Emergency Communications Facilities in Japan

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TOKYO 002645 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR IRM/BPC/CST/EA KGODWIN E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECPS ACOA AMGT ANET JA SUBJECT: Emergency Communications Facilities in Japan REF: STATE 92121 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) officials report that under the country's system for priority emergency communications, such services are provided by commercial telecommunications carriers under terms specified by Japanese law. Foreign missions do not fall into one of the categories set out in the MIC ordinance implementing the law, but Ministry officials state MIC is willing to discuss the possibility of a negotiated arrangement with the U.S. This report is in response to the request contained in ref for information on host country emergency communications systems and their potential availability for Mission use in an emergency, and result from recent emboff meetings with GOJ and Nippon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) officials. End summary. -------------- Japan's Emergency Communications System -------------- ¶2. (U) Japan's emergency communications facilities are provided for under the Telecommunications Business Law, article 8. The law was revised following the 1995 Kansai earthquake and it directs commercial telecommunications carriers, and specifically NTT, to assure vital communications during an emergency by assigning preference to identified numbers from designated functions or users. This prioritization then allows carriers to suspend connecting non-vital communications as set out in the MIC Ordinance Implementation Rules of the Telecommunications Business Law. ¶3. (SBU) Calls will be given preferential handling if they come with a priority signal or from a designated terminal or cell phone associated with a designated organization, and come during an emergency. MIC officials noted a general similarity to the U.S. Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) program, even though the Japanese system does not differentiate criticality levels. ¶4. (SBU) The MIC Ordinance designates 16 functional classes of organization and 6 classes of communication to be given priority communications access. Priority Functional Classes: -- Meteorological; -- Flood prevention; -- Fire service; -- Disaster relief; -- Maintenance of public order; -- Defense; -- Coast guard; -- Transportation assurance; -- Telecommunication services; -- Electric power supply; -- Water supply; -- Gas supply; -- Election administration; -- News media; -- Financial institutions; -- National and/or local government responsible for essential coordination or communications. Priority Communications Classes: -- Urgent threats to human safety or health, such as fire, epidemic disease, or serious traffic accidents; -- To maintain public order; -- Concerning the execution or results of national or local elections; -- Coordination and reporting in the event of natural disasters or catastrophic incidents; -- Warnings and reporting on meteorological, hydrologic, and terrestrial phenomena; -- Assurance and continuity of critical infrastructures and business services. -------------- U.S. Mission Access and Future Discussion TOKYO 00002645 002 OF 002 -------------- ¶5. (SBU) According to MIC officials, diplomatic missions are not now eligible for access to the emergency communications system. They acknowledged potential situations in which preferential service might be warranted and desirable, and as an example recalled the difficulty Japanese consular officials had faced following the recent earthquake in western China. Inclusion of foreign missions would require revision of the ordinance, in the view of MIC officials, and there are no plans to review the law. ¶6. (SBU) Subsequent to meeting with MIC, Post inquired with NTT about the status of a standing arrangement Post has had with the carrier. Upon examination, NTT officials reported the new law stipulates explicitly those entities eligible for preferred access and does not allow NTT latitude to support Post as previously arranged. Therefore, corroborating MIC points, NTT advised access to preferred emergency communications would require negotiation of an intergovernmental arrangement. ¶7. (SBU) MIC expressed appreciation for background provided on U.S. emergency communications programs and will consider these programs further. They agreed there may be scope to discuss negotiated access. Should both governments wish to explore this option, perhaps in a bilateral arrangement, the GOJ would also likely consider factors such as reciprocity. They also noted, U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) has access to emergency communications services, but said this arrangement pertains specifically to USFJ and not to the U.S. Mission, and it is specified separately from the Telecommunications Business Law. ¶8. (SBU) The MIC officials also responded to supplemental questions, should Mission become eligible for priority access in the future. The GOJ program does not require any special equipment and, as service is provided by commercial telecommunications providers, access costs should be worked out directly with carriers. ¶9. (SBU) Relevant to the discussion of critical communications facilities, econoff advised MIC officials of two upcoming events. Plans are under discussion for the fourth U.S.-Japan Cyber security Bilateral Meeting, and the fifth U.S.-Japan Critical Infrastructure Forum, both tentatively planned for November in Washington, DC. SCHIEFFER