LightSquared Hires Lawyers To Prep For GPS Battle 195
itwbennett writes "Following Tuesday's FCC ruling saying that the company's LTE network interferes with GPS, LightSquared's primary investor Philip Falcone is looking to sue the FCC and the GPS industry. Alternately, Falcone is considering ways to appeal the FCC's decision or even swap spectrum with the Department of Defense."
Oh come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)
They bought a license to transmit a candle's worth of power on a sattelite based band, and are sad that the FCC won't let them send an arclight's worth of signal out from ground based stations. Ars [arstechnica.com] link.
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Interesting)
While that is true, my opinion as someone who has been following the story is that the FCC does have a degree of culpability here because they were involved in LightSquared's plans from the very beginning, and only issued the death penalty after significant amounts of money had been spent even when the evidence they based that decision on had been available for a significant amount of time - to a degree, it can be argued that the FCC led LightSquared, and that is what they should answer for.
LightSquared should have been told at the very beginning, when the FCC first got involved, that their approach was not acceptable and that they needed a different license and spectrum.
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.
Yes, LightSquared were idiots for doing this at all, but the FCC were wrong in doing what they did.
No, the idiot is you (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get what a provisional approval means. The FCC said, we don't know if what you want to do is possible but we are not going to say no right away, if you want, you can proof your claim.
Had the FCC not done this, they would have been a dinosaur, an unmovable object on the road to progress. Instead they allowed a test, a test to prove that what the FCC believed (that the proposal would not work) was wrong.
It is like a provisional driving license or are you going to claim that if you get a provisional driving license, the state is obliged to give you a full license regardless of whether you pass the test?
Provisional licenses are pretty common, often you need a license to do something for real but you first need to do it in a test to do but to test it you need a license. To get around this, you issue a provisional license. It allows test and allows people to challenge assumptions but if you fail the test, so be it. Unless you want to sue your examiner for failing you.
Re:No, the idiot is you (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't prove conformance without test data. You can't get test data without a limited operational license.
LightSquared was given a provisional operating license to operate a terrestrial network for the purposes of interoperability testing, and proving with that network that they had the capability to expand that network nationwide without causing interference. They WERE given a license to operate at the suggested power levels, and this license was a provisional time-limited one to see if operating at those levels caused problems. Instead of their network proving that it was possible - their network proved that it was IMpossible. The whole point of the limited provisional license was to permit LightSquared to operate a limited test network without deploying a massive nationwide network and getting THAT shut down after only a few months of operation.
As to "trading spectrum with the DoD" - holy crap what morons. Sorry, when you're talking about a complete network of satellites, the costs of throwing away that network and building a new one are astronomical. Let's not forget the large base of installed aviation and military GPS equipment - getting certification for aviation-grade GPS systems is a VERY time consuming and expensive process.
Not quite (Score:2)
I'm going to answer your entire point just by answering your provisional driving license analogy.
If I was to apply for a provisional driving license, while stating my intention was to use it to gain a pilots license rather than a drivers license, would the DMV not be remiss to issue me one under the basis that it might happen?
No, this is not something automatically prevented by rules. A better analogy would be if you applied for a provisional license and said that you intended to study for the driving test solely by playing video games and learning the rules of the road subliminally. The DMV might have advised against it, but ultimately if you pass the test they have to issue you with a license.
Re:No, the idiot is you (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you expect them to prove they can conform if they don't have a license to run at those levels? Getting a license to operate at low levels, then operating a high levels so you can prove you didn't interfere is not exactly a way to get the FCC on your side. The FCC did it exactly right - "we don't think this will work, but we will give you a license to prove us wrong".
Re: (Score:3)
That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.
Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.
Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.
1. Spoiled rich brats usually aren't doing anything technical enough and affecting the EM spectrum enough to require FCC approval.
2. If they are, they usually have Daddy (or themselves if they are old enough) to buy off a few politicians to get the law changed, after a prolonged media campaign about "modernizing" the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.
Errrm.... Falcone's investors seem to think that is exactly what we are reading about.
Harbinger investors sue Falcone, Harbinger fund [totaltele.com]
Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's highlight this last "LightSquared were Idiots!" because they were trying to do something that any amateur radio operator that has been on a Field Day with more than one station would understand - wasn't going to work without even TRYING the experiment.
Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine, but how has the GPS industry been culpable for the actions of the FCC? They submit their recommendations and concerns to the FCC the same as any other interested party, but it's the FCC who makes the call, not the GPS industry.
How is the GPS industry to blame for being legitimately concerned that Lightsquared technology will interfere with their EXISTING, LICENSED USE OF SPECTRUM?!?!?!!
Re:not quite that simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPS makers took advantage of the lack of adjacent channels to cheap out on the filters. The GPS industry has no license relating to the spectrum in question, they are listening on it by virtue of having poor filters. If the spectrum involved was adjacent to something less important like ISM band (wifi routers etc.) or ham radio, the FCC would probably have said "by better filters you idiots, you only bought the bit you are sitting on ". But this is a case where if you screw up big enough not only to affect yourself, but everyone else, everyone else has your back. To be completely fair though, enough power would overload any filter and designing for the environment is part of it, so the FCC puts quiet things next to sensitive things, and groups loud things together to give similar dynamic range. In short, the FCC is doing their job, the GPS folks kind of didn't but not in any criminal fashion.
So if I propose a communication system that involves shouting loudly through a megaphone across the street and the environment agency shuts it down, not only could I sue them but all the house-builders who did not provide adequate sound insulation?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I propose a communication system that involves shouting loudly through a megaphone across the street and the environment agency shuts it down, not only could I sue them but all the house-builders who did not provide adequate sound insulation?
Yes. Keeping with the analogy, shouting over a megaphone would be a valid communication system in many other neighborhoods, just not that particular one. You'd think that if house builders knew that it would be possible, or probable, that this kind of communication system would eventually be in use, they'd build their houses accordingly. But this particular subdivision builder cheaped out on sound insulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that when these houses were built there were noise ordinances in effect for many years, and they still are in effect now. Now megaphone man comes in and says 'damn the noise ordinances, I am going to use my megaphone anyway'. And when he gets slapped down, he cries about the house builders.
Re:not quite that simple (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea that the GPS industry "cheaped out on the filters" just won't die, apparently. The fact is, every engineering project is an exercise in trade-offs. Designs must balance the requirements with the budget and laws of physics. When you know the environment, you design towards it. In other words, the GPS makers designed their equipment based on the fact that the nearby spectrum would be low-powered satellite communications. Thus the filters on the front ends of the GPS receivers were built to reject that type of sideband interference. To do otherwise would not not be the correct design decision.
If everyone had to design their RF sections as you imply, every radio receiver in the world would need a 500 dB/decade "brick wall" filter to reject possibly ANY signal not included in its passband. These filters would be so large and complex as to render mobile devices impractical. The costs involved would make such devices too expensive to sell.
Please do not continue to drink the Lightsquared kool-aid. It is toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely.
But I may be biased, I don't use GPS, and am frustrated with my lack of ISP options.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has an obligation to have all GPS manufactures correct their lack of filtering.
So if I sell your house, you have no problem at all with it being my obligation to force you to move out?
The FCC had an obligation to not dick LightSquared around. No clue why they did, but they did. It's not the GPS makers' fault, they were there first.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC had an obligation to not dick LightSquared around. No clue why they did, but they did. It's not the GPS makers' fault, they were there first.
How did the FCC dick LS around? The spectrum was purchased with the knowledge it could not be used for ground stations. What promise did the FCC make that was not delivered?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, some gaggle of attorneys has their vacuum cleaner nozzle in the back pockets of the investors, who sadly are likely to lose an enormous wad of money. Instead, the investors will now start to pour more money onto the pile of ashes, blow on them, and watch even more money ignite and burn.
Silly investors.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been following the story fairly closely, but all your comment does is highlight yet another failure on the part of the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.
Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.
Re: (Score:2)
And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.
Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.
So, you are saying that the FCC should be a stonewalling, Catch-22ing, dinosaur? Personally, I find it refreshingly modern that they actually let LS try. If LS fucked it up, they have only themselves to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Shill? No. Idiot who doesn't understand what "provisional" means? Yes.
For future reference it means not a definite no, but it will only become a definite yes if condition yadda yadda is fulfilled. Yadda yadda was not fulfilled, so they don't have permission to proceed. Not rocket science, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.
Sorry. Need to speak up here. This is one of the reasons the US is so seriously fucked up.
We do not need to go looking for people to share the blame here. LS is the problem.
The lady who buys hot coffee and spills it is the problem.
The guy who jumps off a building is the problem.
We do not need to spend billions of dollars a year protecting ourselves from asshole lawyers sicked on us by stupid irresponsible dipshits.
This is a major drain on the economy.
Fuck litigious bastards and their lawyers.
Fuck the ADA, F
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, everyone who cites this case as frivolous seems to have the idea that the lady in question simply suffered some minor discomfort and a wet pair of pants instead of 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts on her genitals [wikipedia.org].
Coffee should be pleasantly hot, not scalding hot. If you spill it on yourself, you should be a bit uncomfortable and maybe look silly, not have to spend a week in the hospital having your crotch skin replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the FCC as having any culpability here unless I missed something. God, I hate having to use that phrase so often.
From what I understand (groans at self), the FCC knew there were problems with this spectrum. They could have outright said no. They could have bowed to pressure and outright said yes. Instead they took a middle path to find out what would the impact be. It didn't look good, but might work. It might work, but better to find out now.
The FCC gave Lightsquared a chance to prove to
Re: (Score:2)
All RF transmitters spit out harmonics. My guess is that Lightsquared's hardware spits out huge amounts of harmonics that stomp all over GPS frequencies and they're freaking out for a bunch of possible reasons. 1) They probably went ahead and built a sh*tload of devices before they got FCC approval and now all of that will have to be scrapped, 2) It's going to cost a bunch of money to redesign the hardware correctly, 3) the redesigned hardware is going to cost a hell of a lot more to mass produce so their
Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no. The FCC only licenses transmitters, not receivers. The only transmitters in GPS are in the satellites. And part B is not a license, it is a section of type 15 UNLICENSED transmitters (specifically unlicensed devices which are unintentional transmitters, like computers).
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to adverse possession in real estate: if I screw up the surveying and build part of the building on somebody else's property, and the owner there doesn't make any move whatsoever to remove me (or lease the land to me, or at least in some way acknowledge the situation) for some set amount of time (typically ten years, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), that land becomes my land de jure.
Only if you can prove the owner knew about the encroachment ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
So what your comment says is that because LightSquared is the loud music neighbor analogy which GPS makers would come up with from the story you linked, they (LightSquared) are in the wrong? I disagree. I prefer the much more accurate analogy that GPS makers are the ones that built their proverbial "patio" into LightSquared's property before LightSquared owned it and moved in. Quoted below from your own link
Your analogy is lacking...
They did not build a patio.. They built an underground water main. When LS purchased the property they purchased it with all of the terms and condittions which applied including the easement associated with that water main (ATC integrated services rule) ..
Lightsquare is asking permission to dig into the water main against the condititions stipulated when the property was purchased. The response they got was a resounding HELL NO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Funny)
This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.
Its the tech version of a soap opera. You know how my wife loves those TV dramas where diane was flirting with jake while he was dating cindy but actually cody had a crush on diane and it doesn't matter because jake is gay and cindy is lesbo and they're just pretending to be together to stop cindys boss john from flirting with her? Yeah its like that but with RF microwave technology and stuff.
So lets try this again in female TV drama mode using the standard crypto protocol names. So Bob asked drunken crack addict Alice for a date using a GPG signed irrefutable email and Alice said, eh Bob's kinda cute if you're drunk and high enough, yeah, maybe I'll think about it, so Bob went shopping at (product placement) and maxed out his (product placement) credit card on a (product placement) tux and a (product placement) marriage ring and (product placement) body spray and showed up on her doorstep the morning of his scheduled marriage to her (which she doesn't even know about), ready to get some premarital (sweep week ratings boosting) action. So Alice's brother Charlie finally figures out whats going on, shows up at Alice's door, thinks Bob is completely Fing out of his mind to even imagine Bob will hook up with his sister Alice, and beats the S out of him and throws him to the curb, staples an ASBO to his forehead, and leaves him bleeding in the gutter, and posts it all to /.. Then Alice stops her drug and booze binge long enough to realize she totally F'ed up and posts to facebook that she only lead Bob on because she was on a crack cocaine binge and now she's waaaay too sober to F him and Bob can just go back under his rock now please. Which pisses off Bob who plans to take her anyway no matter if she's willing or not, and pisses off Bob's credit card company because they know Bob will never pay them back a penny unless he gets some. Meanwhile everyone gets pissed off both at Alice for being a trashy crack whore on a binge unable to control herself from leading Bob on, and everyone's also pissed off at Bob for being such a profound jerk for not understanding "no means no" or whatever the trendy phrase is, and everyone's pissed off at Bob's (product placement) credit card provider for giving Bob, who is apparently an idiot, a limitless credit balancing knowing he has no way to pay it off (although when Bob goes bankrupt, "we will all" pay off his loans in higher fees, govt bailouts, etc, so at least they are the "winners" in this scenario)
Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it
Lightsquared were/are a sattelite communications provider and owned a peice of spectrum intended for sattelite downlink (where signal power at earths surface would be very low) close (spectrally) to GPS. According to wikipedia they got permission to make ancillary use of this spectrum terrestrially and are now trying to get permission to use it for pure terrestrial cellular devices. However terrestrial transmitters mean much stronger signals at the earths surface. Signals that are close in spectrum and widely different in power are problematic due to imperfect filters and nonlinearities in both tranmitters and receivers.
If they succeed they will make a mint, if they fail then it will likely be a massive hit to thier buisness. Especially if in the process of failing they were to lose the ability to run any terrestrial services in the band.
It's kind of like buying land/buildings with the intent ot trying to get "planning permission"* to build something and/or to change the use of the property. If you get the permission you can make a shitload of money but if the council decides your planned use is inappropriate for the area you can be stuck with property you can't do much with.
* This is a UK term, I dunno what the american equivilent is
Re: (Score:2)
We call it "zoning" but it's essentially the same thing. If you buy residential zoned property with the intent to get it rezoned as industrial you are pretty likely to have:
a) Very ticked off neighbors and
b) A very unfriendly local government.
You can make it work: if the locality is desperate enough, you make enough promises to the neighbors, you buy up enough adjacent property, etc... but it's a risky operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, when you own all, or the vast majority, of the land and you want to build something that people will mostly be happy to have it often goes smoothly. If you own just enough land to install your factory and intend to set it up to belch forth air and noise pollution, it's a lot harder. Rezoning happens all the time, but even with stuff people want, like malls, it doesn't always go smoothly and can be a risky enterprise. What Lightsquared is trying to do is more analogous to a noisy factory across
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Their for-profit system screws up GPS which has been around a LOT longer than they have , the FCC finds this and blocks their system and THEY want to sue the FCC and GPS makers???
I'm sorry, is this Falcone guy just gold plated arrogant ass who thinks the world should revolve around him, or is he just a plain, good old grade A fsckwit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am not sure it's really that clear cut.
The Ars Technica article explains that 25% of the GPS receivers were unharmed by Lightsquared's towers. That means 75% of the receivers tested are not filtering out properly the bandwidths that were not intended for GPS.
Normally, when gadgets and electronic devices go through the FCC (like they all do before they can be sold), that's to prove they don't cause harmful interferences and that they are not susceptible to interference from lawful emissions in other
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC only certifies TRANSMITTERS (both intentional and unintentional transmitters). GPS receivers are not transmitters.
The "must not interfere" and "must accept all interference" rules which people on here are so fond of quoting have nothing to do with technical requirements. If they were technical requirements the consumer would have no reason to know about them. They are USAGE requirements. "Must not interfere" means that, even if your type accepted device is operating 100% properly, if it is causing interference with licensed operations you must stop using it. "Must accept all interference" means that if something (licensed or unlicensed) is interfering with your transmissions, that is just too bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Certainly I can provide a citation, straight from the FCC [fcc.gov] itself. See if you can find any reference to receivers in there.
I clearly said that they certify both intentional and UNINTENTIONAL transmitters. TVs and radios have oscillators in them, both for tuning and for digital processing. An oscillator means you have an unintentional transmitter. The only thing they are certifying is that the EMISSIONS from the device are within limits. They don't do anything at all with the receiver portion.
Some quotes
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
> not susceptible to interference from lawful emissions in other parts of the spectrum.
_Lawful emissions_. GPS uses spectrum within a portion of the L-Band allocated for use in space -> ground communications. This means that future allocations on adjacent bands should be very low power. Indeed, I'd say that's rather the entire point of having a blocked out bit of spectrum for satellite communications: They must be a much lower power, so receivers can't easily filter out much more powerful ground based interference. By blocking ground signals a good distance from satellite ones you make filtration much easier.
GPS receivers were built with the expectation (if not guarantee) that interfering signals would be roughly at the same power as GPS. However, the transmitters Lightsquared was planning to build would be, literally, one million times stronger than GPS on a good day (-70dBm vs -130dBm). So, I'd hardly call such interference 'lawful' just because the FCC thought they could change the law after the devices were built.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... when the ham radio operator down the road interferes with his neighbors' radios and television reception, it is the ham operator who has to modify his operation. The FCC would not be letting him off the hook because the neighbors did not purchase radios and televisions that were completely immune to external transmissions that adversely affected their operation. Any lawsuit filed by the ham operator against his neighbors would be laughed out of court.
Of course, the US legal system is so screwed up n
Re: (Score:2)
If the ham radio operator is operating legally, he is indeed off the hook. And that is the key - legally. The TV manufacturers know what the maximum legal power levels are that they have to reject at different frequencies. If they reject those things, and the ham is operating legally, there is no problem. If the ham is operating legally and there is still interference, then the neighbor has a crappy TV and that is his problem, not the ham's. However, if the ham is operating illegally (too much power
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FAA certification has exactly what to do with FCC certification?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
* LightSquared gets an assignment of free spectrum
* LightSquared invests tons of money
* The GPS industry has been violating FCC rules by not filtering out non-GPS spectrum _as they are required to_ on all devices. Independent tests say 75% are not FCC-compliant
* The FCC performs tests with models chosen from said 75%
* The FCC states that the risk is too large and destroys LightSquared's business model, assets and tells them they are not allowed to use their spectrum.
Now, I do get the safety aspect. This
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
* LightSquared gets an assignment of free spectrum
One they had for a while and with terms explicitly preventing them from using the spectrum for terrestrial broadcast.
* LightSquared invests tons of money
Irrelevent.
* The GPS industry has been violating FCC rules by not filtering out non-GPS spectrum _as they are required to_ on all devices. Independent tests say 75% are not FCC-compliant
LOL what rules? You don't need to meet any GPS specific requirements or approval specific to building a GPS receiver. FCC only has say over units that transmit a signal.
* The FCC performs tests with models chosen from said 75%
There is no such thing!
* The FCC states that the risk is too large and destroys LightSquared's business model, assets and tells them they are not allowed to use their spectrum.
They can use their spectrum as long as they do it within the limits stipulated when they purchased it including the ATC integrated services rule.
In my opinion, the willful neglect by the GPS manufacturers requires them to fix it at own cost.
All of the points are factually incorrect. Please take some time reevaluate.
is it? (Score:2)
think about it- if the DOD agrees, they get to buy all new toys...
Re: (Score:2)
It's also laughable how they believe there's even a remote possibility that they could swap spectrum with the DoD.
Indeed. The one agency that really could nuke them from orbit, just to be sure ^_^
Waste of time (Score:3)
Alternately, Falcone is considering ways to appeal the FCC's decision or even swap spectrum with the Department of Defense.
Seriously? I know they're understandably upset that the satellite bands they purchased can't be used for terrestrial, but come on guys, this is just a waste of time.
You know what wouldn't be a waste of time? Creating the satellite based network their original proposal had.
Re: (Score:2)
Or use tethered blimps at 600 feet, that would be cool...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did build a satellite phone network [mjsales.net] using the spectrum. That business didn't go so well so they agreed to buy out the spectrum from their partner (Inmarsat), and applied with the FCC to have the satellite spectrum converted into terrestrial spectrum.
All this used to be in wiki entry for LightSquared [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately the wiki looks like it's been hijacked by a bunch of LightSquared's PR folks.
What an arrogant ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "...Through a lawsuit, the company might seek to force GPS vendors to make their receivers filter out LightSquared's frequencies, the Journal said..."
Seriously? I would love to hear from this idiot how he proposes to do this for existing units. Horses, barn doors, yadda yadda... I'm no EE/RF guy, but I'm sure its a bit more than simple software patches to the units. And I'll be DAMNED if I have to go buy another unit just because "his" part of the spectrum isnt quite up to par with what he wants to do with it.
Somebody needs a good cockpunch to remind him that while its often disappointing that you cant achieve your goal due to outside forces, sometimes those forces are just plain beyond your control and you need to move on instead of lawyering up and being a dickhead about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can't get old gear to be retrofitted and some old gear might be very important (think your Fire Department's truck's GPS or something like that).
But if the GPS manufactures stop selling the GPSes that are not filtering the frequencies and the FCC stops allowing the sale of those GPSes, then, after a while, the spectrum will be useable in the way that Lightsquared is planning (may it will take 5 years).
That means the value of the spectrum will raise and LightSquared stands a better chance of swa
Re: (Score:2)
5 Years, try more 15. I know many GPS installations that are 10-15 years old. When I was school in 2002, a friend studying Geology went out into Rockies to install GPS units in mountains to measure drift of tectonic plates. They were replacing GPS Units that had been in place since 1993 and units they were installing had planned service lifetime of 10 years. Many Aircraft GPS Recievers are 10 years old as well and many might remain in place for another couple of years if they are working. In more expensive
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you appreciate how pervasive GPS use is. Yes, there's the obvious usage, but consider systems which use GPS signals for TIME synchronization and the issues get much larger. This includes banking machines, stock exchanges, data centers, etc.
There's a whole hidden world of GPS dependance that comes from cheap "GPS on a chip" solutions which can replace RTCs that need to be manually reset in the event of a battery going flat. (Not nice to have to do when your ATMs are spread all over North Amer
Re:What an arrogant ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, it's the GPS fault for making the presumption that the adjacent spectrum would always be quiet. With this ruling the FCC admits that the GPS receivers are in violation of their license.
LOL the adjacent spectrum was legally declared to be for satellite based transmission (air to ground) only by the FCC. You have it about as backwards as possible.
Standard /. car analogy would be we drive on the right in the US, Ford want to sell a UK drive on the left car in the US, DOT says ha ha go away, now you want to sue all other car manufacturers for assuming we'd always have right-side-drive in the US therefore they are the problem and if we just allowed people to randomly select whichever side of the road we preferred at that moment using cars where the driver and passenger dashboard can be instantly swapped, then it would all be good in the world.
Re:What an arrogant ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you quit posting this bullshit! They did not 'make a presumption' that the adjacent spectrum would be quiet, there were (and are) regulations saying that the adjacent spectrum IS quiet. And, once again, receivers (of any sort) ARE NOT LICENSED.
Re: (Score:3)
Please define 'proper filters'. To my mind, a 'proper filter' is one which does the job it was designed to do. In this case, the job they were designed to do was filter out adjacent band signals at a very low power level, because the only adjacent band signals that are allowed by law are at a very low power level. If you were designing the device, would you design it to filter out signals a million times stronger than what can legally be there? Assuming you actually did that, how are you going to co
Re: (Score:3)
(1) The FCC is not in any way saying that licensed users cannot transmit close to the GPS band. The band Lightsquared is using is intended for satellite-earth transmissions because they will be at similar power levels at ground to the GPS signal and thus will not pose an interference problem. Lightsquared tried to weasel an exception out of the FCC and failed. GPS is a critical system used by millions of people on a daily basis and it is clearly more important than a cellular network that is trying to op
Re: (Score:2)
LightSquared does not interfere with GPS transmitters and GPS receivers with proper filter are not affected either.
This is where you are being disingenuous. Legacy GPS receivers don't have the filter you'd need to block LightSquared transmissions because they were guaranteed they wouldn't need one. This affects military hardware as well and for that reason they are not going to gain any traction with this bullshit argument any more than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the GPS industry should buy the spectrum if it's necessary for proper operation of their devices.
You mean the US government? Because they are the ones who own, built, and operate the GPS satellite system and the associated spectrum. It is a critical resource for military, commercial, and personal use, and FCC spectrum regulations have long been in place to prevent interference to satellite bands which involve very low signal levels by the time the signals reach earth.
The "GPS industry" has always had the spectrum that they need, Lightsquared is the one butting in because their transmitters leak inter
This should go well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sniff (Score:3)
My idea proved to be technically infeasible, so I'm going to sue the FCC for calling a spade a spade, and rest of the world for not getting out of my way.
And maybe God while I'm at it, for creating a reality that won't bend to my will. (Although it sort-of does, in my head.)
FCC doesn't know what they are doing (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC has made many flawed decisions in the past. Their approval of Broadband over Power lines is a classic example. All the testing showed that the system would interfere with EVERY radio service in the HF spectrum, yet they allowed the service to be rolled out. The backlash from this has hopefully killed off any attempt to actually deploy such systems, but the FCC is still insisting that it's technically a good idea.
So in this case they have done the same thing, given approval to a system that would cause interference with another radio service, already in use. Only now, they've done the right thing by pulling the rug out before the damage could be done. However, by not making the right decision before letting investment proceed they probably DO owe the investors a good chunk of damages, as they should also owe those in the BPL business.
Re:FCC doesn't know what they are doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
but the FCC is still insisting that it's technically a good idea.
No even the stupidest poltical ops in the FCC know its technically useless. They are insisting for political reasons. If you have a "marketplace of competitors" then you don't need monopoly regulation of RICO act like megacorps.
If it were not for those pesky laws of physics, BPL and LS would be great market competitors to the established operators, and there would be no and/or less reason to regulate the existing corrupt monopolies, because "look, its a free competitive market so regulation is unnecessary
That's totally insane (Score:2)
also because GPS was in place far before LTE was even thought of.
I have a better idea, Mr. Falcone! (Score:4, Funny)
Sue the magnetic field!
Re: (Score:2)
...and his evil alter-ego the electric field!
Mr. Falcone better wear a cape and tights for this battle. It won't help LightSquared, but it will be entertaining for spectators.
Unmitigated greed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this band is cheap. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason why this spectrum is much cheaper than others, in that it's assigned to satellite communication.
The assumption being made is that if you license this spectrum, you need to make significant costs to actually put satellites into space, so the licensing is cheaper.
So they want both now (cake meme), cheap spectrum, but not put satellites into orbit (which their original proposal by the way *did* have), but instead use it as ground based spectrum (which is much more expensive to license)
Car analogy: I buy a classic old timer, so I don't have to pay road taxes (or much less anyway) and much less insurance. Now I put those license plates on a Hummer and still expect to not pay the road taxes and much less insurance...
We shouldn't auction spectrum in the first place (Score:2)
The root problem here is the idea of auctioning off the radio spectrum. It is essentially a TAX on innovation and the eventual users, which is then used as an excuse to give large monopoly profits on those who are willing to bid up the tax, knowing that WE will pay it in the end. The bigger the tax, the more profit they make.
We should instead manage it as a public commons, having bands set up for experimentation, and then wider spaces for more established modes as they become popular, and have more users.
legal ethics? (Score:3)
At some point, doesn't it become unethical for a lawyer to hire on with a company to pursue a lawsuit that they have absolutely no chance in hell of winning?
Any half-competent lawyer is going to tell LightSquared to cut its losses and go begging on bended knee to the FCC and ask them to please allow them to license some other spectrum instead.
And if they persist in their stupidity, I'd think any ethical lawyer would quit. But maybe I have an overly-optimistic view of the state of corporate legal ethics.
sad (Score:2)
It's telling that the company keeps on hiring lawyers when a single educated engineer would be able to tell them that their case is impossible, because it is fighting against laws of physics.
They brought this on themselves (Score:2)
Lightsquared bought a disused satellite spectrum that was used to having weak satellite signals on it. That same spectrum sits next to the GPS spectrum. Because of this, the GPS system never had to deal with a strong signal sitting right next to their spectrum. Should they have done that? Yes. But they didn't because it was never an issue. Now lightsquared is trying to build a system that will create a LOT of noise just outside of their spectrum and many GPS systems will simply stop working.
Lightsquared sho
Trying to change the world to fit his view? (Score:2)
Physics won. (Score:2)
And it wouldn't bow to cash or politics ... 'nough said.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He's confusing a "method", eg: "LTE", with a "frequency band", eg: "1.4-2.4 kilohz". If I yanked out and replaced the radio transmitter/receivers on a wifi access point and card, I could transmit wifi signals on the same band as my local NPR station. It would still be "wireless ethernet" in it's implementation, but it would be on different frequencies. It would also be illegal in any country that regulates its frequency bands (pretty much all developed and many less developed countries do this). Lightsq
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think in the EU it is on a different band. I have 9 sats GPS reception even when standing within 5m of a LTE base station antenna. If the frequencies were near, the GPS signal being as weak as it is, it would require a black magic receiver to work.
Tradeoffs (Score:5, Informative)
The GPS on a phone has to operate a few centimeters from a transmitter, and on top of this there is likely all sorts of digital hashing it has to deal with as well, which tends to have wide frequency content (over a short distance). The interior of a smartphone is a relatively harsh RF environment and the GPS needs stronger filtering to operate. This additional filtering (and space constraints that limit component selection) result in more attenuation of the GPS signal, and thus worse fixes. But it doesn't matter because it is just a cellphone, and the GPS is a nice-to-have which can be augmented with other coarse positioning systems when needed.
Navigation systems need to have a stronger GPS signal, so they have more reliable and precise solutions. The designed their filters to adequately attenuate adjacent frequencies, for what they were licensed for, while minimizing attenuation of the GPS band. Furthermore, given the larger size, they can use RF shielding on the cabin as a way to block the closest sources of interference, and only need to design the filters to block signals from the ground. These are higher quality filters (since they can afford the money/space for better components), they are just engineered with different goals. They could have filtered more, but it would have been counter-productive.
LightSquared is proposing to transmit with over 10,000 times the power that they are currently licensed for, which is more than 1 million times the power of GPS signals here on the ground. Even if you were to upgrade every GPS system out there with the best filters we can make today, you would still have either increased interference from the proposed LightSquared system, or attenuation of the GPS signals. And LightSquared has yet to offer to upgrade every GPS system out there.
The fact is that LightSquared picked the worst possible piece of spectrum to convert to terrestrial broadband. They acquired the company who owned it for cheap because everyone else (all the incumbent wireless operators) realized this, and spend their money licensing other (more expensive) spectrum instead. LightSquared has no one to blame here but themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Then this company engaged in fraud against it's investors then. This bullshit about lawsuits is just smoke and mirrors then, trying to cast blame elsewhere? At what point does everyone figure out they were full of shit from the start and hold them accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most GPS equiptment on... airplanes are a lot older and less resistant. The GPS in your phone is better than the GPS on an (older) aircraft.
Not really. The onboard aircraft mode C transponder is a couple watts around 1090-ish MHz which is not too far from the GPS spectrum, so they're tougher than you'd think. Thats before you get to the zillion watt air band voice transmitters, admittedly at a much lower frequency. Then again they're probably older. Then again, microwave filter technology was pretty much figured out in the 50s and not too much has changed since then. Then again microwave amp technology has drastically improved over the pas
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, aircraft with multiple RF interfaces are specifically designed with co-interference between onboard systems in mind. For example, antenna locations are chosen VERY carefully to avoid one system interfering with another, and in addition, most aircraft have an interference blanker system that allows receivers on the aircraft to know when another system is transmitting. You can't have an IBU for an offboard interference source.
In addition, while fairly high in peak transmit power, IFF has a VER
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, while fairly high in peak transmit power, IFF has a VERY low duty cycle, and in fact has some very strict duty cycle limitations imposed on it specifically because of interference concerns. Last but not least, 1090 MHz is MUCH farther in frequency from GPS L1 (1575 MHz) than LightSquared is (1526-1536 MHz), meaning that it's going to be attenuated much more by the frontend filters of GPS receivers. Obtaining significant rejection at 1090 MHz is MUCH easier to do without size/weight/inband attenuation penalties than obtaining significant rejection for nearly continuous high-duty-cycle interference at 1536 MHz.
Yes but I was thinking of R-squared issues. So a 1 watt transponder at 1090 at maybe as little as 5 feet away vs 100 watts from LS maybe a couple miles away (miles straight down?).
Also there are issues w/ filters. So I do microwave RF work. Some MMICs I work with don't tolerate more than 20 dBmW at the input without physically frying. No problemo, you only need 10 dB of filtering a 1090 MHz 1 watt source to prevent physical damage, assuming you plugged the transponder antenna port directly into the pre
Re: (Score:2)
... zillion watt air band voice transmitters...
MAYBE 100w. Maybe. And that's the ground station. I'm thinking the surplus stuff I've seen from the FAA for VHF band was more in the 20-60w range. You don't need much when everything is line-of-site.
Re: (Score:2)
I've designed highly focused radio systems using very similar technology. The difficultly in design goes WAY up but on the other hand when you trying only focus in on a small band you should ONLY be looking that band and nothing else
You sound like a physicist who thinks they know everything about biology. What do you know about GPS? Do you realize it operates *BELOW* the noise floor? What do you know about intermodulation interference?
If the spectrum doesn't get used now it will in the future and we'll come to the same issues then.
Total nonsense. They are free to use their spectrum within the constraints stipulated when it was purchased.
If you do have half assed work you'll always be redoing it later.
GPS vendors should have known better than to think the FCC band plan would change abitrarily and increase their BOM and costs in expectation of something for which there was no reasonable expect