Lightsquared and GPS system

DoD isn't going to advertise how many GPS receivers they have, even indirectly, by having some company placing orders for Chinese built RF filters... If ya think it through to that next step. Not critical intel, but it gives a number to start from to tack on to other force estimates...
 
denverpilot said:
DoD isn't going to advertise how many GPS receivers they have, even indirectly, by having some company placing orders for Chinese built RF filters... If ya think it through to that next step. Not critical intel, but it gives a number to start from to tack on to other force estimates...
Click to expand...
I suppose they could just order 10 times as many "filters" as they really need to confuse the watchers but I've got the feeling that the DoD (correctly) decided that the LS plan simply wasn't going to work, filters or no filters.

And I think it's safe to assume that 10 experienced manufacturers of GPS receivers who unanimously agreed that no practical filter solution exists with today's technology are more likely to be correct than the LS "engineers" who claimed to have such a filter in their lab that's ready to solve the problem created by those greedy GPS manufacturers who are so intent on stealing LS's spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Update; looks like LightSquared got shot down by an act of congress:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/01/new-act-scuppers-lightsquareds.html

"A clause buried deep in the 565 pages of the 2012 Defense Authorization act passed in December bars the Federal Communications Commission from approving systems that interfere in any way with military GPS. The bill also tells the FCC to supply Congress with a final copy of the report from its working group, which late last year issued a preliminary report warning that a system proposed by telecoms firm LightSquared of Reston, Virginia would cause serious interference."
Click to expand...

Not so fast... L2 system didn't interfere with the military 'Y code' side from what I understand...
 
Henning said:
Not so fast... L2 system didn't interfere with the military 'Y code' side from what I understand...
Click to expand...

Negative. LS would still reduce the code to noise ratio even on P(Y), though the reciever may still be able to track. The bigger problem is that P(Y) recievers need to track CA (civil code in the vernacular) to lock onto P(Y).
 
Last edited:
COFlyBoy said:
Negative. LS would still reduce the code to noise ratio even on P(Y), though the reciever may still be able to track. The bigger problem is that P(Y) recievers need to track CA (civil code in the vernacular) to lock onto P(Y).
Click to expand...

Correct. The A in C/A is the fact that it uses that signal to acquire the rest of the GPS system. The P code is spread across both L1 and L2 as well. Even with well designed military receivers, it's still arguable that a strong local signal will degrade them.

Further, it's also the case that the military uses less than "optimal" GPS receivers so technically LS is still in violation.
 
And LightSquared keeps kicking. Now they're accusing the tests as being "rigged".

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/18/lightsquared-says-rigged-testing-of-its-network/

LightSquared's encountered many bumps on the road to winning clearance for its LTE network, but it's not ready to throw in the towel just yet. During a conference call today, Jeff Carlisle (Executive Vice President for Regulatory Affairs), Geoff Stearn (Vice President of Spectrum Development) and Ed Thomas (Former FCC Chief Engineer, now a LightSquared consultant) refuted the government's claims that the network interferes with GPS receivers, lambasting the use of "obsolete" devices and other tests that don't "reflect reality." The LightSquared executives went as far as calling the entire process "rigged" and "shrouded in secrecy." In their opinion, the testing was "set up to be a failure," thanks in part to the involvement of GPS manufacturers. Moreover, when questioned about what the next step would be, the company stated that all it'd like are "valid scientific results," the use of non-obsolote devices and a "fair process with proper testing." Needless to say, we can expect the drama to continue over the coming months -- after all, LightSquared is claiming it's got enough money to keep the battle going for at least a few quarters yet.
Click to expand...
 
OK, I admit I don't understand the business side of the story. If LightSquared paid FCC for this spectrum can they get their money back or at least move to another part of the spectrum? Don't know how these things are contracted but wouldn't there be a clause that the payment is made on the assumption that ultimately there will be no obstacles to them making use of the alotted spectrum. There is no other bandwith available, that's it?? I don't get it why they expand all the energy on this fight.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
OK, I admit I don't understand the business side of the story. If LightSquared paid FCC for this spectrum can they get their money back or at least move to another part of the spectrum? Don't know how these things are contracted but wouldn't there be a clause that the payment is made on the assumption that ultimately there will be no obstacles to them making use of the alotted spectrum. There is no other bandwith available, that's it?? I don't get it why they expand all the energy on this fight.
Click to expand...

No. They got spectrum for satellite use, then convinced someone really stupid or corrupt at FCC to let them install terrestrial transmitters at much higher power (local field strength) as a "test", and now want to roll out those transmitters nationwide.

They're now playing semantic games with the letter of the law and taking some things literally vs the original intent of their choice of spectrum.

They didn't ever have spectrum meant for high powered terrestrial signals.

They are playing dumb and pretending that signal strength doesn't matter because they're not willing or able to produce a working satellite based system. It's the GPS receiver's fault they can't utilize their satellite spectrum terrestrially, you see? ;)

It's a last ditch strategy to save a failed business model. WildBlue and others have soundly kicked their ass.

It's very likely that they also want(ed) to apply for lots and lots of money from the Rural Broadband funding/grants paid for on every phone bill you've paid since the 90s. Their political connections are quite interesting.

Similar business model to OpenRange but OR was terrestrial with WiMax as their tech.

I spent the afternoon collecting gear from their offices bought at auction for my employer.

Buh-bye. Dead. Thanks for the gear at 1/8 off of retail.

Auctions for LightSquared's gear are about a year or so away, I figure. Should be some nice furniture.
 
olasek said:
OK, I admit I don't understand the business side of the story. If LightSquared paid FCC for this spectrum can they get their money back or at least move to another part of the spectrum? Don't know how these things are contracted but wouldn't there be a clause that the payment is made on the assumption that ultimately there will be no obstacles to them making use of the alotted spectrum. There is no other bandwith available, that's it?? I don't get it why they expand all the energy on this fight.
Click to expand...
LS is still free to use their spectrum on space based transmitters but that won't allow them to provide the service they want. And BTW AFaIK, there is other spectrum available for terrestrial RF broadband networks but LS didn't purchase any of that.
 
denverpilot said:
DoD isn't going to advertise how many GPS receivers they have, even indirectly, by having some company placing orders for Chinese built RF filters... If ya think it through to that next step. Not critical intel, but it gives a number to start from to tack on to other force estimates...
Click to expand...

You would be surprised, maybe very surprised, at how many military folks use COTS (i.e. Garmin) devices in the field. The military systems are so far behind commercial stuff in terms of usability & interface that there's tacit acceptance of commercial handheld units throughout the armed services (particularly ground forces).

Ordering filters for the "official" military stuff would severly underestimate the number of receivers in actual use.

Henning said:
Not so fast... L2 system didn't interfere with the military 'Y code' side from what I understand...
Click to expand...

It does raise the noise floor. Y code and P code are still subject to interference in certain environments. And see note above about COTS devices.
 
What does "COTS" stand for?
 
TMetzinger said:
Commercial Off The Shelf. Governmentese for "we can buy this at Wal-Mart"
Click to expand...
Actually, when we go COTS, we're going for the good stuff. Not cheap crap.

Obviously no hard numbers to refer to, but I would not be surprised if there were more commercial gps units in military use than military grade ones. Even back in the days when we scrambled the signal, a lot of ships were using commercial gps units with commercial charting software to navigate instead of the crappy WRN-6 units that were installed.

The military acquisition process is soooo painfully slow that by the time something hits the fleet, it is designed and built with 10-15 year old technology.
 
I had to scroll back to see what Tim "Malarky" had to say.

Govt admin may be in the ****ter but procurement of materials and methods and final assy is top notch. Nothing but the best. In that as a citizen I am proud of my govt for top of the line assets.

However, the price is...staggering. In the case of the (now obsolete) F-22, why should it cost north of $200 MILLION per copy? A frigging over the top fighter/bomber is OBSOLETE to be replaced by...don't make me say it...JSF-35???? A Curtiss Warhawk would put up a good fight against the friggin boondoggle. But at least it's functional. No, wait....
 
I agree - there may be very high-end GPS units in weapons systems, but I know of several Ranger units who were finding their way out and back in Afghanistan using mostly donated garmin handhelds, because they couldn't get the "issue" units through the supply system. One of my old GPS-90s went out in a care package to troops in the late 90s.
 
Lightsquared is happy that the FCC is soliciting public comment on whether there really, really, really fur sure is a problem with Lightsquared messing up that poorly designed and unneeded toy GPS stuff trully, really, for keeps fingers crossed...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...htsquared-request-for-declaration-on-gps.html

In the instant Petition, LightSquared in essence seeks a declaratory ruling that, provided ATC
operations are conducted in accordance within the Commission’s technical parameters, commercially
available GPS devices are not protected against harmful interference caused by those ATC operations.
Section 628 of the 2012 General Government Appropriations Act bears on this issue as it relates to
LightSquared, inasmuch as it precludes the Commission from permitting LightSquared to engage in such
ATC operations under the Conditional Waiver Order until we have resolved concerns about interference
to GPS. Further, because we believe the ongoing Interference-Resolution Process provides the most
appropriate forum for considering LightSquared’s satisfaction of the interference-resolution conditions of
the Conditional Waiver Order, we associate LightSquared’s Petition with the docket established by the
Commission for petitions for reconsideration of the Conditional Waiver Order, IB Docket No. 11-109.
To the extent the Petition raises general issues about the regulatory status of GPS devices, these issues
will be considered in ET Docket No. 10-142.
Accordingly, interested parties are invited to file comments in response to LightSquared’s petition
for declaratory ruling in IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142, as appropriate, no later than 30
days after the release date of this public notice. Parties may file replies in response to those comments in IB
Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142, as appropriate, no later than 15 days after the date

http://www.fcc.gov/document/pleading-cycle-lightsquared-petition-declaratory-ruling
Click to expand...

Leave your comments on IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142 at http://www.fcc.gov/comments
 

Attachments

  • DA-12-103A1.pdf
    110.6 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
mikea said:
Lightsquared is happy that the FCC is soliciting public comment on whether there really, really, really fur sure is a problem with Lightsquared messing up that poorly designed and unneeded toy GPS stuff trully, really, for keeps fingers crossed...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...htsquared-request-for-declaration-on-gps.html



Leave your comments on IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142 at http://www.fcc.gov/comments
Click to expand...
To clarify the section Mike quoted above, ATC in this context is the Ancillary Terrestrial Component, or LightSquared's proposed ground-based radios. I also like the neat bit of forecasting in the FCC Public Notice: "On December 23, 2012 (sic), the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012 (2012 General Government Appropriations Act) was enacted into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.11"
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
Lightsquared is happy that the FCC is soliciting public comment on whether there really, really, really fur sure is a problem with Lightsquared messing up that poorly designed and unneeded toy GPS stuff trully, really, for keeps fingers crossed...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...htsquared-request-for-declaration-on-gps.html



Leave your comments on IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142 at http://www.fcc.gov/comments
Click to expand...
How does one leave such a comment? The fcc comments site has a pulldown list of topics but I can't tell which one applies to the docket's you listed.
 
Impossible website, Mike. Provide guidance, e.g, a link to the EXACT page where to leave comments or they've won. It's a SH_T site, any number that you've given that I search is a document, not a comment accepting page.

NONE of the choices in the "select rulemaking" window is identifiable as this issue. I would wager it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate commentary. So which of the about 30 choices is it?
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Impossible website, Mike. Provide guidance, e.g, a link to the EXACT page where to leave comments or they've won. It's a SH_T site, any number that you've given that I search is a document, not a comment accepting page.

NONE of the choices in the "select rulemaking" window is identifiable as this issue. I would wager it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate commentary.
Click to expand...


Noooo.. government blocking/ignoring public input on policy making... say it ain't so.... If you want to deal with bureaucracy you need a lobbyist. If you need action as an individual of limited means, your only hope is through your congress critters. If they don't go to bat for you, you're doomed. Luckily I had Phil Graham when I needed him.
 
bbchien said:
Impossible website, Mike. Provide guidance, e.g, a link to the EXACT page where to leave comments or they've won. It's a SH_T site, any number that you've given that I search is a document, not a comment accepting page.

NONE of the choices in the "select rulemaking" window is identifiable as this issue. I would wager it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate commentary. So which of the about 30 choices is it?
Click to expand...

I think this may be it:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=11-109

Then click on "Submit a Filing in 11-109" which appears near the top. Note that I haven't tried submitting a comment yet.
 
Thank you Jim. That worked nicely. There are a fair # of pro lightspeed comments up there. They are "packing" the rulemaking. We communally need to post.
 
thank you for the link--time to vote early and often fellow citizens.

Added my .02 to their request for comments. :mad2: :(:(

As an electronics countermeasures trained pilot, we are well aware of the interference caused by ground based transmitters in a space based satellite electromagnetic environment. By continuing to entertain comments on what was an error in allowing the switch to using the band in an unauthorized manner is a waste of the taxpayers money. We gps users are outraged at the government agency that failed to perform the most basic of scientific analysis in a professional manner. The company failed to be able to come up with a space based solution and their blatant use of legal mischief needs to be curtailed. Technically this exercise is over. Now we must shut this exercise down and quit spending any more time and money on it.
 
patrick wentworth said:
thank you for the link--time to vote early and often fellow citizens.

Added my .02 to their request for comments. :mad2: :(:(

As an electronics countermeasures trained pilot, we are well aware of the interference caused by ground based transmitters in a space based satellite electromagnetic environment. By continuing to entertain comments on what was an error in allowing the switch to using the band in an unauthorized manner is a waste of the taxpayers money. We gps users are outraged at the government agency that failed to perform the most basic of scientific analysis in a professional manner. The company failed to be able to come up with a space based solution and their blatant use of legal mischief needs to be curtailed. Technically this exercise is over. Now we must shut this exercise down and quit spending any more time and money on it.
Click to expand...

My guess is that LS has nothing to lose by asking for a declaratory ruling. At this point things could drag on a long time, which is probably not good, business-wise.

The FCC might decline to issue a declaratory ruling (not sure if they have that option) or might rule against LS or, best decision for LS, in favor.

The certitude of a negative ruling might open up other legal possibilities for them that are preferable to indefinite and hostile limbo. Or not.
 
I was recently reading an IFR Magazine article that said ADS-B relies on GPS. So if LightSquared got their way, that would be a lot of expensive ballast.
 
The first article in the attached PDF set of articles has an interesting financial angle on the LightSquared deal...

60% of the fund is in LightSquared?!? At 15%?! Talk about putting all your eggs in one risky basket!
 

Attachments

  • Feb 09, 2012.doc
    164.5 KB · Views: 22
Like I said from the start... "Follow the money." It leads to all sorts of interesting things in this debacle.

Negotiating 15% out of a "true believer" who thought he had government regulators in the bag, due to high political connections (read: pay-offs), and was in so deep he had to double-down, was just brilliant business. Whoever did that is getting paid. Cash money.

The more "uncertainty" the better for them, as it'll drag out the inevitable bankruptcy far past the break-even point on the loan. Then they'll be near the front of the line for the asset auction, although not up front as the article points out.

Excellent example of risk/reward skewed by government regulators not being efficient or consistent. FCC should have never issued the temporary license to start with. It's cost the taxpayer a few million so far. Against LS's over $2 Billion.

Lightsquared and Falcone need a Hail Mary play soon or the clock is winding down on this game.

Still, $2B is a lot less than a viable satellite cluster would have cost them. The investors knew all along that without a viable satellite solution including capital to pay for launches, this was always a crap shoot.

All hat, no cattle. Right from the start.
 
> Mike Rowe
>> Some jobs are too dirty even for him!

Apparently; selling Fords is a dirty job. <g>
 
TangoWhiskey said:
The first article in the attached PDF set of articles has an interesting financial angle on the LightSquared deal...

60% of the fund is in LightSquared?!? At 15%?! Talk about putting all your eggs in one risky basket!
Click to expand...

Given the current state of the venture market, I'm not surprised that they're heavily invested in LS. One would need to look a the fund documents to see what the investment limits. 15% is also in the ballpark, given the risk and need for funds. No bank is going to fund this, not at this stage. Given the short term, the lender, and the rate, looks like this is almost a lender of last resort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top