Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
egorny

The FCC is about to make a decision that will affect the use of GPS all across the US, ours as well as others.

Recommended Posts

Anyone else enjoy watching Falcone squirm on FoxNews just a few minutes ago?

Didn't see it, maybe you could give a summary.

To make a long story short, he's still saying that this is old news, that his 'waiver' is old news dating back years, and that the only reason his outfit was interested in contacting White House staff was to talk about the 'Broadband Initiative', and not to pay any attention to the 'Fundraising' references in those emails. Same old, same old.

 

On the technical side, he continues to dodge the question of cost to existing users were his 'waiver' to be implemented as planned, talking only about alternative technology that we don't all own. What is NEVER on the table with Falcone is the cost to existing GPSr users.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid I haven't looked at the other sat nav systems specs... snip%<

The following are give-or-take center freqs, so it's all plus and minus.

 

GLONASS is on L1 (1602MHz) and L2 for military (1246MHz). Their L1 is therefore further from LS than we are.

We're on L1 (1575MHz) and L2 for military (1228MHz).

I believe the Galileo freq still TBD. Originally, the U.S. wanted it far enough away that they could block it without blocking our own. However, as I recall the original proposal, it centers their L1 at around 1575, same as ours. I don't know how they'll work that out in the end.

Thanks for that info.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

this is why I need to be tyrant of this country, I would not allow this

 

 

free beer for everyone if I make it

Edited by Contra1971

Share this post


Link to post

Don't worry, it is the same fraud by the same insiders and it will never be built. They'll squander all the federal support money into their own pockets and then declare bankruptcy. Solyndra anybody?

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we will have to wait for the first accidents to happen, and a clever lawyer who can make a case against LightSquared because the accident happened due to inteference of the GPS-signal.

Share this post


Link to post

LightSquared has a full-page all-text ad in today’s San Jose Mercury News ( “The Newspaper of Silicon Valley”; mercurycenter.com). It’s the last page of section one (normally there’s a Fry’s ad there).

 

Titled “LightSquared is Committed to Making Wireless Broadband Accessible and Affordable for California and All Americans”, it notes the GPS interference issue, saying “Despite the fact that the interference is caused by others’ inappropriate use of LightSquared’s licensed spectrum, we have been proactive...” (this blame claim is repeated).

 

The main claim is the imperative need for more wireless broadband. They urge writing to the FCC, and note “In a letter sent this week to key members on Congress, half a dozen farming organizations - including the American Farm Bureau - urged lawmakers to communicate the benefits of both technologies to the FCC. “

 

I wrote to my CongressCritters some while back; public input does seem sought.

 

Wonder if Garmin is including GLONASS reception in its new Etrex 10/20/30 line in anticipation of a US screwup here?

Share this post


Link to post

LightSquared has a full-page all-text ad in today’s San Jose Mercury News ( “The Newspaper of Silicon Valley”; mercurycenter.com). It’s the last page of section one (normally there’s a Fry’s ad there).

 

Titled “LightSquared is Committed to Making Wireless Broadband Accessible and Affordable for California and All Americans”, it notes the GPS interference issue, saying “Despite the fact that the interference is caused by others’ inappropriate use of LightSquared’s licensed spectrum, we have been proactive...” (this blame claim is repeated).

 

The main claim is the imperative need for more wireless broadband. They urge writing to the FCC, and note “In a letter sent this week to key members on Congress, half a dozen farming organizations - including the American Farm Bureau - urged lawmakers to communicate the benefits of both technologies to the FCC. “

 

I wrote to my CongressCritters some while back; public input does seem sought.

 

Wonder if Garmin is including GLONASS reception in its new Etrex 10/20/30 line in anticipation of a US screwup here?

 

Were they specific about what WEAK Signal Satellite Only user was interloping on their allocation? There shouldn't be any terrestrial users there. It won't be the 'white space' projects, they are using old recycled TV bands for their wireless systems.

Not sure how they are coming, but theirs is straight forward and Okayed I believe.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Wonder if Garmin is including GLONASS reception in its new Etrex 10/20/30 line in anticipation of a US screwup here?

Nope - I think Garmin is anticipating the Russian Federation's proposal to put a 25% import tarrif on any non-GLONAS enabled GPS devices being imported into the Russian Federation region. See here

Share this post


Link to post

LightSquared has a full-page all-text ad in today’s San Jose Mercury News ( “The Newspaper of Silicon Valley”; mercurycenter.com). It’s the last page of section one (normally there’s a Fry’s ad there).

 

Titled “LightSquared is Committed to Making Wireless Broadband Accessible and Affordable for California and All Americans”, it notes the GPS interference issue, saying “Despite the fact that the interference is caused by others’ inappropriate use of LightSquared’s licensed spectrum, we have been proactive...” (this blame claim is repeated).

 

The main claim is the imperative need for more wireless broadband. They urge writing to the FCC, and note “In a letter sent this week to key members on Congress, half a dozen farming organizations - including the American Farm Bureau - urged lawmakers to communicate the benefits of both technologies to the FCC. “

 

I wrote to my CongressCritters some while back; public input does seem sought.

 

Wonder if Garmin is including GLONASS reception in its new Etrex 10/20/30 line in anticipation of a US screwup here?

 

Were they specific about what WEAK Signal Satellite Only user was interloping on their allocation? There shouldn't be any terrestrial users there. It won't be the 'white space' projects, they are using old recycled TV bands for their wireless systems.

Not sure how they are coming, but theirs is straight forward and Okayed I believe.

 

Doug 7rxc

The inappropriate use of Lightsquared's licensed spectrum is, of course, that pesky GPS signal.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we will have to wait for the first accidents to happen, and a clever lawyer who can make a case against LightSquared because the accident happened due to inteference of the GPS-signal.

They don't interfere. I still stand by my previous posts that it is a weakness with the GPSr filters. I am glad to see that LightSuare agrees by saying they have a fix for the GPSs.

 

It is amazing to me that the FCC has been doing fine managing spectrum since Marconi and all of the sudden the FCC engineers are idiots. The misinformation is overwhelming and snow balling and I don't like it at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we will have to wait for the first accidents to happen, and a clever lawyer who can make a case against LightSquared because the accident happened due to inteference of the GPS-signal.

They don't interfere. I still stand by my previous posts that it is a weakness with the GPSr filters. I am glad to see that LightSuare agrees by saying they have a fix for the GPSs.

 

It is amazing to me that the FCC has been doing fine managing spectrum since Marconi and all of the sudden the FCC engineers are idiots. The misinformation is overwhelming and snow balling and I don't like it at all.

 

As far as I'm aware the spectrum that LightSquared wants to transmit in was only designed for satellite to ground transmission and low power signals. Not the high power ground to ground transmissions that they want to do.

 

The fix they also have planned requires a replacement of all current GPS receivers. It is not something that can be retrofitted to current units.

Share this post


Link to post

They don't interfere. I still stand by my previous posts that it is a weakness with the GPSr filters. I am glad to see that LightSuare agrees by saying they have a fix for the GPSs.

I give up. You are correct. Regardless of the technological issues, all GPS manufacturers should have anticipated this, and receivers should have always employed front-ends and I/F filters that are capable of rejecting any adjacent outband signal, no matter how strong or how close in physical proximity, regardless of whether those signals were ever supposed to be permitted at those frequencies by any bandplan. By doing this now, these new GPS receivers will lead the way in a technology that isn't being employed in any other receiver in existence with -159db sensitivity, and we can all toast the manufacturers' creativity while we trade in all of our old units and spend a few billion on new ones.

 

Now there are two of us.

 

No .. just one after all. I changed my mind.

 

NO receiver manufacturer designs his front end to manage adjacent channel signals many orders of magnitude stronger than is permitted at the time the design is undertaken.

 

When you find that AM radio that will, while tuned to 550KHz, reject that megawatt transmitter next door at 540KHz, give us another ring.

 

No such receiver exists. No one in their right mind would have reason to design one. I can't make the analogy any clearer than that.

Share this post


Link to post

ecanderson,

 

Nice reply there, but you forgot something...

 

You negelcted to preface the reply with "Dear Mr. Falcone,"

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
It is amazing to me that the FCC has been doing fine managing spectrum since Marconi and all of the sudden the FCC engineers are idiots.

 

It takes some brains to aquire an engineering degree. A smart fellow could also easily figure out 2+2=15 if the man who sees he gets paid every month likes that type math. Especially in the current obomony....I mean economy.

Share this post


Link to post
They don't interfere. I still stand by my previous posts that it is a weakness with the GPSr filters.

 

NO receiver manufacturer designs his front end to manage adjacent channel signals many orders of magnitude stronger than is permitted at the time the design is undertaken.

 

Since Mr. Cache does not know about Fourier transforms and the uncertainty principle, he apparently thinks all Lightsquared's power is within their allotted spectrum.

 

Here's a hint: it's not. If Lightsquared can complain about GPS devices "infringing" on their bandwidth by having non-delta-function responses, they darn well better have exactly zero power outside their own spectral range.

 

Which, of course, is impossible, making the Lightsquared claim ludicrous. It's the equivalent of perpetual motion.

Share this post


Link to post

Since Mr. Cache does not know about Fourier transforms and the uncertainty principle, he apparently thinks all Lightsquared's power is within their allotted spectrum.

 

Here's a hint: it's not. If Lightsquared can complain about GPS devices "infringing" on their bandwidth by having non-delta-function responses, they darn well better have exactly zero power outside their own spectral range.

 

Which, of course, is impossible, making the Lightsquared claim ludicrous. It's the equivalent of perpetual motion.

 

Indeed. In point of fact, "John E Cache" does understand that filters have limited capabilities and can't overcome the billion-fold in-band energy levels LightSquared will inject into GPSr front ends (his specious posts not withstanding). With good reason, he refuses to state how GPSr filters might be improved even a little bit.

 

If LightSquared really could produce the filter performance they claim, they would have an asset vastly more valuable than the spectrum in question and would be busy rewriting physics and engineering textbooks rather than bribing the Administration and lying to the public.

 

I at least understand LightSquared lying to make money, but I don't understand "John E Cache".

Edited by zulutime

Share this post


Link to post

Since Mr. Cache does not know about Fourier transforms and the uncertainty principle, he apparently thinks all Lightsquared's power is within their allotted spectrum.

He seems to feel that an 'infinite-Q' filter is a reasonable engineering approach to the problem. What Mr. Cache may be missing is that while narrowing the bandwidth, there's also some inevitable loss of the desired signal as well as you attempt to bring that bandwidth in tighter and tighter. A person can get away with that on some designs where a little attenuation or loss of bandwidth won't hurt (and with my hearing, I could live with a few KHz less on my FM radio and still be happy), but when we're dealing with signals as far down in the mud as satellite signals are to begin with, that becomes a major issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to worry...there is no here here, yet....it will never come to pass.

They are not shovel ready and will not be until the federal stimulus money on which they rely arrives.

If it doesn't arrive....all over before the shovel hits the dirt.

If the stimulus money does arrive, it will all be squandered away before any RF signal goes out.

 

Solyndra anybody? Same scam artists (generically)....same non-result.

Share this post


Link to post

Golly, hard to see this one coming. :rolleyes:

Wonder where they will be IF something were to happen to their satellite(s)... then they would have NO reason for their allocation at all... not that they have any valid terrestrial claims other than uplink and downlink frequencies... I hope that their legal challenge results in a full examination of their current licences and the band planning in general. Also a wide spread investigation of all aspects involving the process. They ought to be really popular for that opportunity to poke around in the business/government by everyone involved. Good option, take it to court. From what I see they got what they asked for. A waiver with conditions for testing and resolution. The permanent status will result when all the issues are resolved for everyone... only.

 

Meanwhile the 'white space' based WiFi on Steroids project is proceeding... without them on board.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

 

Titled “LightSquared is Committed to Making Wireless Broadband Accessible and Affordable for California and All Americans”, it notes the GPS interference issue, saying “Despite the fact that the interference is caused by others’ inappropriate use of LightSquared’s licensed spectrum, we have been proactive...” (this blame claim is repeated).

 

Overcome by events.

By the time that they even get a court date set for their lawsuit, this system will have been completed:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/SoCal/learn/hso/wifi/default.html

Share this post


Link to post

I am not saying there is a no problem, I am saying LightSquared will not transmit out of band. I said it was nit pick. Transmitting out of band is illegal. Saying LightSpeed will transmit outside the band is saying they will break the law. That could be slander. Typing it on the web could be libel. Saying they can't avoid transmitting out of band is because of "physics" is absurd and insulting.

Share this post


Link to post

What ever happened to GPS bands being reserved for low power space to earth signals? I thought the FCC made this statement a while back. It's why Comcast, Verizon, AT&T etc didn't buy this spectrum at the rock bottom prices LightSquared got it for.

 

You can split hairs about all the other nuance involved but LighSquared was wrong from the gate and the FCC/administration helped to facilitate it. It's obviously a political issue, Falcone thought he could buy his way around the existing structural rules but he was wrong. I love it when arrogant billionaires fail. Even Fox news called his arrogence out on air. There is no conceivable way that LightSquaed can win the public opinion war at this point.

 

Can you imagine all the ticked off soccer moms finding out their car navigation systems aren't worth squat (true or not). Not in an election year son! Game over.

Share this post


Link to post

British readers of this forum may be familiar with the "Should've gone to Specasavers" advert featuring the space shuttle landing...

 

For the benefit of other readers, Specsavers are a chain of opticians/eyeglasses retailers, and I've included a link below to a YouTube vid of the advert to fill you in on the detail...

 

It struck me just how easily someone could adapt this advert to say...

 

Should've said NO to LightSquared

Edited by RamblinBear

Share this post


Link to post

This should be interesting. "The Communicators: Lightsquared Broadband Network Plan" will be airing on C-SPAN tonight at 6:30 ET

Share this post


Link to post

This should be interesting. "The Communicators: Lightsquared Broadband Network Plan" will be airing on C-SPAN tonight at 6:30 ET

 

I missed it, how did it go? How thick was the BS?

Share this post


Link to post

This should be interesting. "The Communicators: Lightsquared Broadband Network Plan" will be airing on C-SPAN tonight at 6:30 ET

 

I missed it, how did it go? How thick was the BS?

 

I haven't watched them, but the C-SPAN shows are:

 

: Interview with Sanjiv Ahuja, CEO of LightSquared.

 

Part II: Interview with Rep. Paul Broun of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee and Jim Kirkland, founding member of the Coalition to Save our GPS.

Share this post


Link to post

I was catching up on a lot of 'missed' news on CNN today... noticed this one that speaks volumes on the overall situation.

 

Business: Sprint out of money

 

There are some older sublinks in that, also interesting that I hadn't seen.

 

Also spent some time looking at the Spectrum Management section of the Industry Canada website... lots of activity regarding proposals for frequency use especially the 'white space' TV channels below 900mhz and lots of items for over 2 Ghz... but when I searched for LS, nothing mentioned at all... even as a concern. There was a 'reminder' about the fact that frequency jamming devices of any sort are illegal in Canada. I assume that was aimed at 'cell blockers' and 'GPS blockers', but might be used if some one tried to blot out signals of any type on a wholesale basis. Seems the 'white space' project is going along well here and in the States / Elsewhere.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Finally heard a number out of Sanjiv Ahuja from LS during that interview ref their 'technical solution' to the problem. He claims that it will "only" cost $300 per federally owned device to resolve the problem for federal government units! (See at 17:45).

 

I like the way he also claims that LS use of the freqs just under L1 were "allocated" and "allowed" many years ago. That's a stretch. The FCC has not yet even today "allowed" LS's proposed use of that spectrum as LS intends to use it now. The original LS proposal was for a very few terrestrial stations that would 'fill in' in places where satellite comms were problematic.

Share this post


Link to post

I was catching up on a lot of 'missed' news on CNN today... noticed this one that speaks volumes on the overall situation.

Business: Sprint out of money

Of some interest - and I assume you know that Sprint inked a HUGE long-term deal with LightSquared on 28 June of this year - I've seen several claims in recent articles that the Sprint LTE build-out will occur on 1900MHz, not the spectrum owned by LightSquared. Not sure what to make of that. If the story is something else altogether, and Sprint is banking on the LightSquared L band spectrum ... well, you have to wonder if the wonks at Sprint were reading the papers when they signed that deal with LS.

Share this post


Link to post

That bit was one of the included paths to follow in my link... There were lots of things to read...

 

Interesting that it does seem to follow what I said about partnering and frequency sharing to make it work, way back!

 

I got the feeling that Sprint is simply saying to LS, Use our frequencies for our build out and LS hardware for the connections.

Use LS satellites to feed the data into the local nodes. I hadn't seen anything on the 1900 mhz, but that is one of the bands I mentioned here... I just put it in with the 2 Ghz and up allocations being proposed in Canada. One thing I didn't like personally, was the one that is allowing DGPS stations into the 430- 450 mhz band that Hams use... but they did that for the bulk of remote areas.

At least they are suggesting to avoid urban areas where there is Ham activity... i.e. repeaters already in use, our feds are fairly pragmatic that way... Easy since it's a shared/as available band here... and moose and deer don't use much UHF radio for the most part. There are some UHF tracking devices though... after all it is a radiolocation band... and that includes DGPS.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, Lightsquared are now saying that the leaks are a "distortion of truth"...

distortion of truth

They're saying the leak was intended to turn public opinion against Lightsquared - not that they've ever tried to turn public opinion agains the GPS manufacturers...

 

Well, I guess they're better equipped than most to be able to judge that one...

 

But they're obviously also seriously looking to change their plans and try and rescue this thing, again...

more horse-trading

Edited by RamblinBear

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, Lightsquared are now saying that the leaks are a "distortion of truth"...

distortion of truth

They're saying the leak was intended to turn public opinion against Lightsquared - not that they've ever tried to turn public opinion agains the GPS manufacturers...

 

Well, I guess they're better equipped than most to be able to judge that one...

 

But they're obviously also seriously looking to change their plans and try and rescue this thing, again...

more horse-trading

 

So what do we know about the lower band they want to use? Below is from RamblinBear's second link.

 

This June, LightSquared proposed to initially use only the lower portion of its spectrum, 1526-1536 MHz, further away from the GPS band in its initial roll out. The company said it ultimately intended to use both the lower and upper bands. This required another round of tests to determine GPS receiver interference in the lower band.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this reveals just how weak Lightsquared's hand is becoming (quoted from the second article I linked to)...

 

"Beset by leaked reports that its planned network once again flunked Global Positioning System interference tests and with billions of dollars at stake, startup cellular carrier LightSquared took a bold step late Monday to win approval for operation of its network in its low frequency band by offering a multiagency federal working group veto power over operations in the upper portion of its spectrum."

 

"But the proposal comes with a catch: the Federal Communications Commission must remove conditions that restrict LightSquared from commercial operation in the lower 10 MHz of spectrum tentatively approved in January."

 

But the FCC has already re-iterated that it won't allow any buildout of Lightsquared's network in either the Upper or Lower 10MHz bands until they are satified that there won't be interference with GPS. The FCC already holds the power of veto, so Lightsquared really aren't offering anything new. There will have to be a lot more testing of receivers and signals in the Lower 10 before there's any prospect of FCC approval for Lower 10 only operations. It seems to me as if Lightsquared are getting a little desperate and trying almost anything to keep their boat afloat.

Share this post


Link to post

No more leaked results - it's official...

GPS World comments on official results

Interesting results, I'm glad to see they are looking at the handsets as well (even though unfinished work). Since they are using the higher (1.6) range for the outputs I believe, that means they won't bug GPSrs except maybe in very close proximity (themselves that is), but since LS is expert in filtering, that should not be a problem anyway. I'm still intrigued by the original base (tower) power ratings, even the proposed reduced ones. I keep wondering how they are proposing to match the uplink to downlink distances.

The idea was to have really powerful tower units that the handsets could listen to (downlink) but I still can't picture a handset that could talk directly to a tower beyond distances similar to current cellular radio telephones. That distance isn't all that far in radio terms... Anyone see if they were talking about a voting receiver system as well? One transmitter, many scattered receivers linked to it? That also goes for the 'whitespace' projects... super Wifi is fine on paper, but how does the distance factor work in?

 

One last bit, I was able to briefly locate (then lost the link, duh!) a GPS related site that had a letter they claimed was from Industry Canada in response to a query about LS and Canada. I'm not having any luck (no time) finding it again, so take it with some salt, but it agrees with other things I'm seeing or not. Basically it says that LS has a satellite licence in Canada for low signal data communications with provision for terrestrial infill transmitters (low power) for areas with poor reception of the Geosynchronous Sat. (Exactly the same as the US licence.)

No waivers similar to the FCC one were being considered or likely to ever be granted for technical reasons.

 

I'm going to keep looking for that link, or better yet the official copy of the letters. Anyway, I don't think that they will be coming up here and besides that, IC is opening up a lot of bands for data use on higher frequencies, as well as the 'white space' TV channels of which we have lots. Did see a few mentions of Mexico hinting similar limits, but then Mexico is Mexico.

Note that Canada / US radio agreements prevent cross border interference with one another's band plans through power restrictions suitable for the various bands... so LS would have to keep back from the border far enough to NEVER interfere with GPS or any other user on our side of the border in any event, unless licensed here for the same purpose.

 

Hope that 'almost' everyone has a good holiday (your choice) season.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Where are the Lightsquared base stations located? If there's one near me, it might need to be "turned off." :ph34r:

Don't think it's one of theirs, since they only had a few test spots at reduced power months ago...

 

However, you may have a GPS Jammer (illegal) in the area... this thread has mentioned a few that people buy for trucks etc.

Look up in previous pages... or try Google. Of course the military have toys as well, but mostly don't leave them for long.

Then there are more legitimate RF sources that can do a good job of blocking GPS signals, not wanted of course, but a powerline can arc (real short term long term) or spark (longer term) both of which, like lightning, produce really strong and broadband RF emissions that can block all sorts of signals including GPS. Sometimes tracking such sources down can be as much fun (or more) than Geocaching itself... once in a while it can BE Geocaching using RDF homing beacons, in fact.

 

That all said, I've been assuming you are suspecting a signal blockage locally? Is that the KC area... I'm guessing from your profile information. Got any specifics? I'm too far away to be more than moral support though.

Edit: Try post #192 up above for some of the jammer stuff.. this topic. This one is #244 so go back a page or two.

Doug 7rxc

Edited by 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps a 'last territorial demand'??? What comes next, invasion?

 

Since other countries seem to be bent on protecting the low signal bands, they might not win anyway... besides didn't GPS users already accept the fact that their signals would interfere with the GPS satellites? It is clear that they WILL.

 

On one of my previous tacks... Still haven't re found that URL with the purported letter of clarification re LS... but did find a document that would likely have been the basis for it... subject to updates, that is, I'm not sure if it is the current edition.

 

Industry Canada Document RP-023

 

Basically the basis for developing data systems via satellite and terrestrial. I couldn't find anything that clearly says it won't happen, but that was what that article claimed... that only newer bands would be available for terrestrial use, not the low signal sat bands.

 

Anyone want to bet a final decision on this waits til after the US Elections?

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone want to bet a final decision on this waits til after the US Elections?

 

:lol:

 

Sounds like they don't have enough money to wait that long, let alone enough money to influence the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...