Telecom Equipment "Certification/Type Approval"

546 Pages·2010·22.32 MB·English

TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final Report
Telecom Equipment
"Certification/Type Approval"
Study
SUBMITTED TO
U.S. Agency for International Development
Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and
Research
SUBMITTED BY
Trade and Investment Development Project
Nathan Associates Inc.
UNDER
Contract No. LAG-0797-C-00-2046-00
Technical Service Order No. 24
August 1995
TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Final Report
Telecom Equipment
"Certification/Type Approval"
Study
SUBMITTED TO
U.S. Agency for International Development

Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and

Research.

Washington, D.C.

SUBMITTED BY
Trade and Investment Development Project
Nathan Associates Inc.
Economic and Management Consultants
Arlington, Virginia
UNDER •
Contract No. LAG-0797-C-00-2046-00
August 1995
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Nathan Associates and American Wireless Communications wish to acknowledge
and thank all those who made this report possible, including Roberto Blois and his
staff, and William Moran at CITEL/OAS, Gary Vaughan at USAID and Robert
Stephens at USTR, for their interest, inputs, and direction. In addition, thanks go to
Clayton Mowry & John Henry at ITA, Helen Shaw. Larry Palmer and Jim Vorhies at
NTIA (US Department of Commerce), for providing the materials in Section II, and
Kevin Louis Mundie of Baker & McKenzie, who graciously authorized the use ofhis
firm's publication "Telecommunications Laws in Latin America". Particular thanks go
to Dan Bart and Susan Hoyler at TIA, Peter Cowhey, Julia Knapp, Charles Cob,
William Van Alvin. Gloria Thomas, Tomas Wasilewski and Emily Murase at the FCC,
for their help with the USG certification/type approval process.
This report is an initial effort by AWC staff, led by Mr. Brendan Gannon, to survey,
organize and collect information on the current certification processes for
telecommunications equipment among the CITEL member states. This report is
intended for use as a discussion/action plan document "to provide CITEL a very useful
tool for its efforts to seek harmonization of telecommunications policies and standards
within the hemisphere, and to promote interoperability and universal access in
telecommunications".
The information for the report was drawn from a variety of sources including
industry, trade reporting, clients, private interviews and other proprietary and non­
proprietary sources. The information reported is deemed to be reliable. However,
Nathan Associates Inc. and AWC disclaim responsibility for decisions which are made
in reliance on this report. The information contained in this report is confidential and
proprietary. This report does not necessarily represent the policy or official position of
the US Government, industry and/or CITEL. Further release, photocopying or use of
the report, or any part of it intended for CITEL use, without express written
permission of Nathan Associates Inc. or American Wireless Communications is not
permitted.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2

3. FINDINGS 4

3.1 Certification, Type Approval, Homologation & Harmonization 4

3.2 U S Deregulation/Competitive Experience and Impact on

"Type Approval" 8

3.3 Multilateral Approaches 11

3.3.1 NAFTA 11

3.3.2 APEC 12

3.3.3 European Certification/Type Approval 14

3.4 Experience Overview 15

3.5 Experience Summary by Country 16

3.6 Trends 37

4. FINDING COMMUNALITY: MATRI.XTEMPLATE

DEVELOPMENT 37

4.1 The Role of"Deregulation" in Telecom 37

4.2 Discussion of Requirements/Approaches 38

5. DEVELOPING A RESOURCE BASE: INFORMATION

FOR COLLECTION 39

5.1 Sources 39

5.2 Collection 39

5.3 Availability 39

6. OPTIONS 40

6.1 Policy Considerations 40

6.2 Action Plan 41

6.3 Interim Steps 41

7. ANNEX 42

7.1 Suggested Models 42

7.1.1 Questionnaire/Template 42

7.1.2 Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) 44

7.2 Documents 49
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The evolution of standards and certification of telecommunication is a phenomena of
the changing nature of telecommunication technology and the marketplace of today's
world. Modem economies trade in information, with such services representing the
majority of the GNP (Gross National Product) of many nations. This economic
transformation has been identified and labeled as the "Information Age/Economy". Today,
many economists say "telecommunications is economic policy". The ability of a country to
successfully implement a modem telecommunications network is an integral component of
that states' ability to develop and compete in the global marketplace. This is particularly
true for developing countries notwithstanding the nature of their economy, whether it is
information, resource or a combination thereof. Efficient allocation of scarce goods and
services can only be allocated, via communications, over a reliable and ubiquitous
telecommunications network(s).
The global experience with deregulation of telecommunications markets, and the
accompanying introduction of new providers/networks, has encouraged great expansion in
the offering of new service(s) to subscribers/users of telecommunications services. The
changing application(s) of voice-only-service, to data uses such as fax, E-mail and other
modem applications, has required interconnection of new terminal equipment or
peripherals to the network(s).
The foregoing developments have presented regulatory challenges in each of the
American markets, as well as in other parts of the world. Not only must regulators address
the issues of licensing of multiple service providers, but they must also address the
questions of technical standards and the cost of interconnection between networks, plus
the entire question of connection ofterminal equipment. Additionally, the technology for
the delivery of services is rapidly changing in the areas of switching/signaling,
transmission, terminal equipment evolution and peripheral equipment interconnection and
use over the network(s). Hybrid technologies such as fiber/coax cross connects are
altering the delivery/provisioning of telephone, data and entertainment services. It should
be highlighted that there are three new wireless subscribers for every new wireline
subscriber in the world today. Many industry experts are projecting that there will be more
wireless subscribers than wireline subscribers by the year 2002. Please see Figure I-1.
These projections raise questions of local loop competition, spectrum inventory, planning
and allocation, and accompanying regulatory challenges, all of which impact on equipment
"Certification/Type Approval" but are beyond the scope of this report.
The question of system standards is also beyond the scope of this report, and it is
recognized that standards adoption questions are being addressed by separate advisory
bodies and working committees. However, the regulatory questions relative to standards
-2­
adoption, such as decisions relating to deployment of in or out-of-band signaling,
signaling system 7 and others, can determine providers' decisions regarding their
acquisition of switching equipment. Likewise the standard for
transmission/interconnection, whether E- l/T-Ior CCITT/ITU-T (Now ITU-T
(International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standards Sector),
standards, microwave, fiber and VSAT, and/or other private network mediums of delivery
and aggregation of traffic, all impact on providers' decisions regarding trunking systems
that interconnect switches/networks. All these foregoing issues impact on capital
investment decisions and, ultimately, on the availability of "digital services" to the end
user/subscriber.
The rationale and processes for approval of system, transmission as well as terminal(s)
and peripheral(s), are the focus of this report. It is recognized that all markets have, or are
evolving from a single historically monopolistic provider, who "de facto" set the standards
for type approval/homologation, to a dynamic/der.-gulated telecom market with multiple
providers/iletworks. This report is in response to these ongoing changes and the
accompanying need to develop processes based on a communality of experience. The
report also responds to the objective of providing telecommunication services to all the
peoples of the Americas.
2. INTRODUCTION
At the Summit of the Americas in Miami. in December, 1994, the 34 governments in
attendance agreed to a Plan of Action which included a telecommunications and
information infrastructure initiative. The Plan of Action (POA), called for the
"examination of ways to promote greater consistency of the certification process for
telecommunication equipment among member countries". (The POAoutline is included as
attachment "A" in the Annex). To assist in realizing this objective, the governments agreed
to develop and carry out a work program under the auspices of the Inter-American
Telecommunication Commission (CITEL). (A copy of a brochure describing CITEL is
included as attachment "B"in the Annex). Among the specific requests of CITEL to its
steering, working, consultative and ad hoc committees, was the development of an
information base of the current certification processes and standards for
telecommunications equipment among CITEL member states.
Telecommunication matters have been of interest to the Organization of American
States (OAS) members for over 100 years. Since its inception in 1963 as an entity of the
OAS, CITEL has operated with severely limited resources, both human and financial. The
Permanent Executive Committee, at its meeting in December 1994, requested that the
three working committees, the PCC (Permanent Consultative Committees), include in
their work programs the evaluation of regulatory, technical and legal means to promote
liberalization, common standards, interoperability of networks and compatible use of the
radio spectrum.
-3-
Specifically, under the CITEL resolution establishing PCC I (included as attachment
"C"in the Annex), the Public Telecommunication Services Committee and its Working
Group on Equipment Certification Process were tasked with working to promote greater
consistency in the certification process for telecommunications equipment, and to
coordinate a meeting by 1996 of senior telecommunications officials from around the
hemisphere to conduct further discussions directed at improving the telecommunication
and information infrastructure. At the PCC I meeting, 20-24 February, 1995, in Honduras,
the members resolved to establish "an ad hoc Working Group on Certification Processes".
The text of their resolution can be summarized as follows:
The newly established ad hoc Working Group will:
(I ) gather information via questionnaire. (A suggested draft questionnaire/template
can be found at the end of the report and is included as attachment "D" in the
Annex)­
(2) prepare documents as set forth in the adopted work plan.

(A summary of the administrative processes is contained in Section 11 of this report,

and sources and collection methods are identified in Section IV. An examination and

proposal for measures towards harmonizing the process are contained in Section V);

(3) prepare a proposed'model response for the Summit of the Americas. (The APEC
Questionnaire with the Canadian response is included as attachment "E"in the
Annex).
The above outlined initiative is consonant with the Clinton Administration's Global
Information Infrastructure Initiative, which asks the countries of the world to apply five
key principles to telecommunications and information policy making. These principles are:
- encouraging private investment,
- promoting competition,
- providing flexibility in regulation,
- ensuring access by information network.; to telecommunications service, and
-ensuring universal service.
Based on the recommendation of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration of the Department of Commerce. and the Department of State's Office of
International Communications and Information Policy, and with the support of the Federal
Communications Commission, the US Government. as represented by USAID's Bureau
for Latin America and the Caribbean. conciuded that, in view of CITEL's very limited
resources and the need to put these surveys into place quickly, USAID would provide
technical assistance under this contract for the initial efforts to collect and organize the
necessary information. The US government thereby provided the resources for this study.
-4­
3. FINDINGS

3.1 Certification, Type Approval, Homologation & Harmonization
In most regulatory regimes there are varying decrees of sanctioning/approving the use
oftelecommunications equipment, as follows:
"Certification" of telecommunications equipment, is the process by which a
telecommunication authority, whether regulator and/or operator, approves, sanctions or
certifies the interconnection of a telecommunication device, whether switching,
transmission, terminal equipment or peripheral, to the telecommunications network.
Certification indicates that a product conforms to specified technical and/or regulatory
requirements.
A "Certifying Authority" is a government agency(ies), or appointed entity, that

exercises the sole right to approve products for sale, and the right to connect to the

telecommunications network in a Party's territory that meets the technical and product

approval requirements under an agreed set of performance standards and/or tests.

"Type Approval" normally indicates that a specific product, or a class or range of
products, conforms with a prescribed te:hnical and or regulatory standard(s).
In the United States "Notification" is a self examining process, where the producer of
equipment or an independent laboratory, notifies the FCC that its product is in
conformance with technical standards/testing. This process is sometimes called "Self
Certification" (Please see discussion in this Section below US Deregulation/Competitive
Experience and Impact on Type Approval).
"Verification" is a process whereby a laboratory or "Notified Party", i.e. a laboratory
with State acceptance/recognition of its testing practices, approves the use/interconnection
of a telecommunications product/equipment.
It should be noted and recognized that in today's evolving and competitive
telecommunications marketplace, where the capabilities, application(s) and functional
utility of a product such as a modem may change with utilization of differing software, the
industry and regulatory use and acceptability of the term "Type Approval", is not only
desirable but is also an essential objective to permit the implementation and availability of
State of the Art telecommunications products and services. Type Approval is used below,
as the term for which states have used and have had the greatest acceptance in exploring
harmonization.
Certification, in some American markets, is also called "Homologation", which also
may be defined as the approval, sanction or ratification of the use and interconnection of a
single telecommunication device or product to the network. It is interesting to note that
Projected Wireline & Wireless Subscribers
700
650.. .. .. . ..
600 - -- _
550
500 n Wirefine
450 •-Paging
40 _l_3 Cellular/PCS
m0SMVR/i'runk
'AA
250
20
115000( -
50 _ _._
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
-6­
the root "Homo" means one, or the same, and has its origin in Common Law for the
"legalization of a defective deed".
In both Type Approval and Homologation the "Certifying Authority" isthe entity(ies)
that authorizes the actual and/or conditions under which there may be interconnection of
telecommunication equipment to the network.
In the telecommunications world today, it is well recognized and accepted that a State's
developmental needs are best served by a Type Approval process that is generally
determined by self certification, by private and/or public laboratories using a regulatory
framework. Type Approval may be product specific but may also indicate a class or range
of products that meet the regulatory standards. Homologation processes, on the other
hand, are most often determined by state laboratory(ies) that require issuance of
certificates or some other official approval such as "Verification" that tests have been
performed, as discussed below, for each telecommunication product.
"Harmonization" is the process whereby states can find commonality between their
respective regulatory equipment testing approaches. testing and certification procedures,
and/or endeavor to bring those regulator)' procedures into conformity. The objective of
Harmonization is to develop a set of uniform harmonized procedures for the orderly and
common certification of telecommunications equipment through the mutual recognition of
test data by one country's certifying authority which is recognized by other countries'
certifying authority for interconnection to the telecommunication network(s).
Conformity or "Conformity Assessment" isa process that is normally determined by
testing or measuring the performance of the product against an agreed or regulated
criteria, such as a range of tolerances, e.g. Decibels or based on interference if the product
emits a radio signal.
"Harmful Interference" is a term that normally connotes that the product is producing
unwanted or endangering energy due to one or a combination of emissions, radiations or
inductions upon the reception/interface to the network or contact with network
users/personnel. Harmful Interference seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly
interrupts services/operations.
In accordance with the Summit of Americas resolution discussed above, CITEL has
been asked to explore the liberalization of telecommunications administration, and to
promote common standards, interoperability of networks and encourage compatible use of
the radio spectrum. Other regional organizations including APEC, as discussed below.
have developed Guidelines for Regional Harmonization of Equipment Certification. These
guidelines ensure that technical standards and procedures for terminal equipment, facilitate
trade and investment flows.
Through the process of Harmonization states are encouraged to adopt the following
procedures: