Comments on: FCC protects “too big to fail” GPS from LightSquared interference

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:00 +0000

When I worked at The Boeing Company, there was a project to replace navigation equipment with newer technology by Honeywell. It was a heads-up display, and also incorporated more accurate and efficient travel.

If I’m not mistaken, the analysis showed that commercial airlines could save money by more efficient use of fuel, and also provide more safe flights, resulting in happier airtravel customers.

I believe the cost was less than $1.00 per passenger over the period of 2 years, but this was years ago, and I’m relying on memory.

If navigation equipment was a bit more open, then everyone can save money, people can have safer flights, but it requires the US to consider satellites with better spot-beaming technology instead of omnidirectional antennas, which only broadcast clock timing information, and triangulation occurs on the GPS reciever. Surely there is a better idea, perhaps something similar to Galileo project in Europe, GLONASS in Russia, or China’s Beideu.

So there are 4 GPS systems that exist, and possibly 3 of them rival US GPS system.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16337648

My neighbor helped launch all 66 satellites into space. He worked with Lockheed and Boeing.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:16:00 +0000

Then DoD lobbyists should be regulated, and FCC should have more control over bandwidth. Today, there are large swatches of spectrum, a natural resource, allocated by the FCC, that DoD doesn’t use.

I am told that a lot of this was allocated at a time when we were at war, and used to detect atomic blasts. Seeing that we’re no longer at war, perhaps the FCC should be responsible for allocating all spectrum

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:14:00 +0000

DoD has deeper pockets. GPS was originally a DoD project. Also, because it was a DoD project, there were little requirements to meet FCC regulations.

On my side, when my iPhone’s GPS didn’t work anymore due to a botched firmware upgrade, I purchased a $30 bluetooth GPS reciever. I have to imagine that workarounds like this can be created for a very low capital investment.

By: Johnnie

Johnnie — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:25:00 +0000

can you flesh that out? I distinctly recall reading about Lightsquared’s intended use of this bandwidth before they were able to get the rights for this.

On what basis are you claiming that lightsquared is inappropriately chainging their goal after having been granted rights to use the frequencies? That’s the sort of comment you need to either support, or not make in the first place. Your choice which one.

By: Johnnie

Johnnie — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:22:00 +0000

lol…

Example of how the FCC does not apparently have skills acquired in a basic ethics 101 class regarding how to decide what the “right” choice is.

By: rsk_87

rsk_87 — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:18:00 +0000

Well said – seems like LightSquared has decided to spend $s on propoganda than on engineering (or re-engineering) – btw, this article is content free!

By: G_r4ve86

G_r4ve86 — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:54:00 +0000

”if it is within its proper levels then frankly the FCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Well, the license for the signal band that Lightspeed has is for space to ground transmission, not ground only signals. The power ratio is about 100,000 TIMES what it would be compared to space to ground.

So, yes, both the FCC and the GPS industry have plenty of leg to stand on. This article is as one sided as it gets.

By: gps user

gps user — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:21:00 +0000

LIght Squared is really trying to spin this one and rewrite the rules of physics in the process.
Neither receivers (GPS in this case) or transmitters (Light Squared in this case) have razor sharp cutoffs and they never will (that is the physics). The spin is blaming GPS when in fact Light Squared is also part of the problem. The way this is solved is with guard bands (empty bands of frequencies between services). If Light Squared employed any enginers they knew that the use of frequencies adjacent to GPS was a non-starter. The Light Squared position is as untenable as the (now dead) attempt to provide internet service over power lines (BPL). Money may talk but mother nature and physics don’t speak finance.

By: satellite-rf-engineer

satellite-rf-engineer — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:09:00 +0000

This article completely fails to address the actual technical issues. Instead the author elected to repeat lies and provide misleading information to elicit sympathy for LightSquared. The problem is not GPS receivers, its the misuse of spectrum. There are a multitude of places where you can read the scientific fact of the matter, and not this rubbish.

By: DavidPun

DavidPun — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:06:00 +0000

When you look at the spectrum allocation, the FCC requirements specify a maximum power level. I don’t know what Lightsquared is doing in regards to power, but if it is within its proper levels then frankly the FCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Light squared would be entitled to sue the GPS industry for potentially tens of billions of dollars for violating the spectrum restrictions resulting in loss of business for Lightsquared. This is a serious problem. Even if the FCC regulates in favor of the GPS industry, they have no authority to do so and this will be quickly overruled by a court.

By: rbag

rbag — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:01:00 +0000

Sometimes it's good to listen to the engineers. So why do we bother with an article with no technical content? While it is true that new devices interfering with existing devices is bad. we also want to know how difficult it would be to "fix" GPS designs. What would it do to selling price? Certainly picking a small signal out of a nearby large signal is difficult. This article plays down the very real problem. Did the FCC screw up over allocating spectrum? If N0oe has it correct, the real problem is Lightsquared. This seems like an important issue simply not addressed by this article. I remain an uninformed citizen. News media, please take your stories seriously.

By: Djb

Djb — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:51:00 +0000

Absolutely correct. Lightsquared used their lobbyists to help them acquire the bandwidth then get permission to use it differently from what was originally intended.

By: Frequent flyer

Frequent flyer — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:48:00 +0000

New devices are required not to interfere with existing devices. Since GPS is used for vital navigation and for emergency location, it is pretty obvious that the FCC has to be cautious. The real money grubbing and lobbying was done by Lightsquared as they tried to license a device that was significantly interfering with existing devices. This story sounds like it was written by lightsquared marketing. Do you really want an airliner plowing into a mountain so we can have yet another way to access the internet and line a bunch of politician’s pockets?

By: Firm Soil

Firm Soil — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:33:00 +0000

FCC is highly corrupt and GPS industry has deep pockets. The money math is simple.