n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2011-Jan-17 11:14 am
LobbyingIf Lightsquared is smart, they will take a chapter from the now defunct BPL industry and bribe lobby the FCC to leave them alone and let them do their thing. If they do indeed cause interference, I guess I will not have to worry about updating my Garmin's anymore. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jan-17 11:27 am
Where is the interference to come from? It can't be the ground based LTE portion of the network, since Verizon and others are not getting any concerns from the FCC over that. So what is unique about the satellite portion of the system that has the military so wound up. Is it purely concerns about GPS or is it something else?
I searched for technical reasons about the potential interference, but could find nothing but generic interference concerns. No reason WHY interference is thought to be an issue. |
|
S_engineer Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx: I guess I will not have to worry about updating my Garmin's anymore. If it was just Garmins, thats one thing. But planes, boats, spacecraft is another. According to Bloomberg; "The U.S. defense, transportation and homeland security departments want the Federal Communications Commission to defer action on LightSquareds request to modify its satellite license to build a nationwide wireless network, Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary of communications and information in the Commerce Department, said in a letter yesterday to the FCC. " This means LightSquared has alot more work to do |
|
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2011-Jan-17 11:35 am
said by S_engineer:said by n2jtx: I guess I will not have to worry about updating my Garmin's anymore. If it was just Garmins, thats one thing. But planes, boats, spacecraft is another. Perhaps but even "just Garmins" is telling GPS users to go pound sand because Lightsquared is more important than civilian navigation. |
|
S_engineer Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL |
to FFH5
I would guess its the amount of base stations they're talking about deploying. 18,000 by 2013 |
|
S_engineer |
to n2jtx
you're right. But you know who ultimately wins these days...the one with the most cash! |
|
|
|
but when one of the 'whos' is the DoD + federal government that has a limitless supply of money, how do out beat that? |
|
S_engineer Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL |
You vote for "Hope and Change"
Sorry, too wide open! |
|
|
John L
Anon
2011-Jan-17 1:20 pm
Did you read the letter?The issue here is that GPS receivers have relatively poor filters, and are subject to interference from high power signals in the L band. When MSS/ATC operation was first proposed, the number of ATC transmitters was thought to be small, because it was part of an integrated system with the satellite.
What LS wants to do is basically dump using the satellite and use the spectrum for cellular operation, spectrum they received for free, and not via an auction because it was designed for satellite operation.
Now with tens of thousands of base stations (that transmit in the low part of the band, unlike most cellular systems where the base stations transmit in the high part of the band), those high power signals are all over the place and will interfere with far weaker GPS signals from space. The GPS receivers specs never intended to deal with this situation, so they will have problems. This is a very big deal.
BTW, this is not a new problem. This was understood when LS first proposed this use. The FCC ignored the issue to get some good PR from putting spectrum to use etc... The way to read this letter is that NTIA got sick and tired of telling the FCC to stop until they figure out a solution and being ignored, and went public on this.
The FCC seems to be pretty clueless here, though I know they have engineers who understand the problem, so it must be management ignoring them again.
The bottom line is the LS is pretty screwed here, but then they should have known better in the first place. |
|
mix join:2002-03-19 Romeo, MI GL.iNet GL-B1300 Netgear CM500
|
mix
Member
2011-Jan-17 2:31 pm
And the anonymous poster hits the nail on the head! Also, some more information on the problem from GPS World: » www.gpsworld.com/gnss-sy ··· -interfe |
|
|
So, the FCC approves of something that would interfere with existing services. Can anyone say HD Radio? |
|