Jump to content


New wireless network may interfere with GPS signals!


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Rock City

Rock City

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Location:Detroit Michigan
  • Interests:Sailing and Racing and Sailing

Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:27 PM

Earlier this year the FCC licensed the radio spectrum right next the the GPS frequency, to be used for wireless high speed satellite internet.
Unfortunately, recent reports have shown that it can interfere with or completely block GPS signals...

Here's a few links to articles that explain what's going on:
Report recommends against LightSquared MSS terrestrial planned deployment
GPS worry prompts call for more LightSquared tests
LightSquared Report Due Amid Criticism


Now is the time to take action and stop this before we're all in the dark!

Click here for the BoatUS page that will let you email Congress and the FCC


-

#2 RUMLIME

RUMLIME

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Location:near there

Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:36 PM

Earlier this year the FCC licensed the radio spectrum right next the the GPS frequency, to be used for wireless high speed satellite internet.
Unfortunately, recent reports have shown that it can interfere with or completely block GPS signals...

Here's a few links to articles that explain what's going on:
Report recommends against LightSquared MSS terrestrial planned deployment
GPS worry prompts call for more LightSquared tests
LightSquared Report Due Amid Criticism


Now is the time to take action and stop this before we're all in the dark!

Click here for the BoatUS page that will let you email Congress and the FCC


-

Lightsquared, as covered at DealBreaker.com

#3 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:44 PM

Whatever you do - do NOT sail within 300 yards of a LightSquared xmitter tower.

Doesn't BoatUS have better things to whine about?

#4 Kai

Kai

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Racing bicycles

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:00 PM

Whatever you do - do NOT sail within 300 yards of a LightSquared xmitter tower.

Doesn't BoatUS have better things to whine about?



The largest figure I saw was 1000 feet. That's kind of a long way. If there was one on the edge of a harbor that I wasn't familiar with, I'd be a little upset that I didn't have GPS all of a sudden.

#5 jarcher

jarcher

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Location:Rhode Island

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:42 PM

Hey this is a matter of priorities! We all know how much more important radio-based high speed Internet access is as compared to GPS.

#6 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:43 PM


Whatever you do - do NOT sail within 300 yards of a LightSquared xmitter tower.

Doesn't BoatUS have better things to whine about?



The largest figure I saw was 1000 feet. That's kind of a long way. If there was one on the edge of a harbor that I wasn't familiar with, I'd be a little upset that I didn't have GPS all of a sudden.


Most harbor's have these funny looking colored things with numbers sticking out of the water, and there are available for purchase some kind of flat mappy type sheets that show the colored things in relation to the sides of the harbor.

Bonus question: how many feet are there in 300 yards?

#7 Holding Tank

Holding Tank

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 14 July 2011 - 08:54 PM



Whatever you do - do NOT sail within 300 yards of a LightSquared xmitter tower.

Doesn't BoatUS have better things to whine about?



The largest figure I saw was 1000 feet. That's kind of a long way. If there was one on the edge of a harbor that I wasn't familiar with, I'd be a little upset that I didn't have GPS all of a sudden.


Most harbor's have these funny looking colored things with numbers sticking out of the water, and there are available for purchase some kind of flat mappy type sheets that show the colored things in relation to the sides of the harbor.

Bonus question: how many feet are there in 300 yards?



+1

#8 Kai

Kai

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Racing bicycles

Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:24 PM



Whatever you do - do NOT sail within 300 yards of a LightSquared xmitter tower.

Doesn't BoatUS have better things to whine about?



The largest figure I saw was 1000 feet. That's kind of a long way. If there was one on the edge of a harbor that I wasn't familiar with, I'd be a little upset that I didn't have GPS all of a sudden.


Most harbor's have these funny looking colored things with numbers sticking out of the water, and there are available for purchase some kind of flat mappy type sheets that show the colored things in relation to the sides of the harbor.

Bonus question: how many feet are there in 300 yards?


Fair enough. I thought you said feet, not yards, so yeah, basically same thing.

As for navigating by channel markers, that's fine if you know what you're doing, but how many people don't have a clue and rely on GPS? I'm not saying you should rely on GPS, in fact I'm learning to do celestial navigation right now because I think relying on electronics is stupid, but the fact remains that a lot of people relay on GPS, and when they suddenly don't have it, it's a problem.

It's even more a problem on land for cars and such since many people don't carry paper maps of cities anymore, but since we're on a sailing forum I left those arguments out.

#9 casc27

casc27

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts

Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:27 PM

Not to worry, the aviation community is lobbying very hard to get lightsquared disapproved. And it looks like they may succeed.

#10 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 30 January 2012 - 04:25 PM

BUMP!

I'm bumping this because LightSquared is making progress with the FCC and the tests that have been run since July of 2011 have shown the effect of what LightSquared is doing on GPS to be MUCH worse than originally forecast.

LightSquared, unlike every other person applying for a variance from the FCC, was allowed to do its OWN testing to determine the interference caused to GPS by their service. Even doing the testing themselves, they had to report that significant problems can occur. They reported recently to Congress that it was the fault of the GPS receive manufacturers and that if the receivers had "proper filters" they wouldn't be listening to the LightSquared frequencies. They also suggested that a filter (typical cost of apx $150) could solve the problem. Good luck with that attachment to your Cell Phone or handheld GPS! This sort of self-serving BS demonstrates either a completely lack of understanding of RF splattering (which I genuinely doubt) or an intentional attempt to shift the blame for their problem to the GPS manufacturers.

This isn't just a problem for folks sailing around. Your cell phone emergency 911 service (which is why GPS is required in cell phones) won't work, auto GPS, airplane, and every other thing that has come to depend upon GPS will not work correctly within multiple miles of a tower, not just the 1000' that LightSquared's self-test reported to the FCC. For precisely this reason, all the bandwidth near the GPS frequencies has been restricted to low power satellite transmissions - until now.

How is it that a big donor (Falcone, a hedge fund guy who made massive donations to the Obama campaign and is the largest share holder of LightSquared LLC) gets this sort of special treatment without it hitting the press HARD in an election year??? It's about time it did!

There is a House Congressional investigation going on - give your Congressman a call and see what he really thinks about the FCC fast tracking this and changing the rules this way.

There's a lot more information here: http://www.saveourgps.org/ Have a look and sign up to help out. You can also get some good background here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/LightSquared

BV (I have no personal or economic link to any GPS manufacturer, I'm just a GPS user about to get kick in the stomach.)

#11 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:05 PM

Let's be very clear here; Lightsquared has a legitimate right to their spectrum, it's the GPS system that is incompatible due to cheap receiver front ends that makes them susceptible to the interference.

Just setting the record straight for any who care.

#12 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,676 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:09 PM

Let's be very clear here; Lightsquared has a legitimate right to their spectrum, it's the GPS system that is incompatible due to cheap receiver front ends that makes them susceptible to the interference.

Just setting the record straight for any who care.


I am still in the early stages of researching the background here, but, IMO, you ought to post some supporting facts and sources before making a statement such as the one above.

#13 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,403 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:14 PM

It's the danger to the aviation industry that will get this thing shot down IMHO (no pun intended).

#14 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:20 PM

Will do when I get some time later today or tomorrow, but to slog through all of it is massively boring and the amount of BS increases geometrically every day. Bottom line is that it's not really anyone's fault, just a set of unforeseen circumstances that have created the current conflict.

But for starters, here is an objective analysis: http://www.questinygroup.com/qgi-blog

#15 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:42 PM

Let's be very clear here; Lightsquared has a legitimate right to their spectrum, it's the GPS system that is incompatible due to cheap receiver front ends that makes them susceptible to the interference.

Just setting the record straight for any who care.


Oh yes.

Sorry your airplane crashed, it was just your "cheap GPS receiver front end" which was interfered by overpowering satellite transmissions so more people can download videos onto their phone while they drive.

Even the military's "cheap GPS receiver front ends" are subject to this interference.

Funny how "setting the record straight" doesn't include ACTUAL FCC TESTS, and attempts to use political bribery to bypass regulation.
<_<

FB- Doug

#16 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:43 PM

It's not the satellite transmissions that will intefere, it's the ancillary terrestrial component (broadcast towers) that will. Try getting some facts on your side before you rant.

#17 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:43 PM

If Lightsquared is going to be relying on ASMO at Ft Meade to analyze their spectrum use ...... I sure as hell wouldn't buy any stock in that company.

#18 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:01 PM

It's not the satellite transmissions that will intefere, it's the ancillary terrestrial component (broadcast towers) that will. Try getting some facts on your side before you rant.


Ah yes, that pesky ancillary terrestrial component. Gets 'em every time

And 3 sentences isn't a rant, unless you're too busy sucking corporate dick to count that high

FB- Doug

#19 blackjenner

blackjenner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,624 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:MrsBlack, Brigadoon, freedom

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:07 PM

Let's be very clear here; Lightsquared has a legitimate right to their spectrum, it's the GPS system that is incompatible due to cheap receiver front ends that makes them susceptible to the interference.

Just setting the record straight for any who care.


And until that problem is addressed, it's might be a smart thing to not approve the spectrum use.

Ya think?

Oh, and it isn't *their* spectrum. It's *ours*. We are licensing the use to them.

#20 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:22 PM

T-Rock,

You're right, it's the broadcast towers on land the cause the problem.

The difficulty is that the bandwidth allocated originally assumed and was designed so that only low-power satellite transmissions would be anywhere in the spectrum near the GPS frequencies. What LightSquared is doing is asking for a FCC special waiver that will allow it to broadcast extremely high-power transmissions in an adjacent frequency. This is not what the frequency was allocated to when the GPS system was first designed. As a result, none of the GPS systems will be able to tolerate the splatter from adjacent transmissions at high power.

Had the designers of the system believed that the FCC would change the mission of adjacent frequency bands, they would have certainly put enough distance between GPS and everything else to protect it. However, rather than waste the bandwidth, by putting in artificial distance, they did something eminently rational and simply allocated the adjacent frequencies to services that were so low power that they didn't splatter into the GPS frequencies. This, obviously, assumed that the FCC could not be influenced to effectively "re-zone" the frequencies for an entirely different mission.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the GPS receivers that have been built. They are designed to the specifications for the spectrum they utilize including any noise and splatter that was expected to come from adjacent missions. Exactly the way the FCC specified it. Now, with a tremendous amount of pressure from the Administration, the FCC is doing two specific things that are quite irregular. First, they allowed LightSquared to test its own gear for interference. That is simply not done, due to the obvious conflict of interest. DOD tests, along with many others, have yielded different results from what LightSquared has reported. However, even LightSquared's own reports show significant interference with serious errors occurring up to two miles from one of their broadcast towers. Second, the FCC attempted to fast-track this entire thing and jam it through circumventing the normal test and approval process. This resulted in VERY strong negative reactions from DOD and FAA as well as more recently numerous other organizations.

For the various sides of this, one need only have a look at: http://www.saveourgps.org/ for the argument against LightSquared and LightSquared's own web site at: http://www.lightsqua...ent-of-defense/

You can also find a rather interesting blog - In direct contrast to the one you've posted above at: http://www.pnt.gov/i...e/lightsquared/

The most interesting quote I found was:

Federal agencies have conducted extensive technical studies to understand the interference effects and seek potential mitigations. Their initial analysis is complete and was provided to the FCC through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The results clearly demonstrate that implementing LightSquared's planned deployment for terrestrial operations poses a significant potential for harmful interference to GPS services.


Simply put, the "guard band" that LightSquared is claiming is adequate is ridiculous unless one also examines the realities of what mission the adjacent spectrum was designed for. Regardless of what LightSquared digs out of old DOD documents (Which, BTW, weren't ever intended for commercial devices but only for DOD approved devices, to the best of my knowledge.) the actual guard band includes not just the frequency spread but the mission as well.

Look, this is directly analogous to someone buying up land right next to a hospital and then getting their friends in government to re-zone it for outdoor rock concerts. Then, when the hospital complains they suggest putting expensive sound proofing in the existing building because there wasn't adequate "filtering" of noise. There are lots of places were public usage of a resource, be it land or spectrum, includes various aspects of appropriate use. Outdoor rock concerts probably shouldn't get a zoning variance next to a hospital and high-power radio services shouldn't get a zoning variance next to a gigantic and extremely valuable public resource like GPS.

BV

#21 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:40 PM

T-Rock,

You're right, it's the broadcast towers on land the cause the problem.

The difficulty is that the bandwidth allocated originally assumed and was designed so that only low-power satellite transmissions would be anywhere in the spectrum near the GPS frequencies. What LightSquared is doing is asking for a FCC special waiver that will allow it to broadcast extremely high-power transmissions in an adjacent frequency. This is not what the frequency was allocated to when the GPS system was first designed. As a result, none of the GPS systems will be able to tolerate the splatter from adjacent transmissions at high power.

Had the designers of the system believed that the FCC would change the mission of adjacent frequency bands, they would have certainly put enough distance between GPS and everything else to protect it. However, rather than waste the bandwidth, by putting in artificial distance, they did something eminently rational and simply allocated the adjacent frequencies to services that were so low power that they didn't splatter into the GPS frequencies. This, obviously, assumed that the FCC could not be influenced to effectively "re-zone" the frequencies for an entirely different mission.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the GPS receivers that have been built. They are designed to the specifications for the spectrum they utilize including any noise and splatter that was expected to come from adjacent missions. Exactly the way the FCC specified it. Now, with a tremendous amount of pressure from the Administration, the FCC is doing two specific things that are quite irregular. First, they allowed LightSquared to test its own gear for interference. That is simply not done, due to the obvious conflict of interest. DOD tests, along with many others, have yielded different results from what LightSquared has reported. However, even LightSquared's own reports show significant interference with serious errors occurring up to two miles from one of their broadcast towers. Second, the FCC attempted to fast-track this entire thing and jam it through circumventing the normal test and approval process. This resulted in VERY strong negative reactions from DOD and FAA as well as more recently numerous other organizations.

For the various sides of this, one need only have a look at: http://www.saveourgps.org/ for the argument against LightSquared and LightSquared's own web site at: http://www.lightsqua...ent-of-defense/

You can also find a rather interesting blog - In direct contrast to the one you've posted above at: http://www.pnt.gov/i...e/lightsquared/

The most interesting quote I found was:

Federal agencies have conducted extensive technical studies to understand the interference effects and seek potential mitigations. Their initial analysis is complete and was provided to the FCC through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The results clearly demonstrate that implementing LightSquared's planned deployment for terrestrial operations poses a significant potential for harmful interference to GPS services.


Simply put, the "guard band" that LightSquared is claiming is adequate is ridiculous unless one also examines the realities of what mission the adjacent spectrum was designed for. Regardless of what LightSquared digs out of old DOD documents (Which, BTW, weren't ever intended for commercial devices but only for DOD approved devices, to the best of my knowledge.) the actual guard band includes not just the frequency spread but the mission as well.

Look, this is directly analogous to someone buying up land right next to a hospital and then getting their friends in government to re-zone it for outdoor rock concerts. Then, when the hospital complains they suggest putting expensive sound proofing in the existing building because there wasn't adequate "filtering" of noise. There are lots of places were public usage of a resource, be it land or spectrum, includes various aspects of appropriate use. Outdoor rock concerts probably shouldn't get a zoning variance next to a hospital and high-power radio services shouldn't get a zoning variance next to a gigantic and extremely valuable public resource like GPS.

BV

Actually, a bit more complicated than that even. Some GPS receivers have very wide receiver bandwidths that completely ignore the adjacency to increase their resolution with supplemental data. So it's not just simply about sufficient guard band.

I'm not posting to advocate for either side, simply saying that it's a serious policy issue that isn't as one-sided as some would have us believe.

#22 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:45 PM

...

I'm not posting to advocate for either side
...


Of course. We all understand that you are totally disinterested and impartial...



DSK

#23 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:50 PM


Let's be very clear here; Lightsquared has a legitimate right to their spectrum, it's the GPS system that is incompatible due to cheap receiver front ends that makes them susceptible to the interference.

Just setting the record straight for any who care.


And until that problem is addressed, it's might be a smart thing to not approve the spectrum use.

Ya think?

Oh, and it isn't *their* spectrum. It's *ours*. We are licensing the use to them.

Clearly, and I'm not advocating otherwise. However, we all want efficient spectrum use and for all users to comply with their allocations, yes?

GPS is a military system with no civilian control or authority to ensure its service or performance. This issue reveals a significant weakness in our previous spectrum management and planning for such an important utility. This is one of the many reasons Europe is building the Galileo system.

#24 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:13 PM

T-Rock,

I think the real issue here is in what you're calling "comply with their allocations". You, as a technical person, clearly know that has to include all the unintended and frequently unwished for side-effects of a new use for spectrum. There's a LOT of evidence that LightSquared's proposal has a number of pretty bad consequences, which has resulted in LightSquared filing modification after modification to their plan. The problem is that even their Exec VP Jeff Carlisle has said things like this in front of the US Congress:

"This is not a zero-sum game," Carlisle said, adding that only 500,000 to 750,000 high-end GPS services would be affected by LightSquared's low-frequency alternative (which, the company claims, will cost an additional $100 million to implement). Any interference issues, he continued, stem from pre-existing receiver problems that the GPS industry should've addressed by now.


Source: http://www.engadget....osed-4g-networ/

First, I have a lot of difficulty with anyone killing off half to three quarters of a million of the very best GPS receivers. Secondly, originally, LightSquared didn't even admit that there was an issue and was forced into it by DOD testimony. Finally, the "pre-existing receiver problems" that Carlisle refers to will make GPS receiver chips more expensive. Indeed, even LightSquared has estimated that it will be $150 to $300 more expensive to build a GPS receiver that can avoid these "problems". That's simply not an acceptable alteration of a public resource like GPS for the sole benefit of allowing a private company like LightSquared to pick off some bandwidth cheap.

Look, it seem pretty clear that Falcone, the biggest shareholder of LightSquared, figured that he had a clever way to get ahold of a lot of bandwidth inexpensively. All he had to do was re-purpose it. That would have been fine with everyone if there hadn't been side effects. But a lot of very smart folks have now come forward saying that there are real side effects that LightSquared never mentioned when it got the initial waiver from the FCC - that's simply not acceptable. This is precisely the reason that the FCC has a review process, and why it is such an embarrassment to them that they didn't use that process in this instance. My opinion is that LightSquared knew full well that there were problems as was hoping that their odd route to approval wouldn't let them surface before they got FCC final approval, although I have no evidence of that at this time.

BV

#25 T-Rock

T-Rock

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:31 PM

T-Rock,

I think the real issue here is in what you're calling "comply with their allocations". You, as a technical person, clearly know that has to include all the unintended and frequently unwished for side-effects of a new use for spectrum. There's a LOT of evidence that LightSquared's proposal has a number of pretty bad consequences, which has resulted in LightSquared filing modification after modification to their plan. The problem is that even their Exec VP Jeff Carlisle has said things like this in front of the US Congress:

"This is not a zero-sum game," Carlisle said, adding that only 500,000 to 750,000 high-end GPS services would be affected by LightSquared's low-frequency alternative (which, the company claims, will cost an additional $100 million to implement). Any interference issues, he continued, stem from pre-existing receiver problems that the GPS industry should've addressed by now.


Source: http://www.engadget....osed-4g-networ/

First, I have a lot of difficulty with anyone killing off half to three quarters of a million of the very best GPS receivers. Secondly, originally, LightSquared didn't even admit that there was an issue and was forced into it by DOD testimony. Finally, the "pre-existing receiver problems" that Carlisle refers to will make GPS receiver chips more expensive. Indeed, even LightSquared has estimated that it will be $150 to $300 more expensive to build a GPS receiver that can avoid these "problems". That's simply not an acceptable alteration of a public resource like GPS for the sole benefit of allowing a private company like LightSquared to pick off some bandwidth cheap.

Look, it seem pretty clear that Falcone, the biggest shareholder of LightSquared, figured that he had a clever way to get ahold of a lot of bandwidth inexpensively. All he had to do was re-purpose it. That would have been fine with everyone if there hadn't been side effects. But a lot of very smart folks have now come forward saying that there are real side effects that LightSquared never mentioned when it got the initial waiver from the FCC - that's simply not acceptable. This is precisely the reason that the FCC has a review process, and why it is such an embarrassment to them that they didn't use that process in this instance. My opinion is that LightSquared knew full well that there were problems as was hoping that their odd route to approval wouldn't let them surface before they got FCC final approval, although I have no evidence of that at this time.

BV

BV - pretty fair summation. I agree that LS has tried a spectrum grab on the cheap and their claim to be a wholesaler of spectrum circumventing the 'ancillary' aspect of the terrestrial component is disingenuous at best. However, despite the wonderful utility of GPS the signals stake out spectrum that was not allocated to the service, nor is there priority in the band for it.

Yes, in a way the FCC dropped the ball, but I don't really blame them for this. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the years; in any event it's costing us money now and will cost money to fix, and we are all going to pay for it one way or another whether it's FCC activities, regulation, court costs, higher cost GPS receivers or mobile services, we'll pay eventually.

#26 phantomsailor

phantomsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Location:Carson City, NV. Boat in SF Bay
  • Interests:Sailing (of course)
    Sailing electronics, batts, comms, intrumentation
    Ham Radio
    Women
    Drinking
    Drinking with women

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:33 PM

Some history regarding Lightsquared's repurposing of the spectrum near the GPS allocation - copied from here in the comments section. Long read but the clearest explanation I've read:

http://www.theverge....tries-to-launch

"In the early 2000s, after it was clear that Iridium and Globalstar were both going nowhere (Iridium envetually filed for Chapter 11, and only became profitable after 9 years of not launching new satellites), the FCC asked “okay – who wants to use the Mobile Satellite Service band right next to GPS and Galileo?” No one raised their hands. Because the Mobile Satellite Service band was meant for low-powered Space to ground services like Inmarsat (who was already there) and Iridium and Globalstar, it means that someone would need to build yet another satellite service there.

Then the FCC asked “okay – who wants it for free?” SkyTerra said “Sure. We’ll take it.” They got it for free.

So the first fact that Voltrose and LightSquared lie about is that they have paid for this bandwidth – they didn’t. They got it for free.

The second thing they lie about is that the FCC said “Go ahead, LightSquared and build a high-powered ground-based wireless network with this.”

When Skyterra and other companies along the way came up with business models – and then didn’t execute on them – eventually, in 2010, LightSquared, owned by Harbinger Capital, a hedge fund run by Philip Falcone, a major contributor to Senator Obama’s campaign, concocted a plan with very little technical planning.

In 2003, they asked the FCC if they could put up Ancillary Terrestrial Components (ATCs) to the satellite system that SkyTerra was running in order to spread out the satellite service (a reasonable request). Because they were ANCILLARY – it meant that they would only put up a few of them, and the FCC concurred by noting in their 2003 ruling that they would, in no way, allow them to build a ground-based telecom network because it would interfere with GPS (and Galileo).

And that is how things remained until Early 2010, when LightSquared bought out their predecessor/owner of this Mobile Satellite Service Band. That this would be a primary satellite service band, with ANCILLARY terrestrial components to allow them to spread out the satellite spot beams.

It wouldn’t be until Thanksgiving week 2010, that they asked for a waiver to turn the ANCILLARY TERRESTRIAL COMPONENTs into the primary system – a 4G LTE system – while still calling them “ANCILLARY” even though it was not obvious that this was the primary thing that they wanted to do.

What this fundamentally did was change the 40 year MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE band into a terrestrial 4G, high-powered band.

If you read nothing else – read this *

When GPS (and GLONASS and Galileo) were being invented, they specifically chose the Global Navigation Satellite Service (GNSS) band next to the MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE band because the lower powered signals of the MSS band would be compatible with the GNSS band, even though they would be 10 to 20 dB hotter than GNSS signals.

The reason for this is basic – Navigation signals from space are not communications signals. Using BPSK signals for GNSS means that you’re not only listening to the 1’s and 0’s of the signal, but you are listening to the very carrier phase frequency – the up and down of the signal encoding – to pick out the timing of the 1’s and 0’s. To do this, you must listen to as much of the signal and its sidelobes as possible. The more of the sidelobes you get, the more accurate you get. *If you filter out the signals immediately to the left and right of the main signal, then you have no hope of getting accuracy better than 10 or 20 meters. That’s why they put the signals next to the Mobile Satellite Service band where Inmarsat and others are… because you can still pick up the sidelobes, get the accuracy and the multipath rejection to further increase accuracy… and those other services can also work together in peace. Like we did for 30 years.

LightSquared lied – or was completely incompetent – when they told the FCC in their Thanksgiving Week 2010 Waiver Request that there would be little to no interference with GPS (LightSquared has subsequently said that they don’t give a shit if they interfere with Galileo in a letter to the FCC – which they will worse than GPS). The GPS experts in the field looked at the levels of power that LightSquared was given permission to broadcast at are on the order of BILLIONS of times more powerful, rather than hundreds of times more powerful that Inmarsat is.

LightSquared asked for and got a rezoning of the Mobile Satellite Service band next to GPS and Galileo, overturning 40 years of history, because they got smooth sailing from a presidential appointee in the FCC chairman after providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in support to the same president."

Link to Trimble Navigation's letter to the House Armed Services Committee: http://www.saveourgp...onse_-_HASC.pdf

Seems to me that Lightsquared has plainly taken the ancillary terrestrial componets and turned it into a hi-powered 4G LTE PRIMARY system.

#27 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:37 PM

All,

Here's a very recent and darned good summary of how we got here and some of the recent news. This has been an ugly battle for a long long time.

http://www.dailytech.com/Bribes+and+LTE+the+Bizarre+Case+of+LightSquared+Obama+and+the+USAF/article23820.htm

The emails between Falcone and the Whitehouse at the end of this are certain to have some folks genuinely pissed off!

And it gets better.... now a US Senator is claiming that LightSquare tried to bribe him if he would "pull his punches". Read about it here:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/lightsquared-attempted-to-bribe-senator-grassley-with-a-call-center/question-2416447/

Enjoy,

Beau

#28 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:29 AM

BUGGER THIS! Get rid of the GPS surely, otherwise no more uploading pictures of girlfriend's tits whilst beating off...on a beat.

Seriously though...it adds weight to when they tell you to 'Switch off all electrical devices' on the plane. It's not the high quality FCC/CE approved devices we worry about. It's the non-tested cheap brands we don't know about....that's why aviation has that rule. Switch 'em off!

As for the details of the LightSquared technology and the conspiricy theories, I'm not really interested. GPS is here to stay whether or not in its current form. It must provide RNP 0.3 for aviation to be internationally compliant. That's more than good enough for sailors. Let the aviators take on the fight. Their case is a bit stronger.

FAA's Impact report predicts:

During the assumed 10-year replanning and aircraft retrofit schedule, the proposed LightSquared deployment would result in the loss of:
• At least $2 billion in baselined GPS aviation efficiency benefits,
• $6 billion for unplanned aircraft retrofit costs,
• $59 billion in NextGen benefits
• 31 million additional tons of CO2 emissions, and
•794 lives lost with a public safety impact of $5 billion
http://www.dispatche...viation-impacts
http://www.govexec.c...s/072711bb1.pdf

Slightly more alarming than a couple of yachties bumping into the breakwater, beacuse they have't learned how to read their charts.

#29 Foreverslow

Foreverslow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, racing sailboats,and working on sailboats.

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:55 AM

good news

us aviation said this cannot happen today.
http://news.business...1J7UQHLH4R6QUEM

most are saying stick a fork in it.

major hedge fund behind this is taking it in the shorts and may break it's billionaire manager.

http://www.zerohedge...st-secured-loan

don't you just love a story with a happy ending

#30 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 09 February 2012 - 06:44 AM

Forever,

It just gets better and better doesn't it. Amazing what folks are willing to "invest" in isn't it??

BV

#31 floating dutchman

floating dutchman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,892 posts
  • Location:nelson: new zealand

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:50 AM

O.K. stupid question time:

Isn't the GPS system a system that the US military own and out of the graces of their heart allow us to use for free?

If so how the fuck can a stupid phone company mess with a system like the US military owned navigation system?

#32 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,253 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 09 February 2012 - 01:52 PM

O.K. stupid question time:

Isn't the GPS system a system that the US military own and out of the graces of their heart allow us to use for free?

If so how the fuck can a stupid phone company mess with a system like the US military owned navigation system?


Because the FCC manages frequency allocation and use, and like most government agencies it is run by political hacks. Otherwise, this would be a non issue.

#33 Innocent Bystander

Innocent Bystander

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,785 posts
  • Location:Lower Southern MD

Posted 09 February 2012 - 02:32 PM

O.K. stupid question time:

Isn't the GPS system a system that the US military own and out of the graces of their heart allow us to use for free?

If so how the fuck can a stupid phone company mess with a system like the US military owned navigation system?


Yes and no. It was developed by the military with an unencrypted lower accuracy (Selective Availability) mode to deny non military users target quality accuracy. Answer to that for Civilian use was Differential GPS and WAAS. As GPS use became routine and teh non military applications started to outweigh the military uses, the USG (Clinton Administration) decided to turn off SA and GPS has become what it is today, a common positioning tool that is now embedded in the infrastructure.

Could the DoD shut it down? Sure. Given it's use now and future expanded use in national (and international) airspace, turning it off would be a huge issue so I'm guessing it's not likely.

#34 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:42 PM


O.K. stupid question time:

Isn't the GPS system a system that the US military own and out of the graces of their heart allow us to use for free?

If so how the fuck can a stupid phone company mess with a system like the US military owned navigation system?


Yes and no. It was developed by the military with an unencrypted lower accuracy (Selective Availability) mode to deny non military users target quality accuracy. Answer to that for Civilian use was Differential GPS and WAAS. As GPS use became routine and teh non military applications started to outweigh the military uses, the USG (Clinton Administration) decided to turn off SA and GPS has become what it is today, a common positioning tool that is now embedded in the infrastructure.

Could the DoD shut it down? Sure. Given it's use now and future expanded use in national (and international) airspace, turning it off would be a huge issue so I'm guessing it's not likely.


Actually it was developed by the Navy, which is military but not "the US military." When it started looking promising, everybody else jumped on it.

Selective Availability was turned off during the 1st Gulf War (which wasn't the first by a long shot, but that's not the point). GPS was turning out to be massively useful for almost everything and rather few military outfits had a GPS unit because the system was still so new. So the Dept of Defense bought out entire production runs of civilian units, cleaned the shelves of every West marine (happy!), and to get better accuracy with these "drafted" civilian GPS units, they turned off Selective Availability "temporarily."

Turned out that there are so many benefits in better navigation that SA never got turned back on. Go figure.

If it turns out that LightSquared is not in fact going to be allowed to bribe it's way into blotting out GPS, then that will be the 2nd smart decision the gov't has made with regard to the GPS system. Good!

FB- Doug

#35 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

During the 1st Gulf War a lot of us were sending our current and newly purchased hand-held GPSs to friends and family in the military. It was a small investment in saving your friend or relative's tail and got thousands of GPSs deployed almost overnight via US Mail to a service person. I distinctly remember sitting around for four months to get my replacement and having to navigate the old way, with a compass and running sights. It was well worth it.

BV

#36 StumbleNola

StumbleNola

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:Um... Sailing

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:35 PM

When I was serving, I actually took my handheld with me everywhere. At the time, I actually got better fixes than the military units, which was pretty surprising since mine was a third the size, and a quarter the weight.

In reality, we will never turn off Gps. It is too embedded in our lives to allow the military to screw with any more, from civilian aircraft, train safety, scientific monitoring, road navigation, heck even the post office uses it heavily. The cost in lives and dollars to even turning down the accuracy couldn't be justified absent a major all out war, something on the scale of WWI. and even then I am not sure. Plus there are now competing systems, the Europeans are building out, and the Russians are putting up satellites as well. Heck even the iPhone 4s uses a combination of the GPS system, and the Russian system for locations.

As I read what's going on the company actually does have an argument, that the frequency they were sold cant be used, because of bleed over from GPS transmitters. Which is true. But to make the gps signal stop the band width bleed over would add a couple hundred dollars to new units, and effectively destroy the accuracy of the existing ones. An option I don't consider acceptable. The real problem came when they tried to change their low power transmission frequencies to high power, and the bleed over kills the gps signal due to interference.


Dog Watch,

This has nothing to do with airline safety concerns for having a device on in the plane. GPS devices receive signals, they don't broadcast anything. Since receiving can't interfere with airplane electronics it is a non-issue.

#37 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:55 AM

Dog Watch,

This has nothing to do with airline safety concerns for having a device on in the plane. GPS devices receive signals, they don't broadcast anything. Since receiving can't interfere with airplane electronics it is a non-issue.


Thanks.

Actually, my comment, meant more generally...

Seriously though...it adds weight to when they tell you to 'Switch off all electrical devices' on the plane. It's not the high quality FCC/CE approved devices we worry about. It's the non-tested cheap brands we don't know about....that's why aviation has that rule. Switch 'em off!

...was more a reflection of the dangers of un-monitored technologies from countries and manufacturers with differing standards to the ones upon which we build so much trust at home! If there is this debate going on with new communications technologies at home, it is highly probable that the debate is NOT going on elsewhere. Elsewhere, they probably have the technology, but maybe not the urgency to stop it.

Nothing to stop a passenger with a Chinese 'lightsquared [equivalent'] ' enabled phone breaking the rules as so many do, and by sending his last 'Lightspeed equivalent SMS' before takeoff, right at the time the pilot initialises the Nav computer.

Since there are alternatives to the US GPS system, it reduces another country's dependence on that system. When Lightsquared equivalent appears in that country, they might embrace it allocating that range to communication, without a care for the US GPS system conflict.

To me, Lightsquared...a well documented and monitored technology, covered under a set stringent set of regulations (FCC) in a country who has become dependent on the GPS frequencies, and therefore carefully guards those channels is not my fear. They'll resolve that one way or another.

It's the un-documented, un-tested technologies coming from countries regulated to differing standards (or just un-regulated) which we should be worried about. It's not what we know about, but what we don't know about which is the problem.

I admit my comment was a side-bar to the actual discussion, but I think the whole LightSquared issue (embroiled in conspiracy and politics) has been taken out of proportion, and people are missing the point. Instead of shutting down one technology, the question should be asked whether we have become so dependent on US GPS and therefore vulnerable. All our eggs are in one basket.

Instead, maybe effort should be focused towards strengthening the current GPS setup, or reducing the dependency, so that future technologies (or crappy foreign electronics) cannot pose such a threat.

Thread hijack over! Back to topic...sorry.

DW

Two interesting studies on reliance and vulnerability of the GPS system.

http://www.fas.org/s...at/gpstrans.pdf

http://www.raeng.org...tems_Report.pdf

#38 Foreverslow

Foreverslow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, racing sailboats,and working on sailboats.

Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:10 AM

During the 1st Gulf War a lot of us were sending our current and newly purchased hand-held GPSs to friends and family in the military. It was a small investment in saving your friend or relative's tail and got thousands of GPSs deployed almost overnight via US Mail to a service person. I distinctly remember sitting around for four months to get my replacement and having to navigate the old way, with a compass and running sights. It was well worth it.

BV

bit of a hijack

when GW 1 started the tech company I work for got a call patched in from the Army.
an hour into the attack the nav system on an Abrams tank crapped the bed and the troops were in no man's land in the dark.
Instead of 1 tech there were 8 along with experts on the chips.
Link diagnostic computer to the Army who linked it to the tank in the desert.
Found a flaw in the Unix o/s, patched it remotely from Colorado.
The techs hear Looks good, thanks guys
Could not get the prideful grin off the techs faces for days.

Everyone is used to doing this today.
Back then, this was the balls...

#39 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:42 AM

bit of a hijack


Continued hijack...

It is slightly ironic isn't it, how once upon a time computer geeks were the lowest of all society...banished to basements to be brought out only when the printer ribbon run out or when the 286 crapped itself - their best offer being, "Have you tried turning it off and on again", otherwise left to get on with their nerdy hobbies such as programming 'hello world' onto their home made computer and playing Dungeon's and Dragons against another nerd via a dial up modem.

Now 20 years later, those same geeks are the backbones to large business, more privy to the sensitive information than the top dogs at the companies they serve, bringers of technology and communications we never imagined possible, protectors of our people and countries in times of peace and conflict, and now millionaires with more money and power than some governments.

I sometimes wish I'd taken 'Computers' as my after school activity, instead of sports!

Go figure!

#40 mustang__1

mustang__1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,320 posts
  • Location:Philly, by way of Sarasota and Newport...

Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:05 PM


Dog Watch,

This has nothing to do with airline safety concerns for having a device on in the plane. GPS devices receive signals, they don't broadcast anything. Since receiving can't interfere with airplane electronics it is a non-issue.


Thanks.

Actually, my comment, meant more generally...

Seriously though...it adds weight to when they tell you to 'Switch off all electrical devices' on the plane. It's not the high quality FCC/CE approved devices we worry about. It's the non-tested cheap brands we don't know about....that's why aviation has that rule. Switch 'em off!

...was more a reflection of the dangers of un-monitored technologies from countries and manufacturers with differing standards to the ones upon which we build so much trust at home! If there is this debate going on with new communications technologies at home, it is highly probable that the debate is NOT going on elsewhere. Elsewhere, they probably have the technology, but maybe not the urgency to stop it.

Nothing to stop a passenger with a Chinese 'lightsquared [equivalent'] ' enabled phone breaking the rules as so many do, and by sending his last 'Lightspeed equivalent SMS' before takeoff, right at the time the pilot initialises the Nav computer.

Since there are alternatives to the US GPS system, it reduces another country's dependence on that system. When Lightsquared equivalent appears in that country, they might embrace it allocating that range to communication, without a care for the US GPS system conflict.

To me, Lightsquared...a well documented and monitored technology, covered under a set stringent set of regulations (FCC) in a country who has become dependent on the GPS frequencies, and therefore carefully guards those channels is not my fear. They'll resolve that one way or another.

It's the un-documented, un-tested technologies coming from countries regulated to differing standards (or just un-regulated) which we should be worried about. It's not what we know about, but what we don't know about which is the problem.

I admit my comment was a side-bar to the actual discussion, but I think the whole LightSquared issue (embroiled in conspiracy and politics) has been taken out of proportion, and people are missing the point. Instead of shutting down one technology, the question should be asked whether we have become so dependent on US GPS and therefore vulnerable. All our eggs are in one basket.

Instead, maybe effort should be focused towards strengthening the current GPS setup, or reducing the dependency, so that future technologies (or crappy foreign electronics) cannot pose such a threat.

Thread hijack over! Back to topic...sorry.

DW

Two interesting studies on reliance and vulnerability of the GPS system.

http://www.fas.org/s...at/gpstrans.pdf

http://www.raeng.org...tems_Report.pdf


its not like an airliner/airplane is going to fall out of the sky. About 86% of airliners are equipped with GPS (a lot higher than i expected), but GPS is not crucial to flight. It just makes things a lot easier. Now, im not saying that this Lighspeed thing is anything but complete and utter bullshit, saying that the entire world should change so they can put in some antennas is assinine, but a temporary disturbance is not the end of the world. A temporary disturbance when doing a precision approach on GPS (not even sure if airliners are doing that as its a relatively new thing) could be an issue, but then the HSI would get flagged and the pilot would abort the landing. In general, i use my phone all the time in GA to pull up weather info etc and never noticed a twitch in anything.

#41 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,111 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:16 PM



bit of a hijack


Continued hijack...

It is slightly ironic isn't it, how once upon a time computer geeks were the lowest of all society...banished to basements to be brought out only when the printer ribbon run out or when the 286 crapped itself - their best offer being, "Have you tried turning it off and on again", otherwise left to get on with their nerdy hobbies such as programming 'hello world' onto their home made computer and playing Dungeon's and Dragons against another nerd via a dial up modem.

Now 20 years later, those same geeks are the backbones to large business, more privy to the sensitive information than the top dogs at the companies they serve, bringers of technology and communications we never imagined possible, protectors of our people and countries in times of peace and conflict, and now millionaires with more money and power than some governments.

I sometimes wish I'd taken 'Computers' as my after school activity, instead of sports!

Go figure!


Hmm

Every generation thinks it invented sex, too

There were geeks who were the backbone of large businesses running the data services, especially for banks, going all the way back to guys pushing carts full of vacuum tubes and hotwiring ring magnets to expand memory banks.

At least Isaac Newton gave proper credit when he said "If I can see far, it's because I am standing on the shoulders of all who came before." Now you think Steve Jobs and Woz were passing ths bong in 1972 and suddenly say "Dude let there be computers."

sigh

DSK

#42 Innocent Bystander

Innocent Bystander

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,785 posts
  • Location:Lower Southern MD

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:50 PM



Dog Watch,

This has nothing to do with airline safety concerns for having a device on in the plane. GPS devices receive signals, they don't broadcast anything. Since receiving can't interfere with airplane electronics it is a non-issue.


Thanks.

Actually, my comment, meant more generally...

Seriously though...it adds weight to when they tell you to 'Switch off all electrical devices' on the plane. It's not the high quality FCC/CE approved devices we worry about. It's the non-tested cheap brands we don't know about....that's why aviation has that rule. Switch 'em off!

...was more a reflection of the dangers of un-monitored technologies from countries and manufacturers with differing standards to the ones upon which we build so much trust at home! If there is this debate going on with new communications technologies at home, it is highly probable that the debate is NOT going on elsewhere. Elsewhere, they probably have the technology, but maybe not the urgency to stop it.

Nothing to stop a passenger with a Chinese 'lightsquared [equivalent'] ' enabled phone breaking the rules as so many do, and by sending his last 'Lightspeed equivalent SMS' before takeoff, right at the time the pilot initialises the Nav computer.

Since there are alternatives to the US GPS system, it reduces another country's dependence on that system. When Lightsquared equivalent appears in that country, they might embrace it allocating that range to communication, without a care for the US GPS system conflict.

To me, Lightsquared...a well documented and monitored technology, covered under a set stringent set of regulations (FCC) in a country who has become dependent on the GPS frequencies, and therefore carefully guards those channels is not my fear. They'll resolve that one way or another.

It's the un-documented, un-tested technologies coming from countries regulated to differing standards (or just un-regulated) which we should be worried about. It's not what we know about, but what we don't know about which is the problem.

I admit my comment was a side-bar to the actual discussion, but I think the whole LightSquared issue (embroiled in conspiracy and politics) has been taken out of proportion, and people are missing the point. Instead of shutting down one technology, the question should be asked whether we have become so dependent on US GPS and therefore vulnerable. All our eggs are in one basket.

Instead, maybe effort should be focused towards strengthening the current GPS setup, or reducing the dependency, so that future technologies (or crappy foreign electronics) cannot pose such a threat.

Thread hijack over! Back to topic...sorry.

DW

Two interesting studies on reliance and vulnerability of the GPS system.

http://www.fas.org/s...at/gpstrans.pdf

http://www.raeng.org...tems_Report.pdf


its not like an airliner/airplane is going to fall out of the sky. About 86% of airliners are equipped with GPS (a lot higher than i expected), but GPS is not crucial to flight. It just makes things a lot easier. Now, im not saying that this Lighspeed thing is anything but complete and utter bullshit, saying that the entire world should change so they can put in some antennas is assinine, but a temporary disturbance is not the end of the world. A temporary disturbance when doing a precision approach on GPS (not even sure if airliners are doing that as its a relatively new thing) could be an issue, but then the HSI would get flagged and the pilot would abort the landing. In general, i use my phone all the time in GA to pull up weather info etc and never noticed a twitch in anything.


NextGen for national air space will change all that. GPS is the enabling technology for increased position accuracy and traffic management to enable reduced separation so more airplanes can fly in crowded airspace. I predict you will not be able to enter controlled airspace without GPS integrated transponders within 10 years. Europe instituted enhanced air traffic management several years ago. The better you, ATC, and other traffic know where you are, the tighter they can pack them.

Expect fewer "pure" vfr airspace as well. Like trying to fly around DC, NY, Dallas or Chicago, you won't be able to go there unless you are talking and squacking. Plain old 1200 and go will be much more limited than today.

I share DW's "all eggs in one basket" concern. Shutting off GPS today would be a major hassle for more than Nav. Shutting it off 10 years from now will be a national emergency.

#43 mustang__1

mustang__1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,320 posts
  • Location:Philly, by way of Sarasota and Newport...

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:49 AM




Dog Watch,

This has nothing to do with airline safety concerns for having a device on in the plane. GPS devices receive signals, they don't broadcast anything. Since receiving can't interfere with airplane electronics it is a non-issue.


Thanks.

Actually, my comment, meant more generally...

Seriously though...it adds weight to when they tell you to 'Switch off all electrical devices' on the plane. It's not the high quality FCC/CE approved devices we worry about. It's the non-tested cheap brands we don't know about....that's why aviation has that rule. Switch 'em off!

...was more a reflection of the dangers of un-monitored technologies from countries and manufacturers with differing standards to the ones upon which we build so much trust at home! If there is this debate going on with new communications technologies at home, it is highly probable that the debate is NOT going on elsewhere. Elsewhere, they probably have the technology, but maybe not the urgency to stop it.

Nothing to stop a passenger with a Chinese 'lightsquared [equivalent'] ' enabled phone breaking the rules as so many do, and by sending his last 'Lightspeed equivalent SMS' before takeoff, right at the time the pilot initialises the Nav computer.

Since there are alternatives to the US GPS system, it reduces another country's dependence on that system. When Lightsquared equivalent appears in that country, they might embrace it allocating that range to communication, without a care for the US GPS system conflict.

To me, Lightsquared...a well documented and monitored technology, covered under a set stringent set of regulations (FCC) in a country who has become dependent on the GPS frequencies, and therefore carefully guards those channels is not my fear. They'll resolve that one way or another.

It's the un-documented, un-tested technologies coming from countries regulated to differing standards (or just un-regulated) which we should be worried about. It's not what we know about, but what we don't know about which is the problem.

I admit my comment was a side-bar to the actual discussion, but I think the whole LightSquared issue (embroiled in conspiracy and politics) has been taken out of proportion, and people are missing the point. Instead of shutting down one technology, the question should be asked whether we have become so dependent on US GPS and therefore vulnerable. All our eggs are in one basket.

Instead, maybe effort should be focused towards strengthening the current GPS setup, or reducing the dependency, so that future technologies (or crappy foreign electronics) cannot pose such a threat.

Thread hijack over! Back to topic...sorry.

DW

Two interesting studies on reliance and vulnerability of the GPS system.

http://www.fas.org/s...at/gpstrans.pdf

http://www.raeng.org...tems_Report.pdf


its not like an airliner/airplane is going to fall out of the sky. About 86% of airliners are equipped with GPS (a lot higher than i expected), but GPS is not crucial to flight. It just makes things a lot easier. Now, im not saying that this Lighspeed thing is anything but complete and utter bullshit, saying that the entire world should change so they can put in some antennas is assinine, but a temporary disturbance is not the end of the world. A temporary disturbance when doing a precision approach on GPS (not even sure if airliners are doing that as its a relatively new thing) could be an issue, but then the HSI would get flagged and the pilot would abort the landing. In general, i use my phone all the time in GA to pull up weather info etc and never noticed a twitch in anything.


NextGen for national air space will change all that. GPS is the enabling technology for increased position accuracy and traffic management to enable reduced separation so more airplanes can fly in crowded airspace. I predict you will not be able to enter controlled airspace without GPS integrated transponders within 10 years. Europe instituted enhanced air traffic management several years ago. The better you, ATC, and other traffic know where you are, the tighter they can pack them.

Expect fewer "pure" vfr airspace as well. Like trying to fly around DC, NY, Dallas or Chicago, you won't be able to go there unless you are talking and squacking. Plain old 1200 and go will be much more limited than today.

I share DW's "all eggs in one basket" concern. Shutting off GPS today would be a major hassle for more than Nav. Shutting it off 10 years from now will be a national emergency.


yep. After the edit timed out i realized i had forgotten about ADS-B and all of that. it will be great to have true TCAS or whatever the hell they call it now, in the cockpit as well. talking to control really doesnt bother me all that much. But agreed, our dependency on it i definitely growing - but its not impossible to fly without it. One thing i hadnt thought of in my last post, though, is that many airplanes today dont have DME, which will make some approaches impossible to do. Of course if you have two nav systems you can triangulate unless its a DME only approach. if im talking out my ass sorry, im not IFR rated yet, just have a working knowledge of it and most procedures.

#44 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:26 AM

...snip...

As I read what's going on the company actually does have an argument, that the frequency they were sold cant be used, because of bleed over from GPS transmitters. Which is true. But to make the gps signal stop the band width bleed over would add a couple hundred dollars to new units, and effectively destroy the accuracy of the existing ones. An option I don't consider acceptable. The real problem came when they tried to change their low power transmission frequencies to high power, and the bleed over kills the gps signal due to interference.
...snip...


Stumble,

Actually, if you read through all the various histories of this, LightSquared didn't actually "buy" or "pay for" or "were sold" these frequencies. It turns out that no one wanted them under the terms that controlled what you could do with them. They picked them up for free. Then, they figured that they could change the "terms" and, if they succeed, the frequencies would be worth at least 10 to 12 billion dollars. The fist fight is over LightSquared's attempt to change the terms after they'd picked up the frequencies for free. (seriously, they didn't pay a dime for any of this)

Since they started making progress and believed that they'd get away with re-purposing the frequencies, they spend about $3 billion on various things. This included a large block spent to lobby Congress and the FCC. They seem to have failed in their attempt to get a "re-zoning" of the frequencies and have probably lost all $3 billion they spent. But, at no time did anyone ever "sell" them these frequencies for this purpose, nor did they pay anything. It makes very interesting reading. Get your Google going, get a bucket of pop-corn, and have a read.

BV

#45 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:17 AM

Looks like the FCC is going to revoke conditional approval of LightSquared's license.

What a fuck-up. A chunk of relatively prime spectrum which is going to lie fallow, a shitload of money pissed away, Sprint and others who were counting on reselling LightSquared capacity are screwed, wireless consumers have to put up with high prices and caps. All because the FCC never regulated out-of-band immunity. Not precisely the GPS vendors' fault: they did exactly what they were required to do, no more and no less. It was really about the "regulation bad" meme, "let the market sort it out, if there's a problem the manufacturer will fix it". Well, the market didn't sort it out, it's not remotely practical to put high-Q filters in the front ends of already fielded GPS units, the GPS makers had to run back and hide behind the FCC, NTIA and DoD, and the FCC had no practical choice but to revoke.

#46 Transmitterdan

Transmitterdan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Interests:Scuba, Coral Reefs, Shortwave radio

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:38 AM

Looks like the FCC is going to revoke conditional approval of LightSquared's license.
:
:
it's not remotely practical to put high-Q filters in the front ends of already fielded GPS units, the GPS makers had to run back and hide behind the FCC, NTIA and DoD, and the FCC had no practical choice but to revoke.


This may be LightSquared's view of the situation but it isn't based on reality. High Q filters in GPS receivers will render a lot of them impotent. The GPS units will work fine if the users of this adjacent spectrum remain space based. It was LightSquared (or its predecessor in interest) that realized they could make a bunch of money if only they could get approval for terrestrial transmitters especially in urban areas. Thus causing maximum interference to the largest percentage of the population.

This whole fiasco has a long and drawn out history that can't be summed up here. One place to look for a precedent is what happened with Sirius and XM Radio. They started out the same way. Purely a space based system. Then economic reality caught up with real world engineering. You can't make the consumer happy if the $11/month radio blanks out while your Prius is parked under a tree, or between two tall buildings or any of thousands of other daily occurrences. Heaven knows how many focus groups it took to figure that out. So these companies complained to the FCC that their spectrum was not as useful as they thought and could they just please have some gap filler transmitters in a few locations. About a thousand ground based transmitters later they had two systems that actually work but cost 8 times the original estimate. The companies still could not make money but the precedent was set. All you have to do is come up with a space based communication system then complain to the FCC and your congress critters that it's not going to make the public happy and presto the feds would grant you a ground based solution to your problem. Heck if you were lucky they might not make you fly any birds at all since you don't need them once the ground based system is working. So LightSquared saw what happened with XM and Sirius then did an incredibly dumb thing by building a lot of ground stations with only provisional approval.

But LightSquared ran into a buzz saw unlike anything Sirius or XM experienced. The military, shipping and aviation industry actually use GPS for real world stuff. So does a huge percentage of the general population. Allowing ground based transmitters was going to cause GPS to become a spotty service unlike the ubiquitous nirvana it is now.

Don't feel sorry for LightSquared. They knew the risks when they started this gambit. At least they should have known. Any undergraduate engineer with a basic understanding of communication theory could have told them about the GPS problem. Probably someone did but the money guys wouldn't listen. Instead they spent their money on lobbyists and other non-technical stuff. Its kinda hard to feel sorry for them really. LightSquared and its supporters just need to HTFU.

If you are right and LightSquared is denied their ground based system then someone will write a book about this and make more money than LightSquared. The long title could be "How to burn a few billion dollars without really trying".

Dan

#47 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:57 PM

Looks like the FCC is going to revoke conditional approval of LightSquared's license.

What a fuck-up. A chunk of relatively prime spectrum which is going to lie fallow, a shitload of money pissed away, Sprint and others who were counting on reselling LightSquared capacity are screwed, wireless consumers have to put up with high prices and caps. All because the FCC never regulated out-of-band immunity. Not precisely the GPS vendors' fault: they did exactly what they were required to do, no more and no less. It was really about the "regulation bad" meme, "let the market sort it out, if there's a problem the manufacturer will fix it". Well, the market didn't sort it out, it's not remotely practical to put high-Q filters in the front ends of already fielded GPS units, the GPS makers had to run back and hide behind the FCC, NTIA and DoD, and the FCC had no practical choice but to revoke.


Good call. It has come to pass. Reported today by the NY Times:

F.C.C. Bars the Use of Airwaves for a Broadband Plan


#48 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:21 PM

But LightSquared ran into a buzz saw unlike anything Sirius or XM experienced. The military, shipping and aviation industry actually use GPS for real world stuff. So does a huge percentage of the general population. Allowing ground based transmitters was going to cause GPS to become a spotty service unlike the ubiquitous nirvana it is now.

Don't feel sorry for LightSquared. They knew the risks when they started this gambit. At least they should have known. Any undergraduate engineer with a basic understanding of communication theory could have told them about the GPS problem. Probably someone did but the money guys wouldn't listen. Instead they spent their money on lobbyists and other non-technical stuff. Its kinda hard to feel sorry for them really. LightSquared and its supporters just need to HTFU.

If you are right and LightSquared is denied their ground based system then someone will write a book about this and make more money than LightSquared. The long title could be "How to burn a few billion dollars without really trying".

Dan

I don't feel sorry for LightSquared or Falcone or Ahuja. As you say, they took a huge bet and lost.

No love lost for the GPS guys, either. First of all, the problem was not consumer GPS units like we have in our cars and boats; it is precision units used in agriculture, surveying, construction, mining, avionic and defense applications. That said, I'm hard pressed to understand why they built any receivers that suffer overload from an out-of-band interferor more than 23 MHz out at <-70 dBm, knowing for the past 8 years that proceedings were in the pipeline to license ATC. Understanding that the in-band signal is up to 60 dB below that, but still...

And the FCC really, really screwed the pooch. They did not write out-of-band immunity into the rules for the GPS band, nor did they explicitly state that the lower L-band would forever be reserved for low power services specifically to protect GPS receivers. In fact, they contemplated ATC for over a decade now. So we wind up with an Israeli-Palestinian scenario: two parties with valid claims to the same piece of real estate, and doomed to eternal conflict because they can't divide the baby.

And who is really screwed is the public. Effectively, unless the FCC finds some way to un-fuck what they fucked, a whole 59 MHz of L-band spectrum is going to be fallow except as guard band. At the same time that mobile services are crying for a few MHz here and there. To say nothing of capping volume for lack of bandwidth, raising prices, and desperate merger attempts.

#49 Transmitterdan

Transmitterdan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Interests:Scuba, Coral Reefs, Shortwave radio

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:59 AM

No love lost for the GPS guys, either. First of all, the problem was not consumer GPS units like we have in our cars and boats; it is precision units used in agriculture, surveying, construction, mining, avionic and defense applications. That said, I'm hard pressed to understand why they built any receivers that suffer overload from an out-of-band interferor more than 23 MHz out at <-70 dBm, knowing for the past 8 years that proceedings were in the pipeline to license ATC. Understanding that the in-band signal is up to 60 dB below that, but still...

The GPS manufacturers are probably the only innocent group in this fiasco. It is not a simple overload problem. GPS receivers have to have a minimum group delay bandwidth in order to estimate position to a certain accuracy. If you want to measure position to 1 foot you need something like 100MHz of bandwidth. Also, the GPS satellites are transmitting a signal with significant Doppler shift which also increases the required receiver bandwidth so they can hunt down the changing frequency. The NTIA got it right when they said:

"Based on NTIA's independent evaluation of the testing and analysis performed over the last several months, we conclude that LightSquared's proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time,"

Going even further, in my personal opinion there is no practical way to design a GPS receiver that would avoid the interference from LightSquared's proposed addition of terrestrial transmitters.

And the FCC really, really screwed the pooch.

I agree with you but not for the reason stated. The FCC knew about this interference issue when they granted LightSquared a temporary authorization that may have enticed LightSquared to proceed with building out several terrestrial transmitter sites at a large expense. That's why the authorization was conditional in the first place.

In what at first blush might seem like a bizarre move this week, LightSquared has asked the FCC to make a declaratory ruling that would in effect confirm that many if not all GPS receivers infringe on LightSquared's spectrum. They surely know the FCC will deny this request. LightSquared will probably end up taking the laws of physics to court pretty soon. My best guess is that LightSquared is trying to figure out how they can sue somebody (anybody) for their lost investment capital and future profits. They may go after the GPS manufacturers or the FCC or the NTIA. I fear that they will go after the GPS manufacturers in civil court once the FCC denies their request for declaratory ruling. It will take years to sort out the aftermath and all of us will pay higher prices for GPS units to pay all the attorney fees. All of it could have been avoided if the FCC had not granted a provisional or temporary authority to LightSquared on their request to add terrestrial transmitters.

And who is really screwed is the public. Effectively, unless the FCC finds some way to un-xxxx what they xxxxed, a whole 59 MHz of L-band spectrum is going to be fallow except as guard band. At the same time that mobile services are crying for a few MHz here and there. To say nothing of capping volume for lack of bandwidth, raising prices, and desperate merger attempts.

I can't agree with this. That spectrum is fine for uplink and downlink usage and LightSquared has a license to use it for that purpose. Indeed, it is in use today as many super high accuracy GPS receivers already listen into LightSquared's spectrum for special signals from geostationary birds to improve position estimation accuracy. An ironic twist is that LightSquared is one of the companies compensated for this use of their spectrum by those receivers. Obviously they don't get near the amount of money they would get from a terrestrial L-band system which is apparently why they are willing to give up that revenue stream for a much larger one.

There are other spectrum slots that can be used for broadband service. And new technologies will continue to increase the capacity of the spectrum now in use. But the demand will probably keep outstripping supply for a long time and maybe forever. The demand for bandwidth will increase at a greater rate than the supply no matter what we do.

Best regards,

#50 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:21 AM

The GPS manufacturers are probably the only innocent group in this fiasco. It is not a simple overload problem. GPS receivers have to have a minimum group delay bandwidth in order to estimate position to a certain accuracy. If you want to measure position to 1 foot you need something like 100MHz of bandwidth. Also, the GPS satellites are transmitting a signal with significant Doppler shift which also increases the required receiver bandwidth so they can hunt down the changing frequency. The NTIA got it right when they said:

"Based on NTIA's independent evaluation of the testing and analysis performed over the last several months, we conclude that LightSquared's proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time,"

Going even further, in my personal opinion there is no practical way to design a GPS receiver that would avoid the interference from LightSquared's proposed addition of terrestrial transmitters.

Come on. Nothing in Part 25 nor Part 15 protects them from out-of-band interference. If they really needed 100 MHz of spectrum, they could have petitioned for the allocation. And it's a stretch to say that they negotiated entirely in good faith over the years.


And the FCC really, really screwed the pooch.

I agree with you but not for the reason stated. The FCC knew about this interference issue when they granted LightSquared a temporary authorization that may have enticed LightSquared to proceed with building out several terrestrial transmitter sites at a large expense. That's why the authorization was conditional in the first place.

In what at first blush might seem like a bizarre move this week, LightSquared has asked the FCC to make a declaratory ruling that would in effect confirm that many if not all GPS receivers infringe on LightSquared's spectrum. They surely know the FCC will deny this request. LightSquared will probably end up taking the laws of physics to court pretty soon. My best guess is that LightSquared is trying to figure out how they can sue somebody (anybody) for their lost investment capital and future profits. They may go after the GPS manufacturers or the FCC or the NTIA. I fear that they will go after the GPS manufacturers in civil court once the FCC denies their request for declaratory ruling. It will take years to sort out the aftermath and all of us will pay higher prices for GPS units to pay all the attorney fees. All of it could have been avoided if the FCC had not granted a provisional or temporary authority to LightSquared on their request to add terrestrial transmitters.

I read the petition. Hate to say it, but it appears they may have a case. IANAL, but as I clearly understand it, the FCC is bound by its own rules, as well as the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. I haven't seen the GPS industry's reply comments. In any event, their recourse is to the DC Circuit against the FCC, not the GPS manufacturers, and only by showing that the FCC either failed to enforce their own rules or acted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Given the FCC's record in the DC Circuit in recent years, I'm not placing any bets.

That spectrum is fine for uplink and downlink usage and LightSquared has a license to use it for that purpose.

Sure, but there is but a limited market for satellite services... remember Iridium, Globalstar, Teledesic? I had the misfortune to be on the periphery of one of those fiascoes. Trust me. Satellite broadband is not where it's at.

There are other spectrum slots that can be used for broadband service. And new technologies will continue to increase the capacity of the spectrum now in use.

Which spectrum slots do you mean? The Commission and ITU think they are scraping the bottom of barrel. What do you know that they don't?

And sure, the engineers are going to continue to push the edges of capacity, and cheat the limitations of physics and information theory. But even with the demise of unlimited data plans, the rate of those capacity gains is going to be a lot less than the growth in demand. Yeah, there's also spatial reuse, but that's practically limited by cost of siting new NodeBs and backhaul. We need more spectrum, and 59 MHz can go a long way.

Just to be clear: I don't have a dog in this fight. No ties to LightSquared nor to any GPS manufacturer nor to any LightSquared reseller nor to any of their competitors. I have former colleagues who have forgotten more than I will ever know about spectrum policy and receiver design and FCC procedures; but I do claim to have learned enough about those things from them to have a reasonably informed view. And I do know enough about how these things go to know that there are two sides to every story, and that nobody's hands are clean.

#51 Transmitterdan

Transmitterdan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Interests:Scuba, Coral Reefs, Shortwave radio

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:17 AM

I don't have a dog in the fight either except that I really hope GPS continues to be available to the average person.

The GPS manufacturers did not invent the system. It was invented and installed by the military. Their implementation drives the receiver requirements. The design of receivers for non-geosynchronous satellite signals is not nearly as simple as terrestrial receivers. Can GPS receivers be designed that would allow LightSquared to proceed? Sure, but then you can forget about battery operated GPS units, cell phone GPS, high accuracy units and thousands of applications with billions of daily uses.

Spectrum policy is a complicated thing and it's easy to invoke the law of unintended consequences. In this case the consequences were known in advance but the FCC allowed it to get too far before taking decisive action. Even their recent "decision" isn't decisive.

Another decision that tangentially factors in here is the elimination of LORAN-C and the future E-LORAN because the government argued GPS did not need an alternative. In my view that was a very short-sighted decision. But it unintentionally took an arrow out of LightSquared's quiver because now there is no viable alternative to GPS for military and high accuracy users.

Spectrum isn't the only currency in wireless broadband but a lot of people want to simplify it to that. There are multiple dimensions to broadband capacity. If smaller cells are used then more users and higher data rates are possible using the same amount of spectrum. But that increases the delivery cost per user. There is no simple and free solution to the problem.

There is lots of white space below 1GHz across vast areas of the world including the US. Smart radios that can accurately identify white space can increase broadband capacity by at least an order of magnitude and probably a lot more than that. My point is there are many solutions to the shortage of broadband capacity that do not break a perfectly good GPS system. But they take a lot of work and resources. The uncertainty around the LightSquared situation may have delayed investment in workable solutions by a year or more. This is another unintended consequence of this fiasco.

Regards,

#52 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:54 PM

All,

Well, we're almost done with this. But until March 1st the FCC is soliciting comments. They would actually like to hear from folks who really use GPS and claim they'll read what's sent. (As opposed to just counting it).

You can read the report that was sent to the FCC --> Reports Sent to FCC

You can send you comments to the FCC -- > My Comments to FCC

Instructions on sending a comment to the FCC:

(1) Click on this link for the FCC’s Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc...me=&filedFrom=X
(2) In the box which says “Proceeding Number,” type: 11-109. It is important to include this docket number with your comments.
(3) In the designated boxes, enter (a) your name or your company’s name, and (B) your mailing address/city/state/zip.
(4) In the box which says “Type in or paste your brief comments,” do so. Click “Continue”.
(5) A review page will load listing all of the information entered. If correct, click “Confirm.” (6) If you have trouble, contact the FCC ECFS Helpdesk at 202-418-0193 or e-mail at ecfshelp@fcc.gov.

BV

#53 RUMLIME

RUMLIME

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Location:near there

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:58 PM

Yesterday, Phil said he'd drive straight to D.C. to kick some ass but his Garmin is acting up for some reason...
:ph34r:

#54 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:49 PM

All,

Well, we're almost done with this. But until March 1st the FCC is soliciting comments. They would actually like to hear from folks who really use GPS and claim they'll read what's sent. (As opposed to just counting it).

You can read the report that was sent to the FCC --> Reports Sent to FCC

You can send you comments to the FCC -- > My Comments to FCC

Instructions on sending a comment to the FCC:

(1) Click on this link for the FCC’s Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc...me=&filedFrom=X
(2) In the box which says “Proceeding Number,” type: 11-109. It is important to include this docket number with your comments.
(3) In the designated boxes, enter (a) your name or your company’s name, and (B) your mailing address/city/state/zip.
(4) In the box which says “Type in or paste your brief comments,” do so. Click “Continue”.
(5) A review page will load listing all of the information entered. If correct, click “Confirm.” (6) If you have trouble, contact the FCC ECFS Helpdesk at 202-418-0193 or e-mail at ecfshelp@fcc.gov.

BV

Beating a dead horse. There is absolutely no way these guys are going to be allowed to proceed, based on the NTIA letter and lab tests. The FCC is going through the proceeding because it has to, not because the result is anything but a foregone conclusion.

But if it makes you feel good...

#55 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

I don't have a dog in the fight either except that I really hope GPS continues to be available to the average person.

The GPS manufacturers did not invent the system. It was invented and installed by the military. Their implementation drives the receiver requirements. The design of receivers for non-geosynchronous satellite signals is not nearly as simple as terrestrial receivers. Can GPS receivers be designed that would allow LightSquared to proceed? Sure, but then you can forget about battery operated GPS units, cell phone GPS, high accuracy units and thousands of applications with billions of daily uses.

Spectrum policy is a complicated thing and it's easy to invoke the law of unintended consequences. In this case the consequences were known in advance but the FCC allowed it to get too far before taking decisive action. Even their recent "decision" isn't decisive.

Another decision that tangentially factors in here is the elimination of LORAN-C and the future E-LORAN because the government argued GPS did not need an alternative. In my view that was a very short-sighted decision. But it unintentionally took an arrow out of LightSquared's quiver because now there is no viable alternative to GPS for military and high accuracy users.

Spectrum isn't the only currency in wireless broadband but a lot of people want to simplify it to that. There are multiple dimensions to broadband capacity. If smaller cells are used then more users and higher data rates are possible using the same amount of spectrum. But that increases the delivery cost per user. There is no simple and free solution to the problem.

There is lots of white space below 1GHz across vast areas of the world including the US. Smart radios that can accurately identify white space can increase broadband capacity by at least an order of magnitude and probably a lot more than that. My point is there are many solutions to the shortage of broadband capacity that do not break a perfectly good GPS system. But they take a lot of work and resources. The uncertainty around the LightSquared situation may have delayed investment in workable solutions by a year or more. This is another unintended consequence of this fiasco.

Regards,

So I read the general navigation device lab report (didn't have time for the others) and the NTIA letter.

First, this is the first I read of evidence that non-precision GPS devices are affected. Don't know how I missed that. Doubleplus ungood.

The navigation device lab report is a lab report. No doubt a decent engineer could nitpick it on methodology, gaps etc. It left me wondering what the effect of 1 dB of Eb/N0 would be on fix precision and accuracy, and on acquisition time. But the conclusion looks pretty solid.

Interesting the that handset lab report indicated insignificant problems. Apparently, the handsets have narrower filtering to avoid self-interference.

The last section of the NTIA letter gets to the heart of my earlier rant. "There are currently no federal, FCC or industry developed receiver standards... Our analysis of the test measurements suggests that GPS receivers used in cellular devices and general/personal navigation devices can be designed to be compatible with the lower 10 MHz base station signal and deployed over time without disrupting user requirements". And goes on to say that NTIA is going to start work on such a standard, but that as a practical matter, it will take years for non-compliant devices to retire. If the FCC and NTIA had been pro-active about this, say about 20 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are today.

In the meantime, we have 10 MHz (actually, 59 MHz) of what is effectively guard band.

#56 Transmitterdan

Transmitterdan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Interests:Scuba, Coral Reefs, Shortwave radio

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:46 PM

The last section of the NTIA letter gets to the heart of my earlier rant. "There are currently no federal, FCC or industry developed receiver standards... Our analysis of the test measurements suggests that GPS receivers used in cellular devices and general/personal navigation devices can be designed to be compatible with the lower 10 MHz base station signal and deployed over time without disrupting user requirements". And goes on to say that NTIA is going to start work on such a standard, but that as a practical matter, it will take years for non-compliant devices to retire. If the FCC and NTIA had been pro-active about this, say about 20 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are today.

The government seldom regulates detailed receiver specifications for good reasons. I hope they don't knee-jerk into doing that for GPS. There are many unintended consequences of that policy which is why they have correctly shunned that idea for decades. In general, government mandated receiver standards increase costs and stifle innovation. Stable spectrum policy minimally affected by politics works much better in my opinion. But no regulatory system can ever make us all happy and rich.

Best regards,

#57 Throatwarbler-Mangrove

Throatwarbler-Mangrove

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:18 AM

The government seldom regulates detailed receiver specifications for good reasons. I hope they don't knee-jerk into doing that for GPS. There are many unintended consequences of that policy which is why they have correctly shunned that idea for decades. In general, government mandated receiver standards increase costs and stifle innovation. Stable spectrum policy minimally affected by politics works much better in my opinion. But no regulatory system can ever make us all happy and rich.

Best regards,

I know the argument. That was what my former employer's DC lobbyists pushed. Blah, blah, free enterprise, gummint regulation stifles innovation, de minimus regulation is best, blah blah. Now that I no longer have a dog in that fight, I can say it's bullshit.

What that argument created was a fiasco. A micro version of 'too big to fail'. It created a situation on the ground where a huge critical mass of receivers ended up squatting on a spectrum allocation, and as a result, the FCC is unable to refarm a big chunk of prime spectrum from MSS services that the market doesn't need, to terrestrial mobile services that desperately need it.

Interesting that the Europeans seem to do just fine with their EMC Directives.

If "innovation" means squatting on spectrum which is not allocated to the service you're using in order to save a buck on a SAW filter, then that kind of "innovation" I don't care about.

#58 IrieMon

IrieMon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:07 PM

Just noticed this on Spinsheet.com: http://www.spinsheet...gps1?a=1&c=1239


Here is how to file comments to the FCC through their online comment form:

1. Go to: http://apps.fcc.gov/.../hotdocket/list
2. Select "Proceeding Number 11-109."
3. Enter contact information.
4. In the box that says "Type in or paste your brief comments," here's some important points to select from: • Explain how you use GPS in your life: on the water, on land or in the air.
• What would happen to your business/personal life if GPS became unavailable or unreliable?
• Wireless broadband service is important, but it should not come at the expense of GPS.
• All the studies show that LightSquared's proposed network would cause interference and that there are no remedies.
• Tell the FCC that you rely on them to protect the integrity of the GPS signal and that you support their recommendation to stop LightSquared's current proposal.
5. Click "Continue."
6. If the review page is correct, click "Confirm." Done!

If you have any trouble, you may contact the FCC ECFS Helpdesk at (202) 418-0193 or email at ecfshelp@fcc.gov.

#59 Foreverslow

Foreverslow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, racing sailboats,and working on sailboats.

Posted 05 April 2012 - 05:43 PM

lightsquare looks to be toast any day now.
gamble cost them 5 billion

http://money.cnn.com...x.htm?iid=HP_LN

#60 Foreverslow

Foreverslow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, racing sailboats,and working on sailboats.

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:18 AM

light square may be gone in a week

http://www.theregist...e_lightsquared/


sue the FCC to get the DoD to back down.
is ex.DA Hopkins their legal council?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users