EST and ESPA

InfoComm is for a limited role of government in our industry.

The current disagreement is about whether CEDIA, NSCA and InfoComm can cooperate on legislative issues concerning licensing of our profession by state governments. In the US, each state can choose whether to set up a license requirement for people doing work in a particular industry. States do this for one of two reasons: (1) when there is a life-safety issue, as all states do for the licensing of electricians; but we see none that have done so for AV communications, and (2) if there is a consumer protection issue, as they have for the gaming industry; but here we find few states have seen AV as a consumer protection issue.

InfoComm has taken the position that we will work with states when they indicate that there is a life-safety issue and that any license developed should be based on a valid test of knowledge and skills that will keep the licensee from endangering the public. Most US companies are not looking for the government to regulate them, but if the states think there is a life-safety issue in AV we will be of assistance in developing a valid licensing test. Also, InfoComm wants to work with CEDIA and NSCA to stop punitive legislation from harming industry members.

The government does not have a role in the certification of industry personnel.

InfoComm has also taken the position that certification is an individual, voluntary and non-government issue, and that an industry-based certification is the best way to address consumer protection concerns. Our CTS certification has always been based on the best practices of the industry and the skills and knowledge necessary to produce great work for our customers. We are now taking the next step to guarantee the validity of our certification by getting it accredited according to the ANSI-ISO 17024 standards. We think this is the right approach to consumer protection and we do not agree that states should compromise their licensing authority by choosing certification programs as a substitute for testing to qualify for a license.

The AV communications industry is a separate and distinct industry and while technologies may converge, industries do not necessarily follow the same path.

AV is becoming digital, but that does not mean we are in the IT industry. AV is operating over broadband networks, but that does not mean we are in the telecommunications industry. And the commercial AV industry shares some products with the consumer world, but that does not mean commercial AV is in the consumer electronics industry. We have communicated this as Convergence Confusion recently and caution members of our industry to not confuse the convergence of technology with the convergence of industries.

InfoComm has also been a clear advocate for the AV Communications industry.

Infocomm has not agreed that the Electronic Systems Industry will subsume our industry, and there has been pushback from CEDIA and NSCA citing the US Government designation of the EST SOC code as evidence of federal support for their efforts. They also point to the US Department of Labor's 21st Century Workforce project as further evidence of legitimacy based on Federal sanction.

The truth about SOC codes is that they do not really signify either legitimacy or a Federal sanction. They are obtained through a simple filing, as InfoComm has done for 27-4011.00A Audiovisual Communications Installation Technician; 27-4011.00B Audiovisual Communications Systems Designer; and 27-4011.00C Audiovisual Communications Rental & Staging Technician. A search for Electronic Systems Technicians in the listing of SOC codes and the 21st Century Workforce will yield no listing of the CEDIA and NSCA requested EST SOC codes, or for that matter the InfoComm sponsored SOC codes. Please read the White Paper by Al DeMaria that explains the purpose and role of SOC Codes. In the end you will see that a SOC code does not an industry make and to base your rationale for lobbying state governments on a SOC code is dubious at best.

The EST Certification has failed to get industry support.

What is clear is that the EST certification has not been supported by the industry; in fact, in neither responses to our Executive Update nor in New Hampshire and Nebraska was any defense made of the C-EST. CEDIA and NSCA contend that we overstated their legislative attempts in New Hampshire and Nebraska, but we ask you to review the official bill passed by the New Hampshire House that makes no mention of the EST being voluntary. It also clearly puts NSCA, CEDIA, the New Hampshire Retail Merchants Association and two labor union representatives on the advisory board that decides which certifications are acceptable for licensure. To us, that is exclusionary and mandated. For whatever reason—and we think it was because CEDIA and NSCA learned of the opposition of InfoComm, BICSI and the security industry—a weak attempt at changing their position was given to us as we entered the New Hampshire Senate hearing room.

InfoComm wants to work with CEDIA and NSCA.

There is no doubt that NSCA and CEDIA will allege that we are "spinning," as we would about them. The important outcome is not a victory in the "spin wars," it is that at some point we seriously sit down and discuss a legislative agenda that we can all support. For over two years we have been trying to have such a discussion, but like George Gunning of the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA), we have been told that we need to get with the program because they are going to do it regardless of our views.

InfoComm plans to continue its efforts (see Timeline) to work with CEDIA and NSCA and call on them to truly sit down and talk about a mutual agenda we can all work towards. While this all seems destined for more conflict, there is a reason for optimism, as we received after our Executive Update an invitation from CEDIA to convene with them in Washington, DC to discuss the upcoming 2007 legislative agenda. We trust that this is a sign that they also want to find a common path we can work towards. Our president, Randy Pagnan, is communicating some suggestions for the date of the meeting (to allow NBFAA to attend), an agenda which includes more discussion of common issues we can all agree upon, and suggestions of others who might attend. We do plan to attend the meeting and we hope they can accommodate these suggestions.

For all of our many members outside of the US this dispute over licensure is not an issue that should affect you. We say with some confidence that our colleagues at CEDIA and NSCA agree with us that what we do together outside of the US should not change simply because we have a disagreement in the US.

We hope ESPA is not a sequel to EST

Finally, as to the recently announced ESPA, InfoComm has no more official information than provided in the ESPA release, so it is hard to say much. But, InfoComm, like the other associations, has a desire to develop a qualified workforce and provide training and certification for our members and the industry. InfoComm has not yet heard details on what the ESPA owners (CEDIA, NSCA and CEA) plan to pursue for a certification program, but we look forward to hearing their presentation of market research that merits this new activity and their company business plan to execute it. While we are not pre-judging this activity, we do have some apprehensions because the last paragraph of the ESPA press release positions in our mind the ESPA as a sequel to the EST program. It is also a concern that the apparent intent of ESPA is to again try to seek government sanction for their certification program. While we have our questions, InfoComm will listen to ESPA and we hope that our concerns will be taken into consideration.

The relevant documents are listed so that you can use them to evaluate the discussion prompted by the recent Executive Update.