[egorny]

Got this from Garmin today:

________________________________URGENT___________________________________________

Dear ED Gorny Jan 11, 2011
Garmin has been working with USGPSIC (U.S. GPS Industry Council) and others regarding the use of electromagnetic spectrum that exists close to the GPS L1 frequency (1575MHz). As discussed in the attached issue paper and presentation, this proposed spectrum use will cause interference to GPS receivers and limit their utility especially in urban areas where mobile broad band service is planned at frequencies adjacent to the GPS L1 band.

Although the FCC is responsible for allocating spectrum in accordance with policies and procedures that normally provide opportunity for stakeholders to review and provide input to the process, Garmin understands the FCC plans to short-circuit the usual rulemaking process and handle this particular request via a rule waiver. This will allow the FCC to grant the petitioner’s request quickly without the lengthy process of rulemaking and will greatly limit stakeholders’ ability to provide feedback and ensure that the interference issues are handled properly. This process is motivated by an overwhelming political urgency to assign 500 MHz of spectrum for broad band usage and in this case virtually ignores the technical difficulties associated with such a decision.

Garmin and GPS customers need your help to communicate this concern; we recommend that your organization consider providing a signed letter of concern similar to the attached example to the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski. You can provide it to the FCC via the FCC web site at the following URL http://licensing.fcc...fs/pleading.do. Unfortunately, the electronic submission process is somewhat confusing and complicated. To facilitate the process, if you will provide your signed letter by scanned pdf document to Debbie Johnson at Debbie.johnson@garmin.com or by fax to her at 913.440.8282, she will ensure it gets to the correct spot within the FCC. (Her phone number, if you need to reach her, is 913.440-2600.)

This decision by the FCC may occur within a week and certainly within the month of January. Time is of the essence. To be effective the FCC needs to have your input by end of the day Tuesday, January 18.
Questions or comments? Please contact Van Ruggles at vruggles@garmin.com


If you feel the need to help we could use your support. Thanks so much.

Garmin International
---------------------------------------
I do have a copy of the report etc. Just email me for them.
I also just got the form letter in MS Word if anyone wants it to send in.
Again, just email me
egorny@gis2gps.com

Ed Gorny

This post has been edited by egorny: 12 January 2011 - 03:10 PM

[yogazoo]

Abbreviating to avoid political discourse, it sounds to me like the Goliath telecom companies can basically get anything they want. Same old story: "It's the MONEY Lebowski!"

I'll be forced to give up the utility of GPS, which actually serves a respectable function, so Joe and Jane Sixpack can update their Farcebook page while driving down the freeway.

This post has been edited by yogazoo: 12 January 2011 - 03:42 PM

[Viajero Perdido]

Airliners use GPS too.

Would they knowingly put them at risk?

Something seems fishy about this...

[kwcahart]

Not only airlines, but pilots in general aviation, ships, sailors, busses, truckers, military, police, FBI, etc, etc. I would say this is BS.

[ecanderson]

Complaints being filed. Reference document of interest here:

https://www.psls.org...ightSquared.pdf

Potential offending party's name is LightSquared.

[mpilchfamily]

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

[egorny]

I got this from Garmin directly. I have been working with him over several years. I am how posting the attachment that was sent to me:

December 23, 2010
U.S. GPS Industry Council Issue Paper

Issue: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appears to be moving expeditiously (letter
filed by applicant Nov 18; FCC public notice Nov 19 with an abbreviated period for public comment)
on a LightSquared letter seeking modification of its operating license to effectively reallocate the
radiofrequency L- band from space-service use, i.e., mobile-satellite service (MSS) with an ancillary
terrestrial component to a primary terrestrial wireless broadband service adjacent to space-based
Global Positioning System (GPS) operations in the L-band. This proposed reallocation of adjacent
band use is a radical change in the spectrum environment for GPS. If granted as filed, this application
has the strong potential to cause harmful interference to GPS users by adversely affecting the
reception of GPS signals in urban areas where this FCC applicant proposes to operate its newly
proposed high-capacity, densely populated strong signal terrestrial transmitters.
Action: Please participate in the coalition by signing the attached letter(s) to:

1) the FCC to request the Commission to consider this application for reallocation of
L-band spectrum use from space (MSS) to terrestrial (wireless network) under a
Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) to allow for the development of a robust
public record and adequate interference analysis to protect the GPS installed user
base and

2) the Federal agencies to request that they ask the National Telecommunications
Information Administration (NTIA), Co-regulator of the radiofrequency bands
allocated to GPS use, to conduct a study of the potential interference to the broad
installed GPS user base in the public and private sector from the newly proposed
reallocation of adjacent band spectrum to terrestrial wireless operations.
Reference: LightSquared application request for Modification of its Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial
Component (ATC) [FCC File No. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239]

Background: In 2002, the FCC authorized Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations, on
a secondary basis, to the radiofrequency bands allocated to primary space-based MSS operations in
the L-band (1525-1559 MHz and at 1626.50-1660.50 MHz). These MSS operations bracket the GPS
L1 signal operating in the L-band at 1559-1610 MHz. In 2002, a single operator of both MSS and
ATC, Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV) planned to operate its ATC as a gap filler augmenting its MSS
service in urban areas. MSV planned to offer integrated handsets (MSS/ATC) exclusively. Out-ofband
emissions (OOBE) to protect GPS use were developed based on these operating conditions.
Last month, LightSquared (successor to MSV), submitted a letter to the FCC reporting on its evolved
business plan and reinterpretation of its integrated MSS/ATC service to operate a high-capacity,
densely populated terrestrial wireless service deploying strong signal, high power transmitters in
select urban areas. It intends to be a wholesale provider of network capacity to retailers who will take
an integrated MSS/ATC service, but who can choose to sell terrestrial only handsets to end users.
This FCC applicant effectively is seeking a primary spectrum allocation for its terrestrial service that
results in a reallocation of spectrum use and the opposite of the originally proposed MSS/ATC
operations in 2002. Reallocation of spectrum use from space to terrestrial introduces a significant
interference problem for adjacent band GPS operations. Additional mitigation measures need to be
taken to protect adjacent GPS operations. Adequate technical interference analysis needs to be
undertaken by NTIA similar to the NTIA study for Ultrawideband (UWB) in 2001.
Your timely action is needed to urge the FCC not to grant the application, as filed, until the necessary
interference analysis has been conducted. Questions can be directed to either Mike Swiek, Executive
Director, U. S. GPS Industry Council (mswiek@mike-intl.com; (202) 416-6282) or Raul Rodriguez,
Legal Counsel, U.S. GPS Industry Council (rrodriguez@lermansenter.com; (305) 456-7378

I trust this person and for myself, I am an educator that is involved with geospatial technology.
Ed

[BlueDeuce]

Who starts any formal letter with "Dear"?

[ecanderson]

 BlueDeuce, on 12 January 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

Who starts any formal letter with "Dear"?

No one with any sense, but that doesn't change the fact that a number of organizations and industry groups are concerned about possible L1 interference, and feel that the FCC owes it to the public to do a proper vetting of the request for the requested use of the spectrum.

This post has been edited by ecanderson: 12 January 2011 - 06:44 PM

[zulutime]

 ecanderson, on 12 January 2011 - 05:17 PM, said:

Complaints being filed. Reference document of interest here:

https://www.psls.org...ightSquared.pdf

Potential offending party's name is LightSquared.

During 2009 and 2010 LightSquared, via their own Political Action Committee contributed exclusively to:
DORGAN, BYRON L Senate Democrat ND
INOUYE, DANIEL K Senate Democrat HI

Their owners and officers may also have contributed personally.

This post has been edited by zulutime: 12 January 2011 - 08:16 PM

[geodarts]

 ecanderson, on 12 January 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

 BlueDeuce, on 12 January 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

Who starts any formal letter with "Dear"?

No one with any sense, but that doesn't change the fact that a number of organizations and industry groups are concerned about possible L1 interference, and feel that the FCC owes it to the public to do a proper vetting of the request for the requested use of the spectrum.

I guess I could take that personally since my law office (a government agency) routinely uses "dear" but I have enough sense to recognize the problem at issue. I am glad it was brought to our attention.

[bcblues]

Latest update: LightSquared to test.

[sviking]

Just remember... The government big enough to give you everything...can take it ALL away...

[ICHTHYS]

 mpilchfamily, on 12 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

The Military doesn't use the L1 freq, they have their own they use.

[yogazoo]

 sviking, on 26 January 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

Just remember... The government big enough to give you everything...can take it ALL away...

Great point, although in this case government oversight and regulation is going to be one of, if not the only thing that keeps LightSquared from stepping on your L1 band. People here who care and wrote letters wrote them to the FCC (government) asking them to intervene. No one wrote LightSquared asking them to please not step on L1 out of the kindness of their collective hearts.

This post has been edited by yogazoo: 26 January 2011 - 08:48 PM

[Shilo]

 ICHTHYS, on 26 January 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

 mpilchfamily, on 12 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

The Military doesn't use the L1 freq, they have their own they use.

This was my thinking, the DoD doesn't care because they don't use L1.

But it makes you wonder if the GPS tests the DoD is doing currently is related to this in some way?

[ecanderson]

 Shilo, on 29 January 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

This was my thinking, the DoD doesn't care because they don't use L1.

But it makes you wonder if the GPS tests the DoD is doing currently is related to this in some way?

Whatever they're doing, it's broad spectrum enough to prove whether their own system holds up (which I believe was the point of the test), and hammers L1 at the same time. To my surprise, I believe I had an experience with this about 5:20pm Denver time tonight. Sitting in one spot, watched reception on 10 or so satellites go from normal to 20% or less of normal signal strength and back several times in a rather cyclic fashion. I've never seen that before. Actually lost lock at the bottom of each cycle. Cleaned itself up about 10 minutes after I had fired up the GPS.

[The_Lost_Dogs]

On Jan. 26, the FCC has posted the order and granted the waiver request, conditioned on ensuring that the waiver does not interfere with GPS (yes, your comments do get heard by the FCC).

Here is the relevant language from the FCC order:

Quote

V. GPS AND OTHER INTERFERENCE CONCERNS
A. GPS-Related Interference Concerns
39. Several commenters raise concerns about potential interference to GPS receivers and other devices that may result from operation of LightSquared’s base stations, while LightSquared asserts that it continues to meet its obligations with regard to addressing interference concerns. NTIA also expresses concern that LightSquared’s services could adversely impact GPS and other GNSS receivers, and asks that the Commission address these inference issues before interference occurs. We emphasize that any potential interference to GPS is a significant concern, and note that the Spectrum Task Force at the Commission recently established an internal technical working group dedicated to examining this issue.
40. The U.S. GPS Industry Council proposes that NTIA, working with industry and government technical experts, examine the potential for interference within a reasonable time frame, not to exceed 90 days. In its letter, NTIA states that, if the Commission grants LightSquared’s request, the Commission should establish a process that will ensure the interference issues are resolved prior to LightSquared’s offering service that could cause interference, and that will motivate all parties to move expeditiously and in good faith to resolve the issues. NTIA further states that it stands ready to work with the Commission, LightSquared, and affected parties and concerned Federal agencies to address these interference concerns. More recently, LightSquared states that it takes the concerns raised by the GPS community about possible overload of GPS devices by LightSquared’s base stations very seriously, and that it is appropriate for interested parties to devote resources to a solution as soon as possible. LightSquared professes confidence that the issues can be resolved without delaying deployment of its network. At the same time, in order to address the concerns raised, LightSquared states that it would accept, as a condition of the grant of its request, the creation of a process to address interference concerns regarding GPS and, further, that this process must be completed to the Commission’s satisfaction before LightSquared commences offering commercial service, pursuant to the approval of its request, on its L-Band MSS frequencies. Further, LightSquared commits to working diligently and cooperatively with the Commission, NTIA and the Federal agencies, and the GPS community to help resolve the interference issues through a rigorous process that can address these issues in a comprehensive manner.
41. We agree on the need to address the potential interference concerns regarding GPS as LightSquared moves forward with plans to deploy and commence commercial operations on its network. Further, we believe that establishing a working group that brings LightSquared and the GPS community together to address these interference issues expeditiously would serve the public interest. We envision a working group in which cooperative and candid discussions can ensue, and where information, including proprietary information, can be shared among the participants with appropriate measures in place to protect the confidentiality of that information. Commission staff will work with NTIA, LightSquared, and the GPS community, including appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a working group to fully study the potential for overload interference to GPS devices and to identify any measures necessary to prevent harmful interference to GPS. As a condition of granting this waiver, the process described below addressing the interference concerns regarding GPS must be completed to the Commission’s satisfaction before LightSquared commences offering commercial service pursuant to this waiver on its L-band MSS frequencies.
42. As an additional condition of granting this waiver, we require LightSquared to help organize and fully participate in the working group described above. The working group shall focus on analyzing a variety of types of GPS devices for their susceptibility to overload interference from LightSquared’s terrestrial network of base stations, identifying near-term technical and operational measures that can be implemented to reduce the risk of overload interference to GPS devices, and providing recommendations on steps that can be taken going forward to permit broadband wireless services to be provided in the L-Band MSS frequencies and coexist with GPS devices. Because the GPS interference concerns stem from LightSquared’s transmissions in its authorized spectrum rather than transmissions in the GPS band, the Commission expects full participation by the GPS industry in the working group and expects the GPS industry to work expeditiously and in good faith with LightSquared to ameliorate the interference concerns.
43. Further, we require that LightSquared submit an initial report to the FCC and NTIA by February 25, 2011, that includes a work plan outlining key milestones for the overall analyses. In addition, LightSquared must submit progress reports on the 15th day of each succeeding month or first business day thereafter. The first of these reports must at a minimum include base station transmitter characteristics, categories of GPS devices and their representative performance characteristics, and test plans and procedures. LightSquared is further required to submit a final report no later than June 15, 2011, that includes the working group’s analyses of the potential for overload interference to GPS devices from LightSquared’s terrestrial network of base stations, technical and operational steps to avoid such interference, and specific recommendations going forward to mitigate potential interference to GPS devices. The Bureau reserves the right to adjust the reporting dates and requirements in consultation with NTIA. The process will be complete once the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.

[2Wheel'in]

Thanks for posting that "Order" information ALD (both here and on the NoVAGO Forum).

Bill

[The_Lost_Dogs]

Ack! Bill is following me!

I have created an information page here which I will endeavor to update

http://www.cybertele...oadband/gps.htm

[The_Lost_Dogs]

Not sure how you would know that GPS is being interfered with. However, one solution is to file complaints at the FCC. There is a pretty easy web-based form

http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

SELECT Tower Light Outages and Signal Interference

SELECT Interference to non-emergency devices (Non-Emergency)

SELECT Online Form

And then try to provide as much detail as you can.

[thwarte]

There's a very good overview of the technical and regulatory issues here:
freegeographytools.com/2011/how-the-fcc-plans-to-destroy-gps-a-simple-explanation

with ongoing comments and a link listing the congresscritters to whom comments should be sent.

(This site is great for its main topic also - and 'free geography tools' should interest some here, though it presumes some GIS and GPS background.)

[Walts Hunting]

There website says they are building 4G-LTE network. That is Verizon.

[traildad]

Here is some of the back story.Buy Influence With White House?

And some more info

[yogazoo]

Business Week ran a story today about how LightSquared has secured 5 major commercial accounts. Does this sound to anyone like they plan on dealing with issues in a responsible manner? I guess when you have billions at your disposal and influence in Washington D.C. you can put the cart in front of the horse. This is yet another example of how our political system, the entire system, is broken. Corporate money trumps the benefit of the masses every time.

LightSquared announces commmercial customer base

Looks like GPS users in the following cities can look forward to interference as LightSquared begins testing.

"The service provider will begin network trials this year in Las Vegas, Baltimore, Denver and Phoenix after completing testing in a lab in the Dallas area, Boulben said." - Business Week

This post has been edited by yogazoo: 16 February 2011 - 12:50 PM

[teepeeayy]

 Shilo, on 29 January 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

 ICHTHYS, on 26 January 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

 mpilchfamily, on 12 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

The Military doesn't use the L1 freq, they have their own they use.

This was my thinking, the DoD doesn't care because they don't use L1.

But it makes you wonder if the GPS tests the DoD is doing currently is related to this in some way?

But do the airlines?

[Shilo]

 teepeeayy, on 22 February 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

 Shilo, on 29 January 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

 ICHTHYS, on 26 January 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

 mpilchfamily, on 12 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

The Military doesn't use the L1 freq, they have their own they use.

This was my thinking, the DoD doesn't care because they don't use L1.

But it makes you wonder if the GPS tests the DoD is doing currently is related to this in some way?

But do the airlines?

Evidently the airlines do because the DoD sent the test information to the FAA(and them only) and advised of GPS interference. I doubt the DoD would want a military grade GPS in a commercial airliner.

This post has been edited by Shilo: 22 February 2011 - 02:54 PM

[jholly]

 Shilo, on 22 February 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

 teepeeayy, on 22 February 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

 Shilo, on 29 January 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

 ICHTHYS, on 26 January 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

 mpilchfamily, on 12 January 2011 - 05:33 PM, said:

The military alone is enough to keep something like this from going through. Anything that would interfere with GPS even if it is locally will hurt the nation.

The Military doesn't use the L1 freq, they have their own they use.

This was my thinking, the DoD doesn't care because they don't use L1.

But it makes you wonder if the GPS tests the DoD is doing currently is related to this in some way?

But do the airlines?

Evidently the airlines do because the DoD sent the test information to the FAA(and them only) and advised of GPS interference. I doubt the DoD would want a military grade GPS in a commercial airliner.

I can think of a couple they would.

[sviking]

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

I can think of a couple they would.

Those are not COMMERCIAL airliners.

[jholly]

 sviking, on 22 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

I can think of a couple they would.

Those are not COMMERCIAL airliners.

Well, they don't fly a route for hire, but they were born at the home of commercial airlines.

[yogazoo]

Admittedly I'm dense, but what in heavens name are you guys talking about? Apparently I'm missing something.

"It's the money Lebowski"

[TotemLake]

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

 sviking, on 22 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

I can think of a couple they would.

Those are not COMMERCIAL airliners.

Well, they don't fly a route for hire, but they were born at the home of commercial airlines.

The same thing could be said of the tankers and fighter jets. It has no bearing on the similarities of the commercial ilk aside from the airframe itself.

[jholly]

 yogazoo, on 22 February 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

Admittedly I'm dense, but what in heavens name are you guys talking about? Apparently I'm missing something.

"It's the money Lebowski"

There are two 747's that are flown by the air force. Intermittently one or the other goes by the call sign Air Force 1. They use this call sign when a certain passenger is on board, other wise they go by their tail numbers.

[yogazoo]

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

 yogazoo, on 22 February 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

Admittedly I'm dense, but what in heavens name are you guys talking about? Apparently I'm missing something.

"It's the money Lebowski"

There are two 747's that are flown by the air force. Intermittently one or the other goes by the call sign Air Force 1. They use this call sign when a certain passenger is on board, other wise they go by their tail numbers.

Thank you! Air Force 1, why didn't somebody say so from the get go?

[ecanderson]

 yogazoo, on 22 February 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

Admittedly I'm dense, but what in heavens name are you guys talking about? Apparently I'm missing something.

They're arguing over whether the presidential 747 should be called a "commercial" airliner. Given the improved seating, I vote no on those grounds alone!

[ecanderson]

Being fairly close to Garmin's HQ, the Kansas City Star just did an article on this topic (here -> http://www.kansascit...orries-gps.html )

This post has been edited by ecanderson: 07 March 2011 - 08:03 AM

[yogazoo]

Thanks for that article EC,

The one thing I learned from that article is that Garmin and other GPS manufacturers cut costs in the past by not narrowing the frequency received by the units. They were sloppy because they could be, as the L1 freq was largely unused. In reality, just as much blame can be placed on GPS manufacturers as on LightSquared. It doesn't look good for all of us. I forsee millions of GPS units being rendered undesireable. We'll all have to buy new units that narrow the frequency or litigate to have the problem with existing units resolved by the GPS manufacturers. Either way, it's going to be us, the end user, bearing the brunt of the cost of the GPS manufacturers laziness and LightSquared's political connectedness.

I'll tell you what I'm not doing, is running out to buy a GPS until this whole thing is resolved. I would hate to drop a few hundred on a new unit only to have it trampled on by L1. We should soon start seeing new units with some kind of named feature that indicates a filtering out of L1.

In this economy I'm not as in the mood to play the upgrade/replacement game.

This post has been edited by yogazoo: 07 March 2011 - 10:23 AM

[ecanderson]

 yogazoo, on 07 March 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Thanks for that article EC,

The one thing I learned from that article is that Garmin and other GPS manufacturers cut costs in the past by not narrowing the frequency received by the units.

That is correct. It's a feature of RF receiving gear known as "selectivity" and "adjacent channel rejection". Then again, one designs equipment based upon requirements, not future surprises that deviate from allowed use of adjacent spectrum. Designing in increased selectivity isn't free. Moreover, a GPS receiver must be very sensitive. Signals from satellites as they reach our planet here aren't that powerful given the distance and spread of the signal over that distance.

Prior to the LS issue, the adjacent spectrum was not a problem. The FCC had set aside ALL of the surrounding spectrum for - and this is KEY - "space to earth" communications (see http://www.fcc.gov/o...le/fcctable.pdf ). As received on the planet here, those wind up being very low power signals. With very low power signals being received from space, there was no need for concern by the GPS manufacturers.

LS started talking space to earth comms, and then in a bit of a "bait and switch" move, tried to slide through a deviation for spectrum use for their terrestrially based system -- using that spectrum previously set aside for ONLY space to earth comms. Unlike satellite signals, which due to distance and spread tend to be rather weak, these ground based systems would likely swamp an existing GPS unit's ability to reject the interference from adjacent frequencies.

So while it's true that the selectivity of commercial and consumer GPS receivers wasn't exceptionally tight, neither was there any reason for it to be. During the design phase, there was NO anticipation of a terrestrially based use of the adjacent spectrum. There wasn't SUPPOSED to be terrestrially based equipment there, but LS's attempt (and so far, it's only that, thanks to some alert people out there) to make ground based use of "space to earth" spectrum was a game changer.

LS tried to slide one by the FCC, and the FCC nearly let them. You can determine for yourself whether money and politics had a hand in this, but even assuming the unlikely idea that it did not, it was clear that the FCC did NOT do its job when reviewing LS's application for a deviation from allowed use of spectrum.

All we can do now is hope that sanity is brought to this issue and soon. Phil Falcone / LightSquared / Harbinger have a huge ($billions) financial stake in this slight of hand if they can pull it off. Then again, if the civil and criminal investigations of Falcone by the SEC for prior bad acts pan out, perhaps all of this will be moot. This LightSquared scheme is already considered by many to be seriously underfunded, and Phil's empire isn't nearly as cash rich as it used to be. That said, he's put more than half of his eggs in this LightSquared basket in hopes of recouping his prior losses, so you can bet he'll fight tooth and nail.

This post has been edited by ecanderson: 07 March 2011 - 10:51 AM

[ecanderson]

 yogazoo, on 07 March 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I'll tell you what I'm not doing, is running out to buy a GPS until this whole thing is resolved. I would hate to drop a few hundred on a new unit only to have it trampled on by L1. We should soon start seeing new units with some kind of named feature that indicates a filtering out of L1.

In this economy I'm not as in the mood to play the upgrade/replacement game.

Don't confuse LS (LightSquared) with L1 (the name of the frequency spectrum that our GPS units use).

Given the incredibly large installed base of GPS equipment, consumer - commercial - aviation - military, that uses L1 satellite spectrum, it would be entirely unreasonable for the FCC to make a move that required it all to be replaced. That's not to say that the folks that have run and now run the FCC haven't shown incompetence before, but one can hope that they understand that we'll all be on the Commission's front porch with pitchforks and torches if they allow LS to deploy gear that ruins our reception.

[Woodstramp]

I agree with Ecanderson,

"The one thing I learned from that article is that Garmin and other GPS manufacturers cut costs in the past by not narrowing the frequency received by the units. They were sloppy because they could be as the L1 freq was largely unused."

That seems to be a new spin of late from the Lightsquared/ObamaFCC corner. I think it's funny. Blame the evil, greedy GPS corporations for not having the foresight to handle a problem that would eventually come blindly out of the blue.

Kind of like blaming car manufacturers for safety issues after giant alien space-tanks are suddenly government-allowed to buzz around on the interstate highways.

[yogazoo]

1) Thanks EC for the technical insight. You seem to be very well versed in the jargon and every aspect of this whole issue.

2) Woodstramp, all I was saying is that there could be blame thrown around either way. Could GPS manufacturers have ever forseen that, given the way spectrum is being consumed today, eventually the band could be used for other things? Sure. I'm not blaming GPS manufacturers, all I was saying is that story brought to light another aspect of the whole situation that I hadn't heard before. ecanderson made some very good points to counter that argument. As much as I hate to admit it sometimes, there are always two sides of a story. While I may not agree, it's good to hear and understand both. There is no doubt LightSquared will use the band filtering argument against the GPS manufacturers.


In the end my prediction is that, given the widespread and important uses of GPS signals, Falcone/LightSquared will lose out in the end. Eventually this sory will hit mainstream media outlets and more people will find out and become angry. What good soccer-mom is without a GPS navigator of some type.

PS: In politics money talks and BS walks. Doesn't matter who or what party is in control.

[Woodstramp]

"In the end my prediction is that ....Falcone/LightSquared will lose out in the end."

Hope your prediction is spot on. (Not to bring politic'n into this, but) Reagan gave us 100m accuracy, Clinton gave us 30m accuracy....I hope Obama's FCC doesn't put us back to those sexy 70's vintage dashboard compasses.

[Capt. Bob]

 yogazoo, on 07 March 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

LS tried to Slide one by the FCC, and the FCC nearly let them. You can determine for yourself whether money and politics had a hand in this, but even assuming the unlikely idea that it did not, it was clear that the FCC did NOT do its job when reviewing LS's application for a deviation from allowed use of spectrum.

Here's how it's done.

This is from the National Legal and Policy Center. The whole story can be read here:

http://www.nlpc.org/...ps-interference

"According to White House visitor access logs, on September 22, 2009, Mr. Falcone and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja personally visited the White House and met with the Chief of Staff at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).[10] One day later, the Harbinger/SkyTerra merger agreement was signed.[11]

On September 30, 2009, one week after his September 2009 White House visit, Mr. Falcone contributed $30,400 to the DSCC -- the maximum legal individual contribution limit to a party committee. His wife, Lisa Falcone, contributed an additional $30,400 to the DSCC on the same day. (LightSquared's new CEO Sanjiv Ahuja also contributed $30,400 to the DNC in September of 2010).[12]

Mr. Falcone's contributions to the DSCC were anomalous as, traditionally, Mr. Falcone was a much larger donor to the Republican Party. In fact, just prior to the $60,800 in contributions to the Democrats, the most Mr. Falcone and his spouse previously contributed during that political cycle was $2,400. As for Sanjiv Ahuja, his $30,400 contribution to the DNC was his first political contribution in 8 years, and prior to that he contributed only to Republicans between 1998-2002.

On January 21, 2010, Mr. Falcone visited the White House again, this time for an appointment with John Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy."


"In addition to well-timed political contributions to the DSCC at the height of merger review discussions, Mr. Falcone's Harbinger also secured the assistance of a lobbying firm, the Palmetto Group, via Harbinger's legal counsel Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright to lobby Congress and the FCC on mobile satellite services.[13] Mr. Steve Glaze, a lobbyist with the Palmetto Group, was registered to lobby the FCC directly on mobile satellite services and is married to Terri Glaze, a senior staffer at the FCC."

[Fistmele_VA]

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

 sviking, on 22 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

 jholly, on 22 February 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

I can think of a couple they would.

Those are not COMMERCIAL airliners.

Well, they don't fly a route for hire, but they were born at the home of commercial airlines.

The FAA is in the process of developing NextGen, which is a GPS-based system that will eventually replace radar for air navigation. They are well into the planning/development stages. NextGen

[Corfmania]

Check it out:
http://www.saveourgps.org/

[ICHTHYS]

Hitting the mainstream news now.

http://m.usatoday.co...09592?feedID=17

[MikeAndHike]

What I find interesting is that just yesterday I was reading about a truck driver who was using a gps jammer so his boss couldn't track his off route driving. His "Off Route" was taking him down a road adjacent to a large airport twice a day which was completely blocking the air traffic controls gps signals from their planes on the ground. The FAA called in help to figure out what was causing the disruptions as it was a serious problem. They eventually figured out it was the truck. Turns out gps jammers are illegal. If gps jammers are illegal how can this new 4g be legal.

I am going to go hunt down that article.

Not the article I read but has the same story. Via The Economist

Edit #1 - FCC changed to FAA
Edit #2 - Added link

This post has been edited by MikeAndHike: 10 March 2011 - 11:28 PM

[daddykeeper]

 MikeAndHike, on 10 March 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

Turns out gps jammers are illegal. If gps jammers are illegal how can this new 4g be legal.

I should imagine it is the same as here in the UK. GPS jammers are not in their own right illegal, however most transmitters must be licensed unless in certain frequency ranges and power outputs. Hence a wi-fi router is legal (power and frequency), yet the doohickeys you put on an MP3 player to have them come through the car radio are illegal (frequency) same applies for CB radios that put out more than 4w (power).

[jholly]

 MikeAndHike, on 10 March 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

What I find interesting is that just yesterday I was reading about a truck driver who was using a gps jammer so his boss couldn't track his off route driving. His "Off Route" was taking him down a road adjacent to a large airport twice a day which was completely blocking the air traffic controls gps signals from their planes on the ground. The FAA called in help to figure out what was causing the disruptions as it was a serious problem. They eventually figured out it was the truck. Turns out gps jammers are illegal. If gps jammers are illegal how can this new 4g be legal.

I am going to go hunt down that article.

Not the article I read but has the same story. Via The Economist

Edit #1 - FCC changed to FAA
Edit #2 - Added link

The jammers broadcast on the L1 band specifically to disrupt the GPS signals. I have not looked it up, but I suspect the frequencies around the L1 signal are exclusive use. The 4g uses a nearby frequency that does not infringe on the L1 signal. If the GPS receiver does not have enough selectivity to reject the 4g signal then it can cause reception problems.

[ecanderson]

 jholly, on 11 March 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

The 4g uses a nearby frequency that does not infringe on the L1 signal. If the GPS receiver does not have enough selectivity to reject the 4g signal then it can cause reception problems.

Have a look at post #38, above. The 4G signal was never supposed to have been allowed in that adjacent band to begin with (reserved for MUCH weaker space-to-Earth signals only). No GPS receiver using L1 should have ever expected to have to reject adjacent band high power terrestrially based transmitters.