPA, NBFAA, SEIA (Security Equipment Industry Association—now SIA) and the larger companies within the industry—ADEMCO, ADT, Diebold, Holmes, Honeywell, and Wells Fargo.
Greg T. Fulton was named Executive Director and Raymond G. Lloyd retained as consultant. A few months later, Fulton left the Association and Robert Dougherty was hired to replace him.
In the summer of 1979, the Senate passed legislation extending LEAA for five more years. Included in the legislation (S. 241) were points long sought by the industry: an acknowledgement of the role played by private security industry in the prevention and reduction of crime; a recommendation for improved coordination and cooperation between public law enforcement and the private security industry; and a mandate that citizens, neighborhood and community groups be allowed to decide how best to use federal anti-crime funds.
In the fall of 1979, CSEPA received notification that AT&T was proposing an increase in tariffs, by applying interstate rates to short-haul private lines that cross state boundaries, rather than the intrastate rates previously used. This change would have resulted in a 700%-1,000% rate increase in some large metropolitan areas. CSEPA fought this change ardently and was rewarded when AT&T backed down. In the spring of 1980, Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) offered its support in any additional tariff cases in thanksgiving for the success on CSEPA in fighting AT&T’s tariff plan. Early in 1980, CSEPA established a “watch” service at the offices of CSEPA’s Communications Counsel Jeremiah Courtney to keep an eye on AT&T’s tariff changes.
On the last meeting of the decade, CSEPA honored Bob Shirley and CSEPA’s counsel Jeremiah Courtney.
1 Verbal recollection by John Mabry, August 18, 2000.
CSEPA’s Presidents in the 1970s were Robert W. Shirley (1969-1971), Merchants Police Alarm Corp., Milwaukee, WI; William Koch (1971-1973), Certified Alarm & Signal Co., Toledo, OH; John Poile (1973-1977), Honeywell Protection Services, Elk Grove, IL; Richard Clark (1977-1979), Rhode Island Electric Protective, Providence, RI; Richard M. Bugbee (1979-1981), ADT Co., Inc., New York, NY
Growing the Industry – The 1980s
Early 1980, Congress passed the LEAA Reorganization Act, which resolved differences between the Senate and House bills, but eliminated the language that AICCC had obtained in the Senate version such as the recognition of the role of private security in crime prevention and the LEAA mandate to improve coordination and cooperation between private and public sector. In addition, the industry was not to be included in the planning and development of crime prevention programs. A year later, the Justice Department announced that LEAA would be phased out. It was terminated on April 15, 1982.
The FCC’s Private Radio Bureau announced new licensing procedures under which station coordinates were no longer required as a means of verifying compliance with mileage separation requirements, if the control stations had antenna heights of 20 feet or less above ground, natural formation, or man-made structure other than an antenna structure.
Due to all the lobbying activity, CSEPA started to consider forming a Political Action Committee (PAC). It would later join NBFAA’s PAC.
In the summer of 1980, United Telephone in Florida started experimenting with central station security.
With the intensification of work in so many areas, CSEPA and NBFAA agreed to restructure committees and divide workload in the summer of 1980. CSEPA was made primarily responsible for AT&T liaison, insurance liaison, FCC liaison, rate case coordination; NBFAA was in charge of public relations, education, industry insurance, state and local legislation and codes. Both associations were equally responsible for cable TV issues, national codes and standards, gasoline rationing, government relations, law enforcement and fire protection liaison.
A New Threat and Opportunity
CSEPA and the rest of the industry become concerned with the possible entry of cable TV operators in the alarm industry. For this reason, CSEPA organized a meeting with the major cable companies during the 1980 Annual Meeting. In that meeting, cable operators emphasized that security was not their primary business and offered to cooperate with the industry. Soon after, cable operators started leasing lines to dealers, forming joint ventures and contracting with alarm companies to provide service to clients. New cable security companies such as Network Security also started.
During that same Annual Meeting, Sara Jackson received the Association’s Woman of the Century Award, in recognition of her contributions to the Association and the alarm industry.
The Reagan administration started the deregulation of several industries, and the FCC proposed further deregulation of common carrier services.
During the spring of 1981, a rash of hotel fires (e.g. MGM Grand, Stouffers) popularizes the installation of sprinkler systems in hotels.
During the 1981 Annual meeting, CSEPA had its first annual tennis tournament and Peter J. Neumann and Patrick Devine were honored. The Association had 61 active, 25 associate, 4 foreign and 4 honorary members. Twenty new members joined CSEPA that year.
After a long process, the amendment of FCC’s Part 15 rules (Docket 20990) was passed. Theamendment was adopted substantially in accordance with CSEPA desires.
On Jan 8, 1982 a settlement was reached on the Nov. 20, 1974 lawsuit against AT&T. The company agreed to the divestiture of 22 local telephone companies; to be free to compete in computer and data processing technology; and to use Bell Laboratories and Western Electric to a greater degree. The agreement invalidated the 1956 Consent Decree and permitted AT&T to retain the long-lines department and to continue long-distance operations. Later in the summer, U.S. District Court Judge Harold H. Greene rejected the original AT&T divestiture proposal in favor of the following: AT&T was banned from entering the electronic publishing market for at least seven years or taking information they had compiled and programming it over any electronic media. His changes allowed local phone companies to compete with AT&T in the sale of telephone equipment and granted local phone companies control of the profitable yellow page operation. AT&T would have to relinquish the Bell name and logo as of Jan. 1, 1984, the date of the divestiture.
That year, Pat Devine was inducted as an honorary member.
In the summer of 1982, the central station industry won a major victory. A non UL-listed alarm company tried to apply for waiver of Section 90.75 (industry’s exclusive use of frequencies) to be able to operate using the 450-megahertz frequency pair and was turned down by the FCC, upholding the industry’s exclusive use to the frequencies.
With the availability of cable TV for alarm use, NBFAA and CSEPA filed several petitions before the FCC petitioning to require owners and operators of high-capacity two-way cable TV systems to make communications channels available for commercial uses to facilitate private safety communications systems operations. It also petitioned that all future urban cable TV distribution systems contain at least 20 separate transmission channels and that at least one broad-band channel be made available for alarm system purposes. The Petition asked that cable system operators be prohibited from offering alarm services or equipment directly to end-users.
Late summer of 1982, Congress closed down a profitable market for the security industry when it prohibited contracting out protection services for Department of Defense (DoD) installations.
Later that year, CSEPA moved to new offices in 15th Street, Washington D.C.
Fighting with the Bells: First Round
In the fall of 1982, Judge Greene decided to allow Baby Bells to offer “enhanced services” and customer premises equipment under Computer II as of Jan 1, 1983. Significantly, this prevented the Baby Bells from offering alarm monitoring. Although the alarm industry had been successful beyond its expectations in its congressional efforts, it was not quite so lucky in the AT&T divestiture case. The Federal District Court in Washington allowed the divested Bell operating companies to market “customer premises equipment” which includes various types of alarm equipment and systems. Also, AT&T was allowed to enter the alarm business, through American Bell, its newly formed subsidiary. “Legislation remains the best and perhaps only solution to our problem,” said the AITC Committee. “Fortunately, key members of Congress continue to share our concerns and are determined to approve telecommunications legislation next year.”
On September 13, President Reagan signed HR 3239, amending the Communications Act. The FCC was permitted to accept help from private organizations when assigning certain private land mobile and fixed service frequencies. It also created a detailed and specific definition of private land mobile service (PLMS), making it by law distinct from radio common carriers. To protect equipment such as alarms, the law authorized a requirement of minimum shielding and filtering capability. It also authorized a lottery mechanism when awarding licenses.
Several independent studies helped the security industry. The Department of Justice announced on September 19, 1982 that last year, 30 percent of all American households were “touched by crime.” A report published by Hallcrest Systems, a Washington, D.C.-area research firm reported that with current budgetary constraints and decreasing personnel putting the crunch on law enforcement agencies, private security systems were the only viable ammunition against crime. In 1983, the Justice Department’s Aerospace Report further supported CSEPA’s position. The report found that the installation of reliable electrical alarm systems was the only way to potentially reduce the number of burglaries (unauthorized entries).
The Year of the Lawsuits
In a short period of time, alarm companies filed three important lawsuits attacking three major threats to the industry. In the first one, seven companies in the Oakland, Michigan area filed a lawsuit against the cities of Rochester and Bloomfield Hills seeking more than $2 million. In the lawsuit, the companies objected to the municipalities maintaining, servicing and monitoring from residences and commercial premises several fire and burglar alarm systems connected to the cities’ police departments. Contending the cities were not licensed for the practice, the companies said the municipalities were violating state statutory requirements. The companies attest that an un-reasonable hazard to public health and safety has been created by the defendants’ negligence and violations of state antitrust laws. In addition, the six-count lawsuit claims the defendants had failed to follow standards proclaimed by the National Fire Protection Association and Underwriters Laboratory. The seven plaintiffs were Michigan Burglar Alarm Systems Inc., Custom Alarm Inc., Audio Sentry Inc., Whall Corp., Engineered Protection Systems Inc., American District Telegraph Co., and Diversified Alarm System Inc.
In the second case, twenty-nine alarm companies filed a federal antitrust suit against AT&T in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C on Oct. 12,1982 charging AT&T with monopolizing the electronic alarm systems market. The suit alleged that Bell, by withholding certain alarm circuit equipment from the market, violated the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit, assigned to Federal District Judge Harold Greene, claimed that Bell tried to make alarm companies use its equipment, even though less expensive equipment was available from other companies. Meanwhile, Bell was preparing to offer its own alarm services.
In the last case, a 26-year-old security services company, Electronic Sentry, sued Selkirk Communications Inc., a leading Florida cable television company, for allegedly trying to monopolize the security service business in the Fort Lauderdale area. The suit filed in U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida on Oct. 27,1982, charged violation of Sherman antitrust laws. Electronic Sentry’s complaints included Selkirk’s refusing access to its coaxial cable; using its cable TV operations’ profits to boost its security service business; and conspiring with officials to discriminate against Electronic Sentry when competing for security services business. The Association supported this case. The overwhelming advantages enjoyed by Selkirk in the City of Fort Lauderdale enabled the cable TV company to attain almost 3,000 subscribers in a very short time.
Three years later, Selkirk Cable TV agreed to provide access to other alarm companies when the alarm industry’s suit against Selkirk was settled that summer. While settlement of Electronic Sentry vs. Selkirk Cable TV was a cause for celebration in the alarm industry, it represented only a mild victory. The suit was initiated to establish four legal tenets: (1) Alarm company access to cable networks when the network offers security services, (2) Fair and equitable access charges, (3) Separate subsidiaries for cable security within the cable network, and (4) Cable security advertisements paid for through the security subsidiary – with the same conditions and terms available to other security companies. The actual settlement accomplished only one of the tenets – that of access.
But not all were legal battles. Aritech’s Charlie Darsch designated May 23-27, 1983 to be the “Aritech Salutes CSEPA Week” in recognition of the contributions of CSEPA and its members in the protection of life and property of America’s citizens. Aritech offered to donate 5% of the cost of all equipment purchased by members to CSEPA, raising a total of $2,177 to assist the Association infurthering its causes.
In the spring of 1983, CSEPA filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to permit the substitution of lower cost radio alarm circuits for higher cost leased telephone circuits.
Police department funding cutbacks nationwide left alarm dealers and their customers wondering who will respond to their alarms. In cities such as Los Angeles, where it could take as long as 45 minutes for police to respond to an alarm, central stations teamed up with guard companies to provide armed response to their customers’ alarm calls.
In 1984, the FCC assigned exclusively frequencies which lie at 12.5 KHz offset from priority channels in the 450 to 470 MHz Business Radio Services Band to Central Station Electrical Protection Systems and allowed the use of higher antennas than had been previously allowed. It made the eight offset frequencies, which fall between the Central Station Primary Frequency Assignments, available exclusively to Central Station companies. On the offset channels, the Commission authorized Central Station Companies antenna heights of twenty feet above existing structures, rather than twenty feet above ground. The alarm industry, however, had also asked for exclusive frequency allocations in the 900 MHz band, which were denied by the FCC. The Commission conceded that the alarm industry was indeed a “cut above” the normal mobile user, but that it still did not reach the clear preference for public safety.
That year CSEPA organized its first post-trip convention and chose the Orient as its destination.
A New Beginning
Since the beginning of the Association, many believed that Central Station Electrical Protection Association was not the ideal name for the Association. In 1984, CSEPA’s attention turned to changing its name. A committee was formed composed of Stan Lott, John Mabry, Bob Bonifas and John Poile. One of the suggested names was Security Systems Communications Association.
In the summer of 1984, CSEPA moved in with NBFAA. When SDM Magazine became the official publication for NBFAA, CSEPA members questioned whether we should stop producing the CS Newsletter, CSEPA’s publication at the time or decreasing its frequency to quarterly. CSEPA decided to continue the bimonthly newsletter.
That year, Northwest Bell started selling advanced security transport service for $8.95 per month. For that fee, customers of the Security Consultants International, an alarm company in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, could have their alarm service upgraded to include an offering from NW Bell called VersaNet—a service that monitored security from a remote module on the customer’s property, linked by telephone line to a NW Bell central office. The central office then transmited security signals via telephone line to the security company. A NW Bell spokesman said that the system was unique not only because monitoring information was transmitted through a telco central office, but because VersaNet also provided an alarm when a customer’s phone line was cut. NW Bell did not sell VersaNet directly to customers, but provided the monthly billing.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) passed two resolutions of interest to the private security industry in October of 1984. The first resolution, “Secondary Employment in Private Security,” detailed the problems inherent in “moonlighting” by police officers. The resolution encouraged ‘all chief law enforcement officers to establish policies and procedures regulating secondary employment for sworn personnel in private security.” A second resolution, “Cooperation with Private Security,” listed three objectives for all law enforcement agencies: (1) Develop cooperative programs with private security for crime control, (2) Increase police knowledge of private security resources, and (3) Assist private sector efforts to control economic crimes against business and other organizations.
1985-1993
In 1985, the Frequency Advisory Committee was expanded to become the FCC Committee for the alarm industry in both radio and wireless matters. Three subcommittees were formed—frequency coordination; radio frequency and wireline matters.
At the 1985 Spring Meeting, the Association promoted performing to standards and raising the standards of the industry. Former members (retired, out of the business, etc.) were encouraged to become “Affiliate Members”
Insuring the Industry
Mid 1985, an insurance crisis affected the industry, when the major carriers of liability insurance called a moratorium on policy renewals. “We’ve declared a moratorium because we’re out of money,” said Pacific International’s spokesman Terry Waldon. “This non-renewal policy has created a crisis management situation,” said Bob Bonifas, Alarm Detection Systems of Illinois. “We’re trying to determine what to do about it.” “We’ve had our policy for about 20 years,” said George Smith, Jr., Smith Alarms, Dallas. “We’ve never had a claim. Now, we get notice we won’t be renewed in September.”
CSEPA member Hal Gray suggested that CSEPA hire a consultant to put a package together and recommended Stan Brock of Milwaukee, who had been the insurance consultant for CSEPA.
The Insurance Committee of the NBFAA set about investigating the various alternatives available. The result of their investigation was the decision to set up an offshore captive that would provide general liability and errors and omissions coverage for member companies. According to Bob Bonifas, former co-chairman of the Committee and then-NBFAA President, “The NBFAA did not want to go into the insurance business. But we had little choice if we were to serve our members in a meaningful way. It was a tough decision that represented a substantial investment of time and money. But the investment had to be made on behalf of our member companies, in the same way that we all invest in our own businesses.” The decision turned out to be a wise one. Errors and omissions insurance became almost impossible to obtain. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., who administered the NBFAA program, received over five hundred applications in a short period of time. Of those, over 120 companies were accepted for coverage.
Soon another serious crisis would hit the industry when the IRS audited Per Mar Security & Research in late 1985. The IRS’ problem was with alarm systems placed on a lease or some other fee basis in the customer’s building, while the alarm company continued to own the equipment.
According to the IRS, equipment provided in connection with a service contract for fire or burglary protection was a structural component of the customer’s building and, thus, did not qualify for investment tax credit, since the equipment was owned by the alarm company and was designed and installed with the expectation that it would be removed when the service contract ended.
Since the entire industry took investment tax credits on leased equipment, the position taken by the IRS against Per Mar meant that nearly every alarm company in the Country would soon owe several thousands of dollars to the IRS. CSEPA promised to fight this through the courts, if necessary.
Early 1986, Richard Lucas was appointed CSEPA Executive Director and Executive Secretary of NBFAA, the youngest executive director in an association at the time and the industry lost Sara Jackson.
In the summer of 1986, CSEPA assisted the Mid-Atlantic Alarm Security Association (MAASA) in their challenge of a proposed ordinance in Prince Georges County, Maryland (one of the largest counties in the state). This ordinance would have effectively prohibited central alarm systems that did not include “active communication” with the alarm user when an alarm signal was activated or that did not provide “verification” that an actual emergency situation existed.
On July 2, 1986, AT&T offered a settlement to the twenty-nine alarm companies who had filed a 1982 federal antitrust suit against it. One of the AT&T’s conditions for the settlement was that companieshad to settle before the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Bill. Under the old tax code, AT&T could write-off all of the settlement at one time, no matter when it was actually paid, rather than as it was paid—this clearly benefited AT&T who knew it would need the money from the write off to compete in the changed industry. President Reagan had selected July 5 as the day to sign the Bill. A group of CSEPA members descended into Washington DC and lobbied Reagan. The Bill was signed Monday, July 9, 1986—proof of what a small group of people can do when well organized1 .
Around that time, the law office of Jeremiah Courtney merged with Blooston and Mordkofsky, a communications law firm in Washington.
Senator Robert Dole’s (R. Kans.) bill, S.2565, “The Telecommunications Act of 1986”, which would transfer jurisdiction over the 1982 AT&T and GTE Consent Decrees from the Dept. of Justice to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) caused concern to alarm companies and central stations. With recent pronouncements by Bell Operating Companies (BOCS) regarding their interest in offering “enhanced services” such as alarm and health monitoring, and the friendly relations between the BOCs and the FCC, it was likely that restrictions preventing the BOCs from entering the alarm industry would be lifted if this bill passes.
According to Tom Beers, a former lawyer for the alarm industry, “the FCC is ‘pro Bell’. One commissioner who had been involved in the Computer III debate left the FCC to go to work for Bell. Another commissioner suggested allowing the BOCs to enter long distance service, as all other long distance providers would be out of business in a few years.” He contended that the FCC was not the only game in town and that Judge Green and the Department of Justice were taking recommendations from industries affected by the break-up.
Eleven trade associations formed a coalition group to oppose passage of the Dole Bill. Bernard Beerman, CSEPA Legal Counsel, represented the alarm industry in this group. CSEPA sent several letters to Senators voicing opposition to the bill.
CSEPA filed Reply Comments before the FCC in May to open up the power company’s radio service reserved for multiple-address microwave frequencies. With its Petition for Rule Making, CSEPA filed evidence that power utilities, given the lion’s share of 900 MHz multipoint frequencies, were making relatively little use of those frequencies. Indeed, with well over half of the frequencies, power utilities accounted for some 14 percent of licensed systems. CSEPA also presented evidence that general use multipoint frequencies were unavailable in most major metropolitan areas, while power utility frequencies were sitting idle. Finally, CSEPA presented evidence that central station burglar and fire alarm services over multipoint frequencies were foreclosed from establishment in these major markets. In the spring of 1988, the FCC denied CSEPA’s request for unused power utility reserved channels.
The FCC awarded a contract to provide the public with direct, electronic access to license data from its Private Radio Bureau Land Mobile and General Mobile Radio Services. The service included computerized license files. Daily update transaction computer tapes provided by the FCC maintained a current and accurate system.
A Five Stars Membership
In the spring of 1987, CSEPA chose a new logo. The five stars included represented the fact that CSEPA member companies were the “Five-Star” service companies in the industry. Members started working in a marketing campaign based upon the concept. The five stars represent quality management, quality design, quality components, quality installations, and quality testing, maintenance and monitoring. Stan Lott was the guiding force behind the program.
The Association hired David C. Fullerton as Executive Director for CSEPA and NBFAA. Very soon after, he submitted his resignation to the Associations. Charles B. Lavin, Jr. was selected to replace Fullarton as Executive Director.
On March 31 through April 2, 1987, AIFAC attended a three-day meeting on behalf of the alarm industry to protect our position regarding the development of Open Network Architecture (ONA). The meeeting was held at ADT’s headquarters in New Jersey. During the first two days of the meeting, the seven Regional Holding Companies for all the Bell Operating Companies (RBOCS) gave their presentations on ONA. Present were BELLCORE, Bell Atlantic, Bell South Services, New Jersey Bell, NYNEX, Southwestern Bell, and U.S. West. The alarm industry was the first industry to meet separately in an ONAF (Open Network Architecture Forum) with the RBOCs.
The RBOCs wanted to know the future industry’s wants and needs from the telephone companies. AIFAC asked for open, clear lines and services; for permission to locate alarm industry equipment (alarm company owned scanners & bridges) in the BOCs central offices; for long-term rate predictability via tariff or separate contracts with telcos; for derived local channel service to comply with highest UL and NFPA standards; for priority access to telco diagnostic and repair capabilities; a broadband link from customer to alarm control station for video transmission; a national standard on network interfacing and pricing for all new services; to obtain priority installation and repair services as an option; and access to the “D” channel of ISDN as a future capability for line supervision or data transmission.
The Bell Atlantic’s preliminary listing included five specific provisions for the alarm industry, and ten that related strongly to issues of concern to the industry. However, when the RBOCS submitted their ONA plans to the FCC in the spring of 1988, they largely ignored the proposals of the alarm industry. The only exception was the NYNEX submittal.
When in 1989 the FCC released its Order in its ONA proceeding, AIFAC’s efforts paid off. For instance, the FCC struck down BOC attempts to introduce a form of measured service for interstate network use made by the alarm industry and others; it struck down usage restrictions which the BOCs would have used at the state level to raise local rates for the alarm industry; and it struck down plans by the BOCs to accord their own alarm operations (and other 11 enhanced service” operations) preferentially low network access rates. Importantly, the FCC also ordered the BOCs to provide more uniformity among the ONA-related network functions to be supplied to the alarm industry and others, since the different BOC plans treated the same AICC network functionality requests in radically different ways. Problems continued with ONA, however, and additional comments were filed on July 12, 1989.
Soon after the March meeting, AT&T petitioned the FCC for permission to charge for enhanced or ancillary services and connection to its PTSN (Public Telephone Switched Network). AT&T sought monthly compensation for non-standard connections. Designated as Docket #87-215, the petition was very vague as to what connections would incur additional charges. The industry feared that Digital Communicators would be included under charges now paid by central stations to the telephone company, or that they might bring added monthly charges. Lloyd Baker of Rollins Protective felt that the petition was intentionally unclear about who will pay, to allow AT&T maximum latitude in the assessment of charges. CSEPA attorney Ben Dickens filed comments about the petition on behalf of the Alarm Industry FCC Advisory Council (AIFAC).
In 1987, Judge Harold Greene decided not to lift the ban on the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to enter information services, a victory for the alarm industry
At a meeting held on January 11, 1988, members of the Alarm Industry FCC Advisory Council (AIFAC) voted to change the group’s name to the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC). Industry representatives sitting on the Committee believed that the new name more clearly reflected the group’s mission. Seven sub-committees were formed to coordinate all activities with each of the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies. The first priority of each sub-committee was to review the Open Network Architecture (ONA) proposal for their RBOC, and to open discussion on the inclusion of as many of the industry’s 21-point program as could be negotiated. The groups also coordinated all rate hearings, as well as other activities in their regions.
The Legislative Committee was also busy, editing the Model State Licensing Law and writing aModel Local Licensing Law.
CSAA Counsel Bernard Beerman announced his resignation and recommended that Ben Dickens be appointed. The Board voted to employ Dickens for 1988 at an annual fee of $3,000.
After direct intervention by several CSEPA members, the White House decided not introduce new legislation to remove restrictions from the bell operating companies that would allow them to enter the electronic security industry. After “shopping around” such a proposal and in response to a quick reaction from the telecommunications coalition (of which CSEPA is a member), Treasury Secretary James Baker told the White House Economic Policy Council, “The President has decided not to propose new legislation to Congress that would remove the remaining restrictions on the Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOCS] in the telecommunications area at this time.”
In the spring of 1988, the FCC announced its plans to drastically amend Part 15 of its rules to restrict alarm dealers (and other private transmitters) from the use of the 200 mhz – 400 mhz frequency bands. Those bands were used for radio navigation, radio astronomy, safety service, and US Government operations. The government operations were susceptible to extraneous radio frequency signals and therefore the FCC wanted to clear the frequencies. Approximately, only 5% of the complaints related to alarm transmitters. CSEPA’s Executive Director Charles B. Lavin, Jr. stated that, “This is critical to our industry in that most short range radio equipment presently produced is workable only in these bands.” AICC recommended a ten-year grace period so that the industry’s manufacturers could adapt to the change and produce the necessary radios to meet new needs.
With all the regulatory and legislative activity impacting our industry, our members decided to spend two full days visiting the offices of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the spring of 1988. It was repeated in the spring of 1989.
In June 1988, then-President Robert Bitton formed an ad-hoc committee to discuss short and long-range plans for the association. In attendance were Bitton, Robert Bonifas, Patrick Egan, Richard Kurtz, Stanley Lott, Patricia Smith, Thomas Smith and Charles Lavin. The committee was charged to review the entire range of CSEPA activities, programs and services; project future needs of the industry and the expectations of the membership; and to develop a program to meet those needs.
One of the decisions was to take advantage of fax technology and to conduct bimonthly conference calls. Other decisions made by the general membership at the Annual Meeting were a revision in the by-laws requiring the re-application of members when ownership changes, and that only members, both regular and associates, could come to the meetings. An exception was made for UL-listed prospective members.
Isaac Papier was promoted to new Managing Engineer of UL.
In 1989, CSEPA retained The Keefe Company—one of its lobbyists was Bill Signer. Bob Keefe, the principal of the company, was the godfather of the association’s exemption strategy regarding the Bells’ entry into the monitoring market. The Association also changed its name to the Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA). The new name was the original name our founders wanted, but it was in use at the time by another organization (ADT). CSAA kept the five stars in its new logo.
February 1989 turned out to be a significant month for the radio interests of the alarm industry before the FCC. On February 17, 1989, the FCC announced that it would permit the application for multiple address microwave licenses on newly available frequencies. One megahertz of the spectrum was allocated for multiple address use and the other five megahertz were allocated for point-to-point use. The second February development pertained to short-range radio. The FCC denied a petition to reestablish the old field strength limits for radiated emissions in the restricted bands above 1000 MHz from control and security alarm devices. The FCC noted that there was already so much radio frequency noise permitted on these bands that it was mere speculation to conclude that Part 15 devices would have a noticeable impact. What the FCC gave the alarm industry in February was diminished, however, by what it took away in April, when the FCC ordered the phase-out of the industry’s short-range equipment. New equipment had to meet the new standards within 5 years. Existing installations of short-range equipment were allowed to stay in use indefinitely.
In March 1989, Bob Bitton became CSAA’s frequency coordinator, replacing the late Stan Lott.
On November 28,1989, the FCC opened a rule making proceeding (Private Radio Docket 89-553) to revise its methods of licensing users of the 200 channels at 900 MHz for commercial Specialized Mobile Radio systems. Of interest was the proposal to permit 900 MHz systems located outside a 100-mile radius of the top 50 markets in the US for fixed and mobile operations. As with cellular radio, this would afford alarm companies an alternative to wireline communications. The AICC filed comments in this proceeding on April 16, 1990, supporting this proposal
On December 15, 1989, the FCC began a rule making proceeding to produce rules for a new private land mobile radio service in the 220-22 MHz band dividing the band into 200 narrowband (5kHz) channels, 140 channels designated for local systems, with a 70-mile frequency re-use standard. These were tol be shared equally with federal government users. The licenses would be held on an exclusive basis. Since this was a land mobile service, the FCC proposed to permit fixed uses, such as alarm signaling, on a secondary basis. AICC supported this proposal, but argued in early March 1990for alarm signaling on a primary basis.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) was the next battleground. NFPA received a motion to change NFPA Standard 71 to allow UL-Listed local fire alarm installing companies to issue Central Station Fire Alarm Certificates by sub-contracting the monitoring of the system to a UL Listed Central Station. CSAA was against the motion since this would permit every alarm installing company and electrician to offer “Central Station Alarm Service” as these terms are defined by NFPA. The vote was 133 to 120 in favor of the motion. Our association submitted an appeal of the motion to the Standards Council and to the Board, but it was rejected in both cases.
Representatives John Dingell and Edward Markey proposed a bill called the Emerging Telecommunications Technologies Act of 1989 that sought to reclaim 200 MHz of spectrum below 5 GHz from the government for use by the private sector. The government at that time controlled about 40% of the usable radio spectrum. This bill would reduce government usage to 20%.
The decade ended with an invitation to members by Bob Bonifas and Charles J. Schoen to participate in a Five Star service contest to encourage issuing UL residential and commercial certificates.
1 Verbal recollection by John Mabry, August 18, 2000.
The 1990s
Early 1990, CSAA started offering three, two-day seminars aimed at key upper and middle management member employees. The Education Committee, with David Carter at its helm, developed the idea of these seminars. They are what we now call the Call Center Management Seminars.
On February 28, 1990, the FCC clarified that the use of cellular technology for non-mobile users, such as alarm signaling was permissible. Later, it considered a proposal to permit applicants for dispatch frequencies to file applications directly with the FCC, bypassing the frequency coordinator. CSAA opposed the proposal because it would degrade the coordinator’s database records and result in increased interference.
When NFPA approved the restructuring of the Signaling Systems Project, CSAA members were encouraged to join the different NFPA committees related to the central station industry.
CSAA joined Operation Life Safety, a new program developed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) to reduce residential fire losses.
The Membership Committee developed a new contest under which the members referring the most new members got a free registration for himself and his wife for the Annual Meeting and CSAA heavily promoted its Five Star Service.
A Senior Advisory Committee was formed consisting of former officers and directors of CSAA.
In the spring of 1990, the FCC wanted to end the “grandfather” privileges of old, wideband, microwave systems in the 900 MHz band and make these channels available for Multiple Address Systems (or MASS) that use narrowband technology. The AICC supported this proposal.
The CSAA Standards Committee formed. Tony Fague was elected as Chair. Its first project was to recommend operating standards on how signals should be generated, transmitted, recorded and handled.
Judge Harold Greene’s 1987 decision of not lifting the ban on the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to enter information services was reversed early 1990 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Appeals Court found that Judge Greene had applied an improper legal standard when he declined to lift the ban on the BOCs. The case was returned to Judge Greene for reconsideration. The reopened proceeding before Judge Greene was of enormous importance to the alarm industry; since it increased the potential of the BOCs (and/or their affiliates) as direct competitors of the alarm industry, while still retaining bottleneck control over the exchange facilities upon which the alarm industry was highly dependent. Indeed, one BOC, Bell Atlantic, had already sought permission both from the Department of Justice and from the FCC to provide limited monitoring functions utilizing radio facilities.
On Oct. 17, 1990, the AICC filed a brief opposing the Bell companies’ entry into the alarm monitoring industry. It argued that allowing the Bell companies into the alarm monitoring industry would decrease competition, thus violating antitrust laws and that allowing the Bell companies into the alarm monitoring industry would turn the rest of the industry into captives of the Bells, because more than 98 percent of alarm signal transport was carried over telephone lines.
On the other hand, a key part of the FCC’s plan to pave the way for BOC entry into information service markets was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sits in California. Specifically, the FCC had issued a number of orders, which collectively formed its Open Network Architecture (ONA) program, in order to pave the way for direct BOC entry into information markets. ONA was designed to create a so-called “level playing field” between the BOCs and their information service (or, in FCC parlance, “enhanced service”) competitors, such as the alarm industry. Even though ONA represented some improvements over the status quo in means of making additional services available to the industry, it was still decidedly tilted in favor of the BOCs’ information service operations. It was this set of FCC orders that were reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The result was that if the Bell Companies obtained permission in the reopened court proceeding to offer information services, they had to do so through separate corporate subsidiaries, unless and until the FCC reissued an ONA plan that could withstand judicial scrutiny. An important component of this framework from the Ninth Circuit’s decision, however, was that the states were now free to regulate the BOCs enhanced service offerings, and would perhaps prescribe conditions that were more fair to the alarm industry and others.
At the 1990 Annual Meeting, CSAA approved the formation of an AICC PAC and made John Poile and Bill Rose honorary members.
On September 25, 1990, President Reagan signed legislation mandating that government employees stay at hotels with fire sprinkler systems. This opened a new market for fire prevention systems.
In late 1990, law enforcement agencies start tackling false alarms. For example, the San Diego Police refused to accept calls from alarm monitoring companies if their clients had not paid an annual fee. Others limited the number to which they would respond. The alarm industry continued to work towards a solution. NBFAA conducted a survey on the causes of false alarms and showed that the majority were attributed to customer error. CSAA then conducted a survey to identify the customers’ actions that caused false alarms. The survey pointed out that the majority of customer-caused false alarms occurred when arming or disarming the alarm or when the customer accidentally tripped the alarm. Manufacturers used this information in their design of alarm components. On February 22, 1994, the four security associations met to coordinate the industry’s false alarm prevention activities. CSAA was made responsible for the communications with the AHJs. The plan was called the Alarm Industry False Alarm Coordinated Action Plan. In the summer of 1994, all major security associations in US and Canada agreed on 4 recommendations for dealers and manufacturers and three for police and community officials to deal with false alarms.
Early 1991, the District of Columbia’s Public Service Commission tried to make alarm companies public utilities. The DC Commission wanted to have “enhanced service providers, ” who provided management or operation of transmission facilities within DC, become regulated as public utilities. Concerned that it would spread to other commissions, CSAA worked with the Mid-Atlantic Alarm Security Association to oppose it.
On March 5, CSAA members unanimously voted to hire an Executive Director. The next day, it participated in another legislative blitz.
On June 4, 1991, the Senate voted to allow the RBOCs to manufacture alarm equipment. The bill, S. 173, did not allow them to monitor alarm systems. The battle then moved to the House.
In the summer of 1991, member companies invited local crime prevention officers to their premises for presentations. The program pioneer was Alarm Detection Systems who hosted 300 officers; Security Inc. soon followed.
That summer, Judge Greene decided to allow RBOCs to provide information services over telephone lines. His judgment was not to go into effect until the appeals had been heard. CSAA members were encouraged to contact their legislators to enact legislation that would prohibit RBOCs from entering the alarm information services and manufacturing, either through exempting the industry, or allowing their entry with safeguards.
Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-OH) was a speaker at CSAA’s 1991 Annual Meeting. He agreed to offer a security industry exemption amendment before the Telecommunications Committee. Sen. Dan Schaefer (R-CO) offered to co-sponsor the amendment. At the Annual Meeting meeting, members heard the story of how the telephone company devastated the telemessaging industry and Bob Bitton received the Stan Lott Award.
To help fund a legislative war chest, ADI volunteered to ask all its customers to add a1% to their invoices to be donated to the AICC PAC. Other Associate Members followed.
In the spring of 1990, Ron LaFontaine, the then-Standards Subcommittee Chair, met with Tom Lewin and Ron Lane in Ron LaFontaine’s hotel room in New York City. At the meeting they produced the first CSAA standard, “Verification.” When Tony Fague resigned as Chairman of the Standards Committee due to an increasing workload at ADT, Ron LaFontaine assumed the Chair of the full Committee. Under his direction, a number of standards were produced, and CSAA applied and received ANSI accreditation.
Five CSAA standards were sent for ANSI review. The five standards were Central Station Burglar Alarm Systems, Agent Response to Alarms, Central Station Security, Central Station Disaster Planning, and Recovery and Verification. They were later combined into a single standard.
The AICC won three key battles in January 1992 ensuring that alarm companies would continue to have a service known as ‘Verify Integrity of Subscriber Lines,’ the generic equivalent of the derived channel. NYNEX, Pacific Bell and Ameritech had sought to eliminate line-break service. AICC Counsel Ben Dickens filed briefs in opposition to each of these BOC efforts. In all three cases, the FCC ruled for the alarm industry. The cases came up when the FCC reviewed the Open Network Architecture (ONA) amendments of these three BOCs and determined that they had eliminated some promised Basic Service Elements. Further, the FCC told Ameritech that it could not ignore the commitments it made in its ONA plans to potential competitors such as the alarm industry.
The March 8, 1992 legislative blitz was a complete success with 300 alarm industry “soldiers” invading Congress. It was very effective:180 legislators indicated that they supported the alarm industry and 25 changed their mind in the industry’s favor. The blitz was held in conjunction with CSAA’s Spring Meeting.
At the Spring Meeting, members explored how satellite telecommunications might provide the security industry with the ability to track stolen vehicles, provide environmental monitoring and send data transmissions from subscriber to central station and back. Most importantly, satellites could give the industry the ability to avoid using the telephone lines.
On April 27, 1992, CSAA hired Steve Doyle as its Executive Vice President. Around that time, CSAA’s new logo made its debut. It kept the five stars, added an eagle, and two set of words: “Five Star Security Services” and “Working with UL and FMRC.”
In a surprising development, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), the security industry’s key proponent in their battle against the RBOCs, gained control over HR 5096, a legislation which would deter the entry of the Bells into the security industry for a minimum of five years. After months of extensive lobbying by both Brooks and Rep. John Dingell (D-NY), the Speaker of the House, Rep. Thomas S. Foley (D-WA), denied Dingell’s committee the chance to alter or stall Brooks’s bill. Introduced by Brooks in July 1992, HR 5096, the Anti-Trust Reform Act, was designed as an anti-trust bill to ensure that Brook’s committee would have sole jurisdiction over the measure. Foley did grant Dingell a concession; Brooks could not bring the bill to the House floor until Sept. 25. The bill went to markup on July 1 where the full House Judiciary Committee, of which Brooks was the Chairman, passed it. Rep. John Bryant (D-TX), who managed to salvage a waiting period although reduced to three years rather than the seven desired by the industry, added several security-related amendments. With a bill in Congress, the alarm industry organized another blitz in September 14-15, 1992. Unfortunately, HR 5096 stalled in the Rules Committee and failed to be voted on in the 102nd Congress
On October 1992, the 20/20 TV Show did a segment on Home Security; fortunately, it did not cause any major ripples.
The FCC proposed a rewrite of Part 90 of the FCC into a new Part 88, or the “reframeing” of the private land mobile frequencies. Members involved with radio systems for transmission of alarm signals were advised to see a consultant for advice on the potential threat to their investment in radio equipment, and to learn if their equipment would be usable after 1996 or 2004.
In the summer of 1993, CSAA established a subsidiary, the Municipal Response Management Corporation (MRMC), to manage its new program to make Standardized Alarm Notification Transmission Alternative (SANTA) available to police and fire departments across the country after it purchased the program from Appropriate Data Communications Inc. (ADC) of Minneapolis. SANTA was intended to help reduce false alarms and increase the efficiency of central stations and police and fire dispatch centers. The system also eliminated the risk of mispronunciation of names and addresses, and the probability of misunderstood data.
That fall, CSAA published the final version of its Industry Standards Report, a compendium of standardized alarm industry operations, procedures and terminology. The 50-page report represented the first time that central station alarm standards were compiled into a single volume.
Before the end of 1993, CSAA applied to ANSI to become an Accredited Standards Developer.
With pre-production orders for more than 20,000 copies, CSAA”s “Insurance Guide to Selecting a Burglar Alarm System” became the most popular CSAA publications ever produced.
After nearly five years of efforts to prevent the seven RBOCs from providing alarm-monitoring services, alarm industry leaders reached an agreement in December 1993 with the RBOCs on legislative language restricting Bell entry into the monitoring industry. The provisions, agreed upon by industry leaders and a designated representative of the RBOCS, came less than two weeks after an alarm industry Congressional Blitz in Washington, D.C. in early December. More than 200 alarm professionals attended meetings in approximately 250 congressional offices.
1994-1998
On February 4, 1994, Sen. Fritz Hollings’ (D-SC) Communications Act of 1994 (S. 1822) was introduced. This bill included alarm industry language virtually identical to H.R. 3626, the House bill. It also incorporated legislative language agreed upon by the alarm industry and the RBOCs the previous December. S. 1822 imposed a five and one-half year waiting period before the Bells could apply individually to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide alarm-monitoring services and extended the waiting period before the FCC could approve a Bell application to six years. The bill required that the RBOCs pass a Department of Justice (DoJ) antitrust test, to ensure it could not use its monopoly power to impede competition. Additionally, the legislation prevented the Bells from using exclusive access information enabling them to compile lists of existing alarm customers for marketing purposes. The bill had broad-based support among the Senate Commerce Committee members. Senator Hollings secured more than half the members of the Committee as original co-sponsors of the bill.
The House Committees on the Judiciary and Energy & Commerce completed markup on H.R. 3626 and alarm industry amendments were passed in both committees. The bill still imposed a five and one-half year waiting period. On March 2, 1994, then-CSAA President Dave Carter presented testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in support of the Act. On June 28, 1994, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3626 by a landslide vote of 423 to 5. However, S.1822 and H.R. 3626 would not be passed before Congress recessed due to opposition in the Senate and from the RBOCs.
During that same Congressional session, the security industry opposed H.R. 1900/ S. B. 984, which tried to limit the use of security cameras. Although the legislation permitted the use of security cameras in certain circumstances, it prohibited a routine review of video-tapes. An employer would have had no practical way to determine if losses were occurring until they became large enough to be noticed. Also, the employer could not legally conduct “spot checks” to see that security or safety procedures were being carried out. The legislation required that all cameras be visible unless the employer had a “reasonable suspicion” that an employee was engaged in conduct violating the law or constituting “willful gross misconduct.”
A proposal to amend a Los Angeles City Ordinance to require eyewitness verification of alarm signals before police dispatching was averted in the fall of 1994 following coordinated efforts of CSAA, the California Alarm Association, NBFAA and AIREF. The ordinance would have required that all alarm companies physically verify that a burglary was in progress before dispatching the police. The motivators for the ordinance were false alarms and the increasing ability of municipalities to quantify the actual dollar cost of responding to false alarms. On September 8, the ordinance was changed to only requiring an attempt to verify by telephone with no actual telephonic or visual verification required.
In an agreement reached at the IACP meeting in Albuquerque in the fall of 1994, CSAA, NBFAA, and SIA promised to identify at least three cities where to marshal their efforts to reduce false alarms. The three cities later chosen were Seattle- King County, Chicago and Philadelphia. An Action Committee was formed within each of those cities composed of a representative from each of the following segments of the industry, CSAA, NBFAA, SIA, national companies; remote monitoring companies; the police sector; and one staff person from each of the three major associations in the alarm industry – a total of eight people. The project was called the Model City False Alarm Dispatch Reduction Program.
In December, 1994, Ameritech, a major Midwest RBOC, acquired SecurityLink, a central station alarm company.
CSAA welcomed 1995 by participating in a new congressional blitz on January 18 and in another in March 22.
While still sharing space with NBFAA, CSAA added two more employees, when Steve Doyle hired Frank McNeirney as Director of Marketing & Communications, and Patsy Nuzzo as Office Manager/Membership Coordinator.
That spring, CSAA published another bestseller, the Fire Alarm Systems Guide
On March 23, the alarm industry scored an important victory, when 24 hours after its latest Legislative Blitz in which more than 170 alarm professionals paid hundreds of visits to House and Senate offices, the Senate Commerce Committee voted 17-2 to send to the Senate floor the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, a bill containing most, but not all, of what the alarm industry wanted.
During the markup session, three Republican Senators, Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD), Bob Packwood (R-OR), and Conrad Burns (R-MT), specifically addressed alarm industry concerns.
The bill marked up by the Senate Commerce Committee also addressed the purchase of SecurityLink by Ameritech. The measure permitted Ameritech to continue to provide alarm monitoring and to solicit customers through any subsidiary it owned as of Dec. 31, 1994. However it was required to meet entry tests and wait at least three years before purchasing new alarm companies. The legislation also specified that Ameritech could not use parent company employees to market the services of its subsidiaries, at least until it met the long-distance entry tests.
Soon after, in a move designed to facilitate its entry into the alarm business, Ameritech petitioned the courts for a waiver from the rules that prohibited RBOCs from entering the long-distance market, claiming that it could not provide monitoring services to 30% of the customers of SecurityLink without such an exemption. Alarm industry leaders opposed the move, charging that granting this exemption would only reward anti-competitive behavior, and claiming that Ameritech appeared to have violated court rules by providing inter-exchange monitoring to customers acquired via the SecurityLink purchase.
Around that time, the CSAA leadership became aware of a proposal by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to undertake a standards writing program for burglar alarm systems. NFPA had already referred the proposal from its Standards Committee to its Board of Directors. At the 11th hour, CSAA filed a letter of opposition to this effort. CSAA leadership asked its members to write to NFPA immediately, since another NFPA Board meeting was scheduled to meet within a few days to discuss the subject again. Over 60% of CSAA members sent faxes to NFPA within 72 hours of the notice. As a result, the item was referred back to the Standards Committee of NFPA for reconsideration and later dropped.
At CSAA’s 1995 Spring Meeting, the By-laws were changed to accept any UL-listed central station as long as it actively installed and serviced alarm systems. It also created the category of Applicant Member, opened to companies who have applied for UL-Listing, but are not yet listed.
The first results of the Model Cities False Alarm Dispatch Reduction Program were announced at the annual meeting of the State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP) and the Board of Directors of the International Associations of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in Bellingham, WA. They indicated that an almost 30% reduction in false alarms is achievable when private alarm companies and local police departments joined forces to tackle the problem. The next step expanded the testing portion of the program from the three original model cities to five model states.
On April 28, 1995, a federal judge dismissed allegations against CSAA and others that they had violated the Sherman Act by engaging in anti-competitive practices relating to their marketing of the SANTA automated alarm transmission system. The plaintiff in the case, Security Information Network (SINET), which marketed an automated alarm transmission system of its own, had sought monetary damages and injunctive relief from several defendants. The case was dismissed on the grounds of improper venue and on the fact that SINET had failed to sufficiently allege predatory or anti-competitive conduct.
In June 14, an amendment in Senate Bill 652, the “Telecommunications Competition and Deregulatory Act of 1995,” that specified a four-year waiting period before RBOCS could enter the alarm monitoring field was included and passed. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-lA) and Bob Packwood (R-OR) sponsored the 4-year provision, which replaced the bill’s original 3-year waiting period. On June 15, S.652 passed the Senate by an 81- 18 roll call vote despite strong initial opposition from both Republican and Democratic floor managers. On August 4, the House of Representatives passed its version of such a law (H.R.1555) by a vote of 305-117.
According to Bill Signer, CSAA’s lobbyist, the Senate bill was better for the alarm industry. “It followed the terms of our agreement with the Bells, required the Bells to operate their alarm companies as separate subsidiaries, and included the 6/l/95 Ameritech grandfather clause that we wanted. However, the House bill had the 6-year waiting period, versus the Senate’s 4-year waiting period,” he added. “The House is in an awkward position,” Signer continued, “since it has passed special interest legislation for one Bell [Ameritech] over the other six. In the process, it has placed every small business alarm company at risk. This has the opposition of many of the Bells. There was a deal here honored by six of the seven Bells. The seventh should not be unduly rewarded.” This point was underscored on August 16, when Ameritech announced plans to expand further into the security business by seeking to purchase The National Guardian Corp., subject to regulatory approval.
At its 1995 Annual Meeting, CSAA changed its bylaws to accept monitoring-only central stations; Norman Rubin was made an honorary member; and CSAA was asked to support NFPA’s premises security standards by both the American Insurance Services Group and by UL.
On February 1, 1996, the final conference version of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed the House by a 414-16 vote and the Senate by a 91-6 margin. The February 8 signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by President Bill Clinton was described by then-CSAA President Ron LaFontaine as “a milestone in the alarm industry’s quest to protect itself against unfair competition from phone companies.” Several alarm industry representatives, including CSAA members Robert Bonifas and Patrick M. Egan, attended the February 8 Presidential signing ceremony at the Library of Congress.
Major alarm industry provisions in the bill included:
Ø A five-year transitional waiting period after the date of enactment of the bill before six of the seven Bell companies could begin offering alarm-monitoring services.
Ø A prohibition on any further purchases of alarm companies or their customer bases by the seventh company—Ameritech—for five years.
Ø A prohibition against RBOCs use of Consumer Proprietary Network Information, i.e., customer lists.
Ø An expedited FCC Complaint process.
Ø A prohibition against cross-subsidization by an RBOC of its alarm subsidiary.
The provision barring further Ameritech purchases for five years remained a subject of controversy right up until shortly before the Senate vote was taken. From the language in the bill, it was unclear as to whether Ameritech might be able to circumvent the law by purchasing alarm company accounts rather than buying alarm companies themselves. Clarification of that point was established, however, during a Senate floor colloquy between Sen. Tom Harkin and Telecommunications Conference Committee Chairman Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD). In it, the two lawmakers agreed that the intent of the law was that such account purchases by Ameritech would indeed be illegal.
By the summer, RBOCs were entering or planning to enter into the alarm business through joint marketing operations (Alarmguard and SNET; MCI and Westinghouse; Southwestern Bell).
Soon after, the Public Sector Liaison Committee was established to interact with the different outside constituencies and present one voice.
In the fall of 1996, CSAA launched its Web site, with assistance from Ralph Sevinor.
Before the end of 1996, two new staff members were added to CSAA, Madeline Fullerton, Director of FiFinance and Tina Richardson-Jones, Director of Meeting Services and Membership.
At its 1997 Mid-year Meeting, CSAA gave Sen. Fritz Hollings its Legislator of the Year Award in recognition of his key role in insuring the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In his acceptance remarks, Sen. Hollings said he felt certain that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would set aside a March 25 Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission. In that Order, the FCC said that Ameritech Corp.’s 1996 purchase of the alarm monitoring assets of Circuit City Stores, Inc. did not violate the Telecommunications Act. On May 19, Sen. Hollings’ prediction came closer to realization when the Appeals Court granted a motion for accelerated review of the case.
Later, the AICC filed an Emergency Motion with the FCC alleging that Ameritech Corp.’s mid-April acquisitions of the monitoring assets of Central Control Alarm Corp., Milwaukee, Wis., and Norman Security Systems, Chicago, Ill. violated the Telecommunications Act. The motion asks the FCC to order Ameritech to rescind both purchases. In mid-June, the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau requested additional information from Ameritech regarding the two acquisitions.
At its June 3 meeting, AICC members approved a plan to divide the group into two separate committees. One retained the AICC name and dealt with all the typical AICC issues, with the exception of telecommunications legislation. The other, the AICC Telecom Legislation Committee (AICC-TLC), dealt solely with RBOC-related legislative issues. The split was done so that companies and organizations with no interest in AICC’s legislative efforts on the RBOC front could allocate all their annual dues to AICC and none to AICC-TLC and vice versa.
That summer, CSAA conducted its First Compensation/Benefits Survey and during the fall, CSAA started working on the development of the False Alarm Analysis Program (FAAP).
On December 30, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an order by the FCC in which it had ruled that Ameritech Corp.’s purchase of the alarm monitoring assets of Circuit City Stores Inc. did not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
CSAA started 1998 at its new office in Vienna, VA.
Towards the fall of 1998, CSAA became part of a coalition of industry associations to install and monitor security and fire systems to protect rebuilt and threatened churches. Ron Spiller, SIA’s Executive Director, conceived the idea and brought in the Congress of National Black Churches (CNBC) to forge the program. The program was named SAINTS, which stands for “Safety, Awareness and Independence Now Through Security.”
That winter, CSAA formed its UL Promotion Board, and appointed Bob Bean as Chair. It also published its Second Compensation Survey.
As we mark TMA’s 75th anniversary, we’d like to share and celebrate your memories of TMA. Please share your stories of how TMA has impacted your career and your company. In addition to submitting narratives, we’d like to collect photos and videos.
Please send photos or videos with brief captions to communications@tma.us.
If you are interested in being interviewed for print or in video, please contact Leigh A. McGuire, director of Marketing and Communications at lmcguire@tma.us.
