TELECOM APPROVALS

Update: Japan Telecom Regulatory Approvals

John Lin

Changes to the regulatory environment in Japan require close scrutiny before seeking product approvals.

In recent years, many changes have come about in the regulatory approval environment for the telecommunication market in Japan. This article covers the specific topic of regulatory approval for wired telecommunication products. It also looks at how significant changes have come about to affect the way companies both inside and outside Japan gain their regulatory approvals.

The domestic Japanese telecommunication market has been in the midst of significant transformation over the past several years. There is now a myriad of service companies providing high-speed Internet access across the nation. By the end of 2002, a full one-third of the nation's Internet users were connected to some kind of broadband service, the breakdown of which was: 22.1% asymmetric digital subscriber lines (ADSL), 13% cable, and 2.1% fiber optic. A full one-half of the broadband service users already use, or expect to use, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).1

At the end of June 2003, there were approximately 8.3 million DSL subscribers. This number represents an increase of 3 million users in the past 6 months alone, according to statistics from the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Post and Telecommunications (MPHPT), July 10, 2003. The software- and hardware-based telecommunication service opportunities created in this new broadband market are in sharp contrast to the general state of the Japanese economy.

Japan is an open market for telecommunications terminal equipment (TTE). Although preferences may exist between specific parties, a clear legal framework for TTE approvals provides for equal opportunity for market entrance to all those who apply. In recent years, there have been additional changes in the legal framework to better promote this open market.

Regulatory Structure for Telecom Equipment

The legal framework for the Japanese telecom market is the responsibility of MPHPT, and the law that governs the market is known as the Denki Tsushin Jigyouhou, or as the Japanese shorten it, the Jigyouhou. It roughly translates to telecommunication business law (TBL). All telecommunication services—land line, cellular phone, satellite, cable, etc.—fall under this law. The public service providers are designated as Type-1 telecommunication carriers by this legal framework. Some well-known Type-1 carriers are NTT DoCoMo, various NTT regional phone service companies, KDDI, and Fusion Communications.

Until 1985, Type-1 carriers were given the responsibility of certifying equipment bound for connection on their infrastructure. However, revision of the TBL created a government-sponsored agency for certification. Accordingly in 1985, the Japan Approvals Institute for Telecommunications Equipment (JATE; Tokyo) was appointed the sole body accredited by MPHPT to perform equipment testing and certification. Telecommunication equipment manufacturers consequently became very knowledgeable about JATE procedures, including JATE's internal Blue and Green Book procedures.

The law also defined an accreditation scheme for test laboratories. The test laboratories were charged with the responsibility to test equipment and subsequently to submit test reports to JATE for approval. The industry group of accredited test laboratories in Japan came to be known as the Japan Voluntary Laboratory Association for Telecommunications Equipment (JVLATE). Within testing and certification, three principles of the TBL have always been the central policy for issuing any approval. The principles are as follows:
 
• A terminal may neither damage the network of a Type-1 telecommunication carrier nor impair its functioning.
• A terminal may not cause problems for other users.
• The responsibilities related to the terminal must be clearly demarcated from those related to the Type-1 telecommunication carrier's network.

To promote innovation and to allow for a timely introduction of new services, a flexible approval structure was created. All equipment must always satisfy the three principles. In addition, two distinct testing categories were created: technical conditions (Gijutsu Kijun) and technical requirements (Gijutsuteki Joken). Because the two terms are easily confused, this article refers to technical conditions as technical basics. Note that by definition, the approval scheme applies only to customer premise equipment. Central office (CO) equipment is exempt from this testing and certification framework.

Technical Basics

The technical basics category comprises products that are capable of being tested and approved to the technical basics specifications for testing. Technical basics equipment is standardized for Type-1 carriers in the Japanese market, and, therefore, it must meet the minimum capability and infrastructure of the carriers in Japan. Plain old telephone systems (POTS), modems, fax machines, and ADSL all fall within the technical basics category. Any overseas manufacturer designing and manufacturing to specific technical basics categories—and that tests and receives certification for those categories—will be able to have equipment used throughout the Japanese telecommunication infrastructure of any Type-1 carrier.

Technical Requirements

With market expansion or new service introduction, some Type-1 carriers will likely use technology that may not be widely available. For example, a carrier may install specific type of DSL access module (DSLAM) to provide a region with very high-speed DSL (vDSL). Even though an International Telecommunications Union—Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) standard may exist for vDSL, that standard has not yet been adopted by the Japanese government for inclusion in technical basics specifications. In such cases, the Type-1 carrier becomes responsible for testing and certifying all nontechnical basic specifications. This testing and certification is collectively referred to as technical requirements. All new, leading-edge technologies are therefore technical requirements by default, and the market becomes Type-1-carrier specific.

Standardization Process to Join Technical Basics. Both the Japanese government and industry promote the use of international standards for telecommunication infrastructure. And, when sufficient technological maturity and capability is available in the domestic infrastructure, for, say an ITU-T standard, that standard becomes part of the technical basics. That way, the government promotes a globally compatible domestic market.

The organizational framework promoting this transition from new technology into the technical basics category is the government-sponsored advisory committee known as the Information and Communications Advisory Committee (ICAC) of MPHPT. The committee is made up of no more than 30 representatives from a cross section of Japanese society. Members may come from consumer advocate groups, academia, and manufacturers. Each member serves a two-year term.

Information technology (IT) subgroups exist to advise the main committee on matters involving specific technological issues. Currently there are subgroups for ITU-T, ITU--Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R), and CISPR. At the moment, 12 Mb/sec DSL is being considered for inclusion into the technical basics by ICAC, with the help of the ITU-T subgroup.

Recent Amendment to TBL

The TBL was revised in 2001, and government accreditation of private third-party certification organizations became possible. Since the third quarter of 2002, it has become possible to use alternative certification bodies to JATE. The first peer to JATE coming out of the JVLATE group was TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. (TÜV-R). TÜV-R was appointed in August 2002 with the certification designator ID of JPA. Currently there are three certifiers: JATE in Tokyo, TÜV-R in Yokohama, and DSP Research Co., Ltd. (DSPR) in Osaka.

Because they are still bound by the three principles of the TBL, private telecommunication certification bodies such as TÜV-R and DSPR function identically to JATE. Therefore, all certification bodies will evaluate reports based on existing JATE technical documentation to support the three principles. All certifiers are able to approve products for technical basics. Each certifier must contract with corresponding Type-1 carriers to become qualified to approve a product to a specific technical requirement.

Procedures for Approval

The approval procedures established by JATE in 1985 have served as a model for all Japanese certification bodies. The following sections describe the general procedures and documentation necessary for a Japanese telecommunication market approval. These procedures apply to all certifiers. All documents remain with the certifier and, unlike FCC approvals, documents are not made publicly available.

Application Procedure. The equipment subject to approval may be a mass-produced item, or a unique, specially constructed device. The procedure is roughly the same, and, therefore, the case of a mass-produced item (design approval) is discussed here.

An application expresses the manufacturer's intent to comply with the requirements of the TBL. The document must be submitted in Japanese. This is not as daunting as it seems. Although the application form must always be in Japanese, the fields must be written in Japanese only for domestic companies. The fields can be written using the English alphabet for foreign applicants. In particular, English speakers may write the fields in English, whereas a Russian applicant must write the fields in the English alphabet equivalent. See Figure 1 for a translated version of the first page of the sample application document. Note that each certifier has an officially sanctioned application form. The application forms detail all necessary contact persons for testing and approval.

Figure 1. Translated application form for Technical Basics Compliance Approval in Japan.

Testing. The testing to technical basics may be done at any test laboratory. If a test laboratory is accredited by MPHPT, the test report review process may be abbreviated. However, accreditation is not an absolute requirement for valid test-data submittal. Reputable test house reports are generally accepted, as long as the test report addresses each item in the technical basics. The JATE Green and Blue books are valid technical basics documents for all certifiers, and test reports must comply with these specifications. In the future, JVLATE may publish its own version of test methods for technical basics.

The test suite needed for testing to technical requirements should be determined with the certifier on a case-by-case basis. Currently, technical basics cover the types of terminals as shown in Table I. The test report must satisfy the first two statements of the three principles of the TBL.

Product Specification Sheet. As part of the application, a product specification sheet is required. Each certifier has varying degrees of requirements for the content of such sheets. Applicants are advised to contact their certifier for details on the type of information required on such sheets. Figure 2 shows a sample for an ADSL specification sheet.

Figure 2. A sample ADSL specification sheet.

Technical Schematics. Photographs of the equipment, both internal and external, as well as mechanical drawings, are necessary. A parts list and a layout schematic of the printed circuit board (PCB) are required. A circuit diagram is also required. The parts must be identified on the layout schematic.

System Connection Diagram. This particular diagram identifies the connection points of the terminal to the network, and to other peripheral devices. This document satisfies the third point of the three principles of TBL.

Block Diagram. The block diagram shows the functional divisions of the applicant's device. The blocks must include (at a minimum) the interface, decoder and encoder, receiver and transmitter, filter, connector, power, central processing unit (cpu) functionalities, etc.

Operations Manual. A draft version of the manual is sufficient and should include the information regarding setting up and operating the device to remain in conformance with regulatory requirements. When certain conditions such as software settings are important to keep the device in conformance, the manual must clearly state so.

Quality Approval. Because a device is to be mass-produced, a manufacturer must provide assurance that the tested and certified status of the terminal remains technically unchanged throughout the life of the product. To provide evidence of this, a copy of a valid ISO 9001 certificate from an accredited registrar is necessary. Certain documents are accepted in lieu of a certificate; however, in such cases, the applicant needs to consult the certifier.

Figure 3. The Japanese approval mark for telecommunications terminal equipment.

Label Draft. The approval mark for TTE is shown in Figure 3. The dimensions and the identifying number are strictly controlled in specifications and by the certifier. The product approval identification number is issued once an application has been accepted for processing by the certifier. Draft labels may be created using dummy placeholder numbers, or with the issued number, at the time of document submission for review.

It is important to note that, according to the TBL, all application documents must be submitted by the applicant's official legal representative. For a company, this representative will always be the CEO. However, in most realistic situations, the CEO will not be making the document submittal. Instead, the project engineer or some other contact person within the corporation will be responsible for obtaining the regulatory approval.

Figure 4. A sample power of attorney form, which must be submitted with the application if anyone other than the CEO will be representing the company.

In such cases, it is important that a letter providing power of attorney be submitted in combination with the application documents (see Figure 4). The letter officially transfers the responsibilities regarding the submission from the CEO to another person or organization. Without this transfer, no application will be accepted for processing, if submitted documents are not signed by the CEO.

Conclusion

Up until 2002, manufacturers and consultants were limited in their choice of certifiers for the Japanese telecommunication market. Now, in time for new market opportunities opening up in Japan, more internationally savvy certifiers have come aboard, providing testing and certification services for applicants worldwide. For many TTE manufacturers, the state of the Japanese market and the revision of the TBL could come at no better time than this, helping to compensate for the presently stagnant North American telecommunications market.

Reference

1. Available on the Internet: http://www.nri.co.jp/english/news/2002/021120.html.

John Lin headed the telecom and Bluetooth services for TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. until 2002. He can now be reached in California at TÜV Rheinland of North America Inc., where he handles Japan telecom approvals. Contact Lin via e-mail at jlin@us.tuv.com or by phone at 925-249-9123, ext. 120.