 r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
to jagged
Re: Lightsquared - chutzpahsaid by jagged:how about lazy and stingy sat equipment makers actually fix their wares? Tho I'm sure with AT&T involved there will be some excuse for that not to happen
There is nothing wrong with GPS equipment. It picks up the signals as properly designed. GPS signals from space will red shift 25 mhz into the spectrum lightsquared wants to use due to the laws of physics. The spectrum lightsquared wants to use is for satellite only as a buffer for GPS. Other weak satellites can use it without jamming GPS. That is already a compromise for the buffer zone. Satellite phones have used those frequencies and John Deere uses those frequencies all without jamming GPS. Lightsquare originally wanted to offer only satellite broadband, but now they are trying to use the satellite only spectrum for ground base use as that is more valuable. The ground base use will jam the red shifted signals. Lightsquared took a gamble and lost. |
|
| r81984 |
to rlharris02
Re: Lightsquared and FCC moronssaid by rlharris02:Your entire post is false.
1. LS acquied the spectrum knowing they COULD create a terrestrial network.. Do some reading!
2. This is just plain wrong, the orginial company the was given this spectrum in the same way ATT,Verizon etc were given 850mhz. There were NO auctions!!! More fact reading needed.
3. LS had approval to do what its trying to do now since 2003.
The only thing the FCC did wrong was not forcing the GPS mans to fix there issues.
Sorry but do some reading. Lightsquare 100% intended to offer only satellite broadband for that spectrum. Since ground based is more valuable they changed their plans after the fact to try and use the spectrum for ground base transmiters. They took a gamble and lost due to the fact that they will jam the red shifted GPS signals. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to sonicmerlin
Re: Truth or FUD?I assume you mean following its potential acquisition by AT&T? |
|
|
| openbox9 |
to r81984
Re: all I hear is...I'd agree with you except that the FCC waived LightSquared's use of the spectrum for terrestrial use. LightSquared's poor engineering efforts and the FCC's negligent oversight brought this issue about. |
|
| openbox9 |
to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:For once in my life I agree with openbox. Hah! I didn't see that one coming  |
|
sw30908
join:2002-06-02
Morrisville, NC |
LightSquared never should havegotten this far. Any interference in military GPS is completely unacceptable. They had to have known this. |
|
| |
Doppler Shift is only a few KHzDisinformation doesn't help. The Lightsquared problem is receiver desense caused by terrestrial base stations operating on adjacent channels. Think of having a telescope in your yard, being able to see the moons of Jupiter, and then having a neighbor build a tennis court with flood lights. Is it your fault that you can't see faint tiny objects any more? |
|
| |
set up a fund & get on with it..500k devices isn't such a large cost to satisfy spectrum requirements-- that's just a few million $ worth of equipment to replace.. but it should be lightsquared that foots the bill.. they want to profit off spectrum that causes interference... so they have the full freight on making it "safe" for consumption. boo hoo that some of these gps's are part of custom marine equipment that could cost a few thousand to replace each... however this cost won't be more than $100 million.. the first few years of profit down the drain.. boo hooo.. who weeps for the greedy cellular industry? not I... |
|
| |
to r81984
Re: Lightsquared and FCC moronsYou are 100% wrong, you keep saying your same old party line.
When LS purchased the company that had the waiver it had done so in 2003. Before LS purchased them under the guidelines of using the freq as such. |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdf to r81984
Anon
2011-Oct-14 12:06 pm
to r81984
Re: Truth or FUD?And this transformation has been happening over a period of at least 5 years and with government support hasn't it? It isn't like lightsquared just suddenly took it upon itself to alter it's behavior and throw in terrestrial usage. It also isn't as if there wasn't quite a window in which the gps industry had opportunity to plan for this eventuality.
I still don't understand why the gps industry believes that it should have an eternal ability to dictate uses of spectrum that was never allocated to it. Shouldn't there be some responsibility on the part of the gps industry to shoulder some of the burden given that we are talking about spectrum that isn't allocated to gps in the first place? |
|
| asdfdfdfdfdf |
asdfdfdfdfdf to nweaver
Anon
2011-Oct-14 12:05 pm
to nweaver
"Its like setting up a high precision watch factory in a ZONED as quiet neighborhood. Then next door someone bribes the planning commission to allow a Disaster Area concert at 1000 decibels, which knocks your precision equipment for a loop..."
There is one big problem with your analogy, besides the implication that the lightsquared deal involves corruption, bribery and something sinister and it is this:
A 1000 decibel concert is going to create noise within the factory owned area. In other words, the concert is impinging on the property that the factory owns and impacting the factory's use of its own property. But lightsquared isn't impinging on gps allocated spectrum. It is staying within its own allocated spectrum. A more accurate analogy would be if the watch factory had built part of its factory on a neighbors property that the watch factory didn't own and then, when the neighbor wanted to build on his property, the factory tried to stop it because it would interfere with the factory's use of property that didn't belong to the factory. Lightsquared is not going into gps allocated spectrum and interfering with it. Gps systems are using spectrum outside of what was allocated to them and they don't want anything to happen that will hinder their use of that spectrum, even though it doesn't belong to them.
I understand your argument about zoning but zoning of property near yours can change. You may not like it and that is understandable but you can't rely on the assumption that all the land around yours will remain unchanged and zoned the same way forever. The gps business has had many years knowing this day would come and that they couldn't rely on use of this spectrum outside of their allocation forever. |
|
r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
2 edits |
to rlharris02
Re: Lightsquared and FCC moronsYou are 100% wrong. There was no waiver in 2003. The waiver was in 2011 and had conditions tied to it. In 2003 the FCC made an order to allow satellite operators to have ground based backups/supplements, but the satellite must be the primary communcation means. Also they had to comply with not interferring with signals like GPS. » hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 15A1.pdfLightsquared was created in July 20, 2010. Harbinger bought Mobile Satellite Ventures and tried to flip an estimated $2 billion satellite only spectrum (that they got for free) into an estimated $12 billion ground based spectrum. Lightsquared just wants to make money at the expense of the GPS network paid for by us taxpayers. The spectrum has always been protected by the FCC to protect GPS from interference as it was satellite only. The waiver they were granted in 2011 had conditions that stated they can use it for ground based only if there was no GPS interference. There was severe interference so lightsquare cannot flip that spectrum to make money from nothing. Lightsquared and their stupid foreign CEO can go to some other country and jam GPS. In no way did the FCC give lightsquared or MSV any waiver for interference issues. They never said that GPS must accomodate lightsquared in anyway. MSV knew all along that they had to not interfere with GPS to work. Lightsquared bought them and also knew the spectrum was useless if they interfered with GPS. Lightsquared took a gamble and lost. If it worked out the reward would have been $12+ billion. |
|
RokHed
join:2000-09-09
Pennsville, NJ |
to sparc
Re: Truth or FUD?Why should LS pay anything to use the spectrum that they already bought? Seems like if GPS followed the rules this wouldnt even be at issue. Why should the government pay anything? Just because you didnt get caught breaking the rules dosnt make you less at fault when you eventually do. This is squarely on the GPS industry and rather than fixing THEIR problem they spend money they could use to bitch about LS. I use GPS and its very useful to me. Its neither my or LS fault and neither should pay to fix it! |
|
HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA |
HIPAR
Member
2011-Oct-15 11:57 am
The conundrumThe problem isn't who will pay or whos fault this is.
The conundrum:
a) Lightsquared has a license to operate some kind of terrestrial network. Nobody's operated that kind of network since permission was granted many years ago. Now Lightsquared wants to do it.
b) Meanwhile, GPS technologies have blossomed in a manner that incomparable with what's being proposed.
c) Academically, Lightsquared is correct citing GPS receiver design and the historical FCC rulings.
But practically:
a) Lightsquared cannot be allowed to disrupt GPS operations.
b) Though solutions have be identified, the logistical timelines for implementing them are not congruent with Lightsquared's buildout plans.
--- CHAS |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdf
Anon
2011-Oct-15 12:49 pm
I think you are correct. A key problem is : "b) Though solutions have be identified, the logistical timelines for implementing them are not congruent with Lightsquared's buildout plans." Because the gps industry is uncooperative in dealing with this and instead insisting that lightsquared's plans be scrapped there will never be any point where the above will be true. The gps industry knew that this was coming, the waivers were given half a dozen years ago(see mention of trimble's own filings 5 years ago about this at » www.examiner.com/dc-in-w ··· -devices) but they refuse to prepare. And they will continue to refuse to prepare so lightsquared's plans will pose a problem continually into the future. They won't adapt so there will never be a point at which lightsquared can move forward. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA |
Ulmo to mix
Member
2011-Oct-17 3:10 am
to mix
Re: Truth or FUD?Right. Physics is what the FCC ought to be paying attention to, not two-bit lawyers that want to ignore physics.
As a single-digit-year-old child, I knew that radio transmissions had harmonics above and below them. Also, satellite is a more delicate and technically particular use of radio. For some poop-eating lawyer to come along and say that property lines are black and white with those types of physics realities, is just absurd. |
|
| Ulmo |
to asdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdf :I understand what you are saying but surely the question of who is allocated this spectrum matters. The problem, it seems to me, is not that lightsquared has moved into spectrum allocated to gps but that gps is relying upon spectrum assets that were not allocated to it. That is not correct. Lightsquared has moved into spectrum that is not allocated to Lightsquared, i.e., the spectrum is allocated to satellite to ground use, not ground to ground use, and the spectrum on the ground is for satellite to ground use. Look at Microwave point to point spectrum. It has a physical vector, i.e., a direction of transmission. You aren't allowed to use spectrum Milky-Way wide; a spectrum allocation has necessary LOCATION and STRENGTH components. You CANNOT ignore this, as physics dictates these realities, and the FCC has allocated per this reality. There are almost no world-wide spectrum allocations, and extremely few USA-wide allocations, but my point is more that a spectrum allocation has necessary LOCATION, DIRECTION, and STRENGTH components. Thus to look only at FREQUENCY is bogus. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the satellite use of the GPS spectrum INCLUDES Doppler-shifted transmissions, which are OK as a satellite-to-ground transmission to be found in the expected location due to the shift, i.e., somewhat different than the transmission bands allocated. This was known at the time of allocation, and it was also known that this is OK because of the type of lack of interference that neighboring satellite to ground spectrum would cause, and because that is how that spectrum and transmission method works. The bad thing happened when Lightsquared tried to use spectrum that was not allocated to them, i.e., ground to ground spectrum that interferes with the GPS signals. You cannot argue with Physics, and the FCC used to understand that very well. Anybody currently in the FCC who ignores physics with the GPS system is liable to be munched with this fiasco, and anybody trying to pretend that location, direction, and strength do not matter can have their wives and children ground up in meat grinders for all I care. |
|
| Ulmo |
to asdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdf :And this transformation has been happening over a period of at least 5 years and with government support hasn't it? It isn't like lightsquared just suddenly took it upon itself to alter it's behavior and throw in terrestrial usage. It also isn't as if there wasn't quite a window in which the gps industry had opportunity to plan for this eventuality.
I still don't understand why the gps industry believes that it should have an eternal ability to dictate uses of spectrum that was never allocated to it. They (GPS industry, i.e., us people) aren't using spectrum not allocated to them. They are using spectrum allocated to them, i.e., the obvious resultant doppler-shifted reception of GPS satellite transmissions. That is the way spectrum works. Your concept that this is not theirs because you want to wave magic pixy dust around and ignore physics is just bogus. Everyone knew in the scientific and allocation field of this spectrum that this is the way it works, and that was how to use it, and therefore that is their spectrum, and it's been that way ever since the spectrum was allocated. Your claim that this is not their spectrum is bogus. |
|
| Ulmo |
to asdfdfdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdfdfdf :"
A 1000 decibel concert is going to create noise within the factory owned area. In other words, the concert is impinging on the property that the factory owns and impacting the factory's use of its own property. But lightsquared isn't impinging on gps allocated spectrum. It is staying within its own allocated spectrum. Incorrect. The GPS spectrum includes all the doppler-shifted satellite-to-ground frequencies. The Lightsquared spectrum does not, as originally allocated, include the ground-to-ground spectrum that they want to use, nor the doppler-shifted satellite transmission area in the reception zone, until FCC got corrupted with this. |
|
| Ulmo |
to ArrayList
Re: all I hear is...said by ArrayList:light squared wants to use spectrum that they paid for. I'm quite sure that they do. I also have met a lot of thieves in my life that want to use the stolen goods that they paid other thieves for. You are suggesting that we allow them to do so. |
|
| Ulmo |
to n2jtx
Oddly enough, although I find this absolutely abhorrent (holding GPS hostage until a spectrum swap that fixes this issue), I find it absolutely abhorrent on a level many orders of magnitude lower than I find it absolutely abhorrent that Lightsquared would be allowed to impinge on GPS spectrum as they are insisting they have a right to do (which is bogus). It is a far better compromise among thieves and regarding the citizens for Lightsquared to get a spectrum swap away from the GPS-interfering frequencies than it is for them to simply obliterate GPS. I'm hoping this spectrum swap idea is the relief valve of the high-pressure crap they are doing. |
|
| Ulmo |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:I'd agree with you except that the FCC waived LightSquared's use of the spectrum for terrestrial use. LightSquared's poor engineering efforts and the FCC's negligent oversight brought this issue about. Yes, that is the oft-quoted public storyline. I find it disgusting that the follow up to that pair of stinky errors is the insistence that they be allowed to go through with it. They messed up, and need to retract. Can't businessmen and politicians find a way to make mends without continuing the garbage? That's why some of us are allowing the "spectrum swap" idea as a (unfair to legitimate users like other cell companies that bought at auction) solution, since it at least solves the main issue (GPS interference). After that, the damn phone companies can rowl in the mud for all I care to even that score, as long as they don't mess up GPS while they're duking it out. |
|
| Ulmo |
to voipguy
Re: Hook, Line and SinkerNice analogy.
I think the solution here is to recognize the politicians in the FCC are crooks (erm, in your analogy, the planning board), and to cajole them to allow the exchange, but not let them make the same mistake ever again. Kinda like today's version of child discipline -- insufficient for the mistake, but some oldster will be around next time to not allow them to get away with it again. |
|
| Ulmo |
to elefante72
Re: dont cry for lightsquaredMy only nit is that Lightsquared paid for the company that had the spectrum, which in my book means they paid for the spectrum, but that's almost a semantical discussion. I agree with everything else you said. Just because they paid for it, however, doesn't mean they get to pretend it is something it is not, even with some corrupt government officials helping them. |
|
| Ulmo |
to r81984
Re: Lightsquared and FCC moronsfor the record, I'd love it if there was some extra dimension where spectrum was squared and ..... oh boy ........ well u see multidimensional spectrum, so a squared amount of spectrum. I'd love that. I'd love to see more spectrum.
But it doesn't work that way.
The "oh boy" was just as I realized the namesake of the company is the very magical concept I said I would love if were true but obviously is not real. Amazing. The actual name of the company is its own criminal lie, and criminal intent. How insulting. |
|
 ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Ulmo
Re: all I hear is...said by Ulmo:said by ArrayList:light squared wants to use spectrum that they paid for. I'm quite sure that they do. I also have met a lot of thieves in my life that want to use the stolen goods that they paid other thieves for. You are suggesting that we allow them to do so. I'm really lost how you can call them thieves? they paid for the rights to the spectrum. They have every right to use it. |
|
