If you have been hearing the term “ASP” lately and wondering what it means (or why you should care), you are not alone. It is a new term – namely, the Auxiliary Service Provider (ASP) – that appears in the 2025 edition of NFPA 72.
The term has to do with the monitoring signal path from the customer site to the central station, which may seem simple and direct, but often it’s not.
Although ASPs are new to the fire code, they aren’t a new technology. ASP technology traces its roots back to the 1980s. For many installers, using an ASP has long been the de facto standard. Depending on configuration and use-case, examples of ASPs include AlarmNet, Napco StarLink, and Telguard.
ASPs perform intermediate data processing, modifying or manipulating alarm signals, and then routing them to the central station. Merely handling alarm signals between the customer site and the central station does not automatically make someone an ASP. For example, when telecommunication providers like Verizon, AT&T, or Telus provide transport only, they are not acting as an ASP.
The Tripping Point: Compliance Enforcement
The new rules for ASPs are found in Chapter 26 of the 2025 edition of NFPA 72; however, there is a complication. These rules point to UL 827, a safety standard for Central-Station Alarm Services, and currently, UL 827 does not define how an ASP should be evaluated.
Important note: I am on the technical committee for UL 827, but I do not speak on behalf of, nor do I represent, UL Standards & Engagement. My thoughts are my own.
With no published criteria to test against, there is no straightforward way for a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) to say: “This ASP complies.”
The California State Fire Marshal (CSFM) has acknowledged this gap in written guidance. IB 26-002 states in part that “26.2.11.3 (2025 Edition) is currently not enforceable because the construction, performance, and listing requirements for an Auxiliary Service Provider have not yet been established.”
Note that the CSFM is not giving ASPs a waiver. On the contrary, other than the requirement to comply with UL 827, all of the new NFPA 72 requirements for ASPs remain in force.
California is one of the first places where companies and AHJs are grappling with the new rules for ASPs, but this is not a California-only issue. Other states and cities will soon follow.
What to Tell an AHJ When it Comes to Using ASPs
The challenge we are all facing is how to ensure the rest of 26.2.11 and 26.6.3.2.1 are being met when there is not yet a path for ASPs to be listed, and it is not realistic for AHJs to verify full compliance independently.
If you are trying to convince an AHJ to permit the use of an ASP, here are some things you can provide that might ease some of their concern:
- A statement of responsibilities – who operates the ASP layer, who monitors it, and how trouble conditions are handled;
- Details about where ASP processing occurs;
- Who is alerted if the ASP has an outage, and how quickly; and
- Whether or not the fire alarm system could ever falsely think delivery succeeded.
Your ASP should be able to help you with this. Do not claim compliance you cannot prove. Stick to verifiable statements and ASP documentation.
Alternate Options
If you find an area where ASP communicators are no longer allowed, you will need to implement an alternate technology. Consider using IP communicators that directly connect to central station receivers or radios, like AES Intellinet. When using IP, remember that NFPA 72 26.6.3.13.1 requires battery backup for communications equipment along the full path until signals leave the building (i.e., switches, routers, etc.).
If you have jobs coming up and may need a non-ASP path, don’t wait until the end of the job to confirm communicator availability and lead times.
The Path Forward
The sudden realization that a common path for alarm monitoring communications is now required to meet a standard that NRTLs are not yet prepared to evaluate might be concerning. I caution against overreacting. While the rules for ASPs are still coming together, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When done right, an ASP can increase monitoring system resilience by adding redundancy, supervision, and managed failover that are difficult to achieve with direct central station routing.
Ever since we moved monitoring to phone lines (starting in the 1970s), the reliability of alarm signal delivery methods has seemed to be on the decline. In this moment of change, we can regress to imperfect legacy modes like phone lines, shift to alternatives, or take advantage of modern software and network architecture to improve the reliability of life safety communications via ASPs.
I vote for the latter.
At the same time, I wholeheartedly support smart rules for ASPs. Fire codes provide a level playing field so that quality is not sacrificed for competitiveness. Fair rules that are enforced well enable quality providers to stay in business.
I’m grateful for the work of our technical committees to raise the bar of professionalism and safety. If this topic is important to you, I invite you to attend my presentation on fire alarm monitoring at AFAA’s Annual Fire Expo – April 14-16, in Indianapolis.
About the Author
Ben Adams
With a career spanning nearly every role in the life safety industry and a NICET Level IV certification, Ben Adams is a sought-after author and speaker. In 2020, he founded Field Sim to accelerate training for companies, shrinking time-to-value for new techs from months to just days. Most of his columns are excerpted from Fire Alarm 101 training content, which can be found at https://training.fieldsim.com.