Proposed Web network threatens GPS

[+safechrisLaurie]

Did anyone else read about this? Apparently a new, ultra-fast wireless Internet network could threaten the signal of GPS units. I read about this in today's Tampa Tribune (Florida). Trib2 section on April 7, 2011. The government is worried about 40 percent of their commerical and private planes being affected, but I am worried about how I am going to fnd my "container in the woods!" It's from a Virgina company called LightSquared, so if you live in Virginia, might want to take notice and see how we can get our two cents in on this. Save Our Signal!

[+MontyFam]

There are a few topics on this already. Probably won't happen is the consensus I believe.

[+Walts Hunting]

Very old news

[N4AOF]

Very old news

 

It is neither old news nor unlikely.

 

This is a case of a satellite communications company that JUST RECENTLY got permission from the Federal Communications Commission to use their satellite radio frequencies for a land-based network.

 

As a satellite communications company they had only a few transmitter locations -- their land-based network would involve many thousands of transmitter sites blanketing urban areas and transportation corridors. Each site WILL significantly degrade the performance of most existing GPS devices in the vicinity. Exactly how much each site will degrade the performance of a GPS will depend on the exact GPS device.

 

Bottom line: The FCC has already approved the company's application for the rule waiver. It would take the federal courts or congress to overturn the FCC approval. If the network is deployed, it will render most common GPS units useless for serious navigation or geocaching anywhere around the network locations (basically all major cities and the highways between them). New GPS devices with filters to block the network frequencies won't be available for at least a year, and will cost (at least slightly) more than current GPS devices.

[+hzoi]

I just find it odd that the story keeps popping up, days or weeks after the initial release. My wife works for a newspaper, and I know they run a "story file" to plan out local stories and keep a bank of national stories in their back pocket that aren't date specific -- sort of "break glass in case of slow news day" thing. I guess that's what news outlets are doing with this story, because like a bad penny, it just keeps turning up.

[+safechrisLaurie]

Since Geocaching is relatively new to me (3 months and going strong), this was a new topic for me. Glad to hear that it's like a bad penny that keeps turning up. My "Y2K" compatible unit just wouldn't survive something like this. Thanks for the posts.

[N4AOF]

I just find it odd that the story keeps popping up, days or weeks after the initial release. My wife works for a newspaper, and I know they run a "story file" to plan out local stories and keep a bank of national stories in their back pocket that aren't date specific -- sort of "break glass in case of slow news day" thing. I guess that's what news outlets are doing with this story, because like a bad penny, it just keeps turning up.

 

I would guess that you are right about the reason the issue comes up more than once.

 

It did not get any media attention when the FCC initially gave the company approval to blanket the country with its high power terrestrial use of what was supposed to be a satellite radio frequency.

 

First the issue was spotted by industry insiders who monitor FCC actions closely. I doubt any of them mentioned it here, but maybe...

 

Then it was published in print and online by various GPS industry sources, largely in magazines and websites only read by people in the industry. At this point there was still almost no public awareness of the issue.

 

Some of the industry people who read the information (above) then started passing it around in various online forums. For example, I passed the information (and links) along in some Search & Rescue and Emergency Communications forums. I actually didn't think to mention it here. By now the news was starting to spread among people who use GPS units. I would guess that this is about when the news first reached here.

 

Finally various newspapers started picking up the story -- but it wasn't "Local News" so the story generally wasn't handled by the 'news desk' and didn't appear in the main news sections of the paper. Instead the story was handled by someone at each paper assigned to handle "technical" stories or perhaps the "features" editor. This kind of story appears in the paper when they have room for it - meaning that different papers published the story as much as a week or two after other papers.

 

Most of the public still doesn't have any clue about this story. Relatively few newspapers have carried the story and it has just started showing up in general online news websites like Yahoo. The story first appeared on Yahoo News this week.

 

The result is that different groups of people first heard about it at widely different times -- and whenever one of those people happened to be a geocacher they would likely come here to talk about it. Unfortunately people don't always do a great job of assigning topic titles, most people don't read the titles beyond the first page or two of new forum posts, and almost no one bothers using the search function to try to find previous posts about a topic.

 

So yes, in an ideal world, all the discussion about LightSquared's new terrestrial network causing interference to GPS units really ought to have been in one long forum topic -- but I don't know the GPS Coordinates to find that ideal world, do you?

[+CanadianRockies]

Bottom line: The FCC has already approved the company's application for the rule waiver.

If this approval was for anything more than a pilot project, could you please provide a link to the details?

 

Edit: More accurately, the waiver appears to be a conditional waiver.

Edited April 8, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+sbell111]

Bottom line: The FCC has already approved the company's application for the rule waiver.

If this approval was for anything more than a pilot project, could you please provide a link to the details?

 

Edit: More accurately, the waiver appears to be a conditional waiver.

Exactly.

 

As I recall from the other times this came up, only a condional waiver was approved and that final approval would only be given if the company was able to resolve any conflicts with GPS.

[+hzoi]

...So yes, in an ideal world, all the discussion about LightSquared's new terrestrial network causing interference to GPS units really ought to have been in one long forum topic -- but I don't know the GPS Coordinates to find that ideal world, do you?

 

Just to be clear, I was commenting more on how the story kept coming up from different news outlets. I don't have a problem with it coming up here more than once -- it would be kind of a big deal to this game. It would also upset things at work a bit...we tend to rely on GPS a bit in the Department of Defense.

[+roziecakes]

I just don't see how the DOD, or any military establishment for that matter would let something like this go down, I just don't see it happening, or even if it does happen, I don't see it lasting for long, just because it would seem like something like the military would take precedence an ultra fast wireless network. I would think that TPTB would consider that to be a threat to our national security. Just sayin'

 

On a side note, if it were to happen, it would affect our business too. We make online maps. On another side note (and slightly off topic), I think it's pretty awesome that the DOD uses Open Source Mapping software.

[+dfx]

What's a "web network" anyway?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Stopping progress to maintain backward compatibility doesn't make much sense. Filters will be added to GPS receivers, the terrestrial network will be good for everyone, that's how technology moves forward.

[+Is_907]

Stopping progress to maintain backward compatibility doesn't make much sense. Filters will be added to GPS receivers, the terrestrial network will be good for everyone, that's how technology moves forward.

 

So what about the meantime? You should never release a technology that interferes with previous technologies until the older tech can catch up. Filters are, apparently, not ready yet.

 

Never mind the fact that this is NOT a case of backward compatibility--it's a case of two very different uses of RF transmissions, one which is essential to many major industries and government groups. If it were simply a matter of "here's a replacement for GPS that's better" it wouldn't be quite as much of an issue.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Stopping progress to maintain backward compatibility doesn't make much sense. Filters will be added to GPS receivers, the terrestrial network will be good for everyone, that's how technology moves forward.

 

So what about the meantime? You should never release a technology that interferes with previous technologies until the older tech can catch up. Filters are, apparently, not ready yet.

 

Never mind the fact that this is NOT a case of backward compatibility--it's a case of two very different uses of RF transmissions, one which is essential to many major industries and government groups. If it were simply a matter of "here's a replacement for GPS that's better" it wouldn't be quite as much of an issue.

Of course filters are ready. In this case the 'filter' is a simple electronic component easily added to any device. Can it be added to your existing device? Maybe, maybe not, but it can be added to all future GPS receivers at negligible cost.

 

As a ham radio operator our American Radio Relay League association scientists and lawyers follow radio frequency developments and FCC rulings like this very closely. Radios already contain such filtering (as GPS receivers should have).

 

And there is no 'meantime'. It will take quite a while to build out the terrestrial system. It will be built to minimally affect any other system, and during that build-out period accommodations will be made by affected manufacturers.

 

Despite what a lot of folks would seem to want to believe there is no secret FCC cabal cooking up conspiracies to steal your frequency allocation. The FCC employs some of the best minds in the business, yet when a novice GPS user reads something like that report he immediately decides that he knows more than they. This is where the phrase "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes from. Incredible.

[+Don_J]

Stopping progress to maintain backward compatibility doesn't make much sense. Filters will be added to GPS receivers, the terrestrial network will be good for everyone, that's how technology moves forward.

 

So what about the meantime? You should never release a technology that interferes with previous technologies until the older tech can catch up. Filters are, apparently, not ready yet.

 

Never mind the fact that this is NOT a case of backward compatibility--it's a case of two very different uses of RF transmissions, one which is essential to many major industries and government groups. If it were simply a matter of "here's a replacement for GPS that's better" it wouldn't be quite as much of an issue.

Of course filters are ready. In this case the 'filter' is a simple electronic component easily added to any device. Can it be added to your existing device? Maybe, maybe not, but it can be added to all future GPS receivers at negligible cost.

 

As a ham radio operator our American Radio Relay League association scientists and lawyers follow radio frequency developments and FCC rulings like this very closely. Radios already contain such filtering (as GPS receivers should have).

 

And there is no 'meantime'. It will take quite a while to build out the terrestrial system. It will be built to minimally affect any other system, and during that build-out period accommodations will be made by affected manufacturers.

 

Despite what a lot of folks would seem to want to believe there is no secret FCC cabal cooking up conspiracies to steal your frequency allocation. The FCC employs some of the best minds in the business, yet when a novice GPS user reads something like that report he immediately decides that he knows more than they. This is where the phrase "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes from. Incredible.

 

I'm kind of a "fine print" kind of guy. I always read my users manuals for the electronic devices that I buy. Everyone one of them contain the two FCC disclaimers. This device may receive interference from other devices. This device may not cause interference to other devices. Why does this company get a wavier from the latter?

 

I understand progress, but if the doomsayers are correct, this could have a major effect on our economy. Our plows and harvest machines are now guided the GPS. It is used in the trucking industry, the package delivery industry. It is used in the the new Positive Train Control systems that were recently required by the US Senate, to insure that trains are separated on the tracks. It is used to tell police dispatchers where their patrol cars are. Car rental agencies, taxi cabs, not to mention private and commercial aviation. And of course all of the people that depend on their Nuvis and Tom Toms to tell them where to go, and all of us who use it for recreation.

 

To risk all of this just so some company can build a wireless ISP seems ridiculous.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Don_J

[Andronicus]

Here is the thing with the FCC. Everything is conditional on "Non-Interference". If you are licenced to use the band 1.42 to 1.45 GHz, and you are interfering with an adjacent band, say 1.45-1.47 GHz, you will be shut down. So it doesn't really matter if this is approved. If it is interfering with GPS, the licence will be revoked.

[7rxc]

Having read through many of the related threads, one thing I have not seen, was any information about whether the company has any intentions of this being offered in other countries. They may be happy with limiting themselves to the US market away from border areas. I think it was UPS tried something similar years back for parcel tracking etc. but found that it wasn't all that easy to do.

The big problem is that there is a bigger regulatory system in the rest of the world that has to work within their framework of rules and allocations. The US is one member, so is Canada and each other country. They may have other ideas about using those frequencies already.

 

As for filters, that is a two sided coin. Any new system of transmitters would be required to have quite tight filtering to stay inside their allocation frequencies. That would be the first line of defense for GPS users. Filters on NEW equipment for GPS users would be another. Filtering works because both sides are using it. I'm assuming these new transceivers for the web will be fairly low power devices in high volumes in order to give coverage. It might even be those mini cube cell phone sites recently featured in tech news (anyone know?) The lower the transmitter power the easier it is to control interference for sure. The big question will be if anyone is willing to either filter existing units at their cost, or offer some buy back arrangement. I just upgraded my GPSr to newer but dated technology... I don't have the money to do it again... so an offer to help reduce cost on a brand new technology would help... or some swap for factory retrofitted item of the same generation. This isn't being greedy, just looking for a fair return on my investment... I wouldn't think of demanding it for the mid 90's GPS.. prorating is good...

I also don't think it will be a problem, since US voters who don't use anything but car nav units etc. still have influence over the politicians who should be running the FCC. add in the boat owners, hunters, hikers etc. and I think the counter lobby will be immense. The DoD will watch too. Their technology is already likely immune to this, as has been mentioned, but they have to respond to civilian aid calls, SAR for example, based on this technology and that might be compromised.

 

Doug 7rxc

Edited April 10, 2011 by 7rxc