SIA Issues Clarification Request to Washington Examiner to Correct Misleading Statements

Let’s be crystal clear. The Security Industry Association (SIA) strongly supports the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) commitment to exploring alternatives to GPS and the necessity of establishing a reliable backup PNT system. We have pointed out in numerous filings the public record shows there are a wide variety of PNT alternative technologies that, unlike NextNav’s scheme, do not involve reorganizing spectrum and disrupting essential public safety technologies in the United States.

Disappointingly, NextNav’s distorted talking points likely provided to the Washington Examiner grossly ignores these past statements, instead falsely accusing our association’s opposition to one singular harmful proposal before the FCC as being driven by Chinese influence and falsely characterizing our advocacy to protect the Lower 900 MHz Band as opposition to establishing a backup to GPS.  

The report the article cites from the clumsily researched Bull Moose Project is inaccurate. The two Chinese companies cited are not current members of SIA, and the document provides an intentionally misleading view of our membership of over 1,600 companies, none of which are Chinese owned.  

Siterwell Electronics Co., Limited joined SIA in 2018 and was resigned in 2019, and Think-Force joined in 2019 and was resigned in 2021. Neither of these companies had any SIA committee involvement or influenced any SIA position, and neither has been associated with the organization for years. Simply stated: neither of these nonmembers has any involvement in advocacy regarding the Lower 900 MHz Band.

Additionally, the Security Industry Standards Council (SISC) is a balanced consensus body that votes on proposed standards that are being considered for American National Standards Institute approval. Membership on the SISC is open to all directly and materially interested persons. Siterwell is not listed on any previous rosters as a voting member from 2019 to present, and any claims to the contrary are unverified.

Again, we support establishing an GPS alternative, but it should be accomplished though one of the many other methods available, versus providing a spectrum windfall to a single company and rendering critical public safety systems unusable.