Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/us-moves-to-bar-huawei-other-chinese-telecoms-from-certifying-wireless-equipment.20140/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

US moves to bar Huawei, other Chinese telecoms from certifying wireless equipment

Daniel Nenni

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
1714604607913.png

FILE PHOTO: The logo of the Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is seen outside its headquarters in Shenzhen, Guangdong province

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Communications Commission is moving to prevent Huawei, ZTE and other foreign companies deemed to pose U.S. national security concerns from certifying wireless equipment, officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

The FCC plans to vote this month on a bipartisan proposal to ensure that telecommunications certification bodies and test labs that certify wireless devices for the U.S. market are not influenced by companies posing security concerns. Last week, the FCC denied the ability of the test lab of Huawei to participate in the equipment authorization program.

This new proposal would permanently prohibit Huawei and other entities on an FCC list of companies posing national security risks "from playing any role in the equipment authorization program while also providing the FCC and its national security partners the necessary tools to safeguard this important process," the agency said.

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement the agency "must ensure that our equipment authorization program and those entrusted with administering it can rise to the challenge posed by persistent and ever-changing security and supply chain threats."Huawei's recognition as an accredited lab was set to expire on Tuesday but the FCC denied the Huawei lab’s request for an extension of its recognition. Huawei did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The FCC in November 2022 banned approvals of new telecommunications equipment from Huawei and ZTE as well as telecom and video surveillance equipment from Hytera Communications Corp (002583.SZ>, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology and Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co.

In 2022, the FCC added Russia's AO Kaspersky Lab, China Telecom (Americas) Corp, China Mobile International USA (0941.HK), Pacific Networks Corp and China Unicom (Americas) to the covered list, which includes companies that pose threats to U.S. national security under a 2019 law aimed at protecting U.S. communications networks.

Huawei and Hikvision were placed on a U.S. export control list in 2019, restricting most U.S. suppliers from shipping goods and technology to them unless they were granted licenses.

In 2020, the FCC designated Huawei and ZTE as national security threats to communications networks - a declaration that barred U.S. companies from tapping an $8.3 billion government fund to purchase equipment from the companies.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said the proposal will "ensure that the test labs and certification bodies that review electronic devices for compliance with FCC requirements are themselves trustworthy actors that the FCC can rely on."

www.yahoo.com

US moves to bar Huawei, other Chinese telecoms from certifying wireless equipment

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Communications Commission is moving to prevent Huawei, ZTE and other foreign companies deemed to pose U.S. national security concerns from certifying wireless equipment, officials told Reuters on Wednesday. The FCC plans to vote this month on a bipartisan...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
Barnsley said:
Hello Godfree is this you again?

You know the FCC is with respect to the USA no?
They can do what they like there.
Click to expand...
I think his question is partly about the implied element of "self-certification" in the current process.

I don't understand how the FCC certification process actually works, but it might be worth someone who does clarifying that.

I'm assuming there must be at least 2 signoff levels needed:

1) OEM does internal checks - if these pass, then proceed to
2) FCC/FCC-certified lab does final checks and signoff

Now, it's not impossible that the FCC may have skipped step 2) (an appalling idea IMHO) for certain "trusted" OEMs who are allowed to mark their own homework ... . Remember, this sort of regulatory capture is how you end up with a Boeing 737Max type fiasco (and hundreds of avoidable deaths).

If there is only step 1), then I think his question is quite reasonable. But I wouldn't trust any company that far.

It might just be that this is all part of a wider trend away from regulatory capture and trusting outsourcing companies (perhaps we might call that the "lazy government model"). And that it's taken China to wake us all up.
 
tooLongInEDA said:
I think his question is partly about the implied element of "self-certification" in the current process.

I don't understand how the FCC certification process actually works, but it might be worth someone who does clarifying that.

I'm assuming there must be at least 2 signoff levels needed:

1) OEM does internal checks - if these pass, then proceed to
2) FCC/FCC-certified lab does final checks and signoff

Now, it's not impossible that the FCC may have skipped step 2) (an appalling idea IMHO) for certain "trusted" OEMs who are allowed to mark their own homework ... . Remember, this sort of regulatory capture is how you end up with a Boeing 737Max type fiasco (and hundreds of avoidable deaths).

If there is only step 1), then I think his question is quite reasonable. But I wouldn't trust any company that far.

It might just be that this is all part of a wider trend away from regulatory capture and trusting outsourcing companies (perhaps we might call that the "lazy government model"). And that it's taken China to wake us all up.
Click to expand...

This surely only impact US though?

I gaurantee Singapore not going to deny Huawei anything.
Their phones and equipment very popular here.
 
Barnsley said:
This surely only impact US though?

I gaurantee Singapore not going to deny Huawei anything.
Their phones and equipment very popular here.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're correct there. Every self-respecting country has its own regulator.

But the US market is huge (and ~100X Singapore's).

On the other hand, some regulators are more respected and valued than others. German DIN standards used to be the gold standard in Europe (as you'll no doubt remember). YMMV.

It's a bit strange how we've moved from having regional standards - remember how we used to have different telecom standards (both wireless and wired) in the US, Japan and Europe. We now have truly global products - an iPhone is pretty much identical wherever you buy it now. But not global standards and certification (not least since we can't yet agree on bodies everyone can trust).

Of course, this policy wouldn't stop you bringing your Singapore approved Huawei phone over to the US next time you visit. The FCC regulation can certainly prevent domestic Huawei sales, but while disabling network access for visitors who happen to have non-approved Huawei phones might be possible, I can't see that happening.
 
Less money to waste on pointless certifications for a market that won't buy their products anyway.
It is just a ban on sales of Huawei and ZTE products by a different name.
It remains to be seen if China won't start doing the same thing as the US and imposing their own standards on imported products.
Last time the Chinese tried this with TD-SCDMA it was a failure. But back then their consumer market was not nearly as large as it is today.
 
"A Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) is a designated organization authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States to issue certifications for certain types of telecommunications equipment."

Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB)

Intertek can help you attain Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and ISED Canada Certification for Telecommunications Equipment as a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB)
www.intertek.com www.intertek.com
 
hist78 said:
"A Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) is a designated organization authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States to issue certifications for certain types of telecommunications equipment."

Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB)

Intertek can help you attain Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and ISED Canada Certification for Telecommunications Equipment as a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB)
www.intertek.com www.intertek.com
Click to expand...
Most interesting.

So you can shop for approval either direct at the FCC or at one of its authorised agents like Intertek who have the authority to issue licences.

At a rough count Intertek has around 60 locations in mainland China.

Given what we know about the independence of Chinese subsidiaries from the ARM experience, how confident are we that all these 60 labs will be reliably and repeatably operating to the same standards as the FCC ?
 
tooLongInEDA said:
Most interesting.

So you can shop for approval either direct at the FCC or at one of its authorised agents like Intertek who have the authority to issue licences.

At a rough count Intertek has around 60 locations in mainland China.

Given what we know about the independence of Chinese subsidiaries from the ARM experience, how confident are we that all these 60 labs will be reliably and repeatably operating to the same standards as the FCC ?
Click to expand...

At this moment in the midst of the "decoupling" process, it attracts little attention from the policy makers. Or they just treat it as the necessary cost and temporary issues.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top