reply to openbox9
Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared
said by openbox9:FYI, they made it quit clear to lightsquared what they had to do. said by Oh_No:
They could have said no, but instead they were nice and gave the company a chance.
That ignorance. It's not being "nice". Nice would've been informing LightSquared what it needed to accomplish to build out its network.
said by Oh_No:
All lightsquared wants to do is flip satellite only spectrum into ground based spectrum worth 10 times as much.
That only makes this issue more flagrant.
They could not cause interference to aviation, gps, defense.
Any engineer would have said you cant make it work.
Lightsquared say they had new technology to make it work, so the FCC was nice enough to let them try.
Lightsquareds new technology did not work and thus they were denied the waiver.
I dont understand your FCC bashing here. The FCC did not do anything secretive or wrong. I dont understand your obsession with the FCC who did way more than what they normally do.
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:You are right. The FCC used to rely on science, engineering and facts, but since the 90s they become more corrruptable and bow to political pressure. Just like the political pressure to approve lightsquared when they caused intereference.
I'm read up on Falcone's ties to the White House.
said by jseymour:
Yeah, except you seem to be functioning under the illusion that the FCC, a Federal agency, operates entirely on scientific principles, w/o political influence.
Sadly, I'm not under that illusion. I have no doubt that the FCC is more of a political arm these days than an engineering and oversight organization.
We are lucky the FCC only gave them a conditional waiver and not a waiver that allowed them to cause interference.
Political bullying and strong arming almost allowed lightsquared to bypass facts, science and engineering.
But in the end science, facts, and engineering protected GPS.
r81984Fair and BalancedPremiumReviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:What mistake did they make???
Bolding the word "conditional" doesn't change the mistake that the FCC made. You suggest that the FCC knew this wouldn't work but let a company waste resources of a business and the government. Does that sound about right...even with my poor reading comprehension?
All they did of instead of saying NO, they gave the company a chance to prove they had a solution.
In the end the company lied and had no solution.
I guess the mistake the FCC made was to trust a company over their own engineers.
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.
DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIPReviews:
Granite City, IL
I know this might sound like common sense but if the GPS signaling seems to be the problem why can't the FCC just find a different set of spectrum for them and essentially tell them
"Hey just move and transmit here!"
I mean seriously, if interference is a problem for any normal WI-FI area where a channel is particularly saturated I just find a different WI-FI transmit channel.
nevermind, I am making sense again... stupid,stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid....
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
GeekJediRF is Good For YouPremiumReviews:
Actually you aren't making sense. Here's why:
Spectrum that would allow LS to do what it wants to do is VERY valuable. LS essentially paid nothing for the spectrum it holds now, since it isn't very valuable.
Therefore what you're proposing is similar to trading a tool shed for a mansion. Not only is that a misuse of public spectrum, it's unfair to the companies that paid significant money to get the proper spectrum.
The real solution here is to allow LS to give the spectrum back and recover whatever money (if any) they bid on it in the first place.
That would make sense.
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!!
The debacle I've been following this very closely since this debacle surfaced during the 2010 Thanksgiving coup. I haven't found any evidence that anyone in a decision making capacity remotely understood the ramifications of what was about to happen.
Someone in the FCC engineering office must have known this wouldn't work but I've found no evidence they performed even a cursory analysis. There was a Lightsquared document (wish I could find it now) that detailed a lame test they had conducted to determine effects on GPS equipped cell phones. That document abruptly ended with a statement of testing would continue through the FCC mandated interference working group.
It probably developed something like this:
FCC to Lightsquared - 'We all want to support the administration's broadband initiatives. We're with you on this and ready to help.'
LightSquared to FCC - 'One minor detail, we need you to lift the Gating requirement allowing us to issue terrestrial only hand sets.'
FCC to Lightsquared - 'No problem, we'll get the International Bureau on this right away.'
FCC announces it's intention to make a 'minor' modification to Lightsquared's license setting a ridiculously brief over the holiday comment period. Hoping nobody will notice?
DoD, FAA scream bloody murder to NTIA. Garmin performs 'quick and dirty test' showing severe problems. GPS industry mobilizes.
FCC to Lightsquared - 'We did our best to get this thing done for you but everyone's looking now. Unfortunately, we need to go by the book. So let's organize a test that proves there is no interference problem. Then we can lift the provisions we had to impose for your license.'
The test and all subsequent testing yields damning results. Lightsquared 'tap dances' around the issues but FCC cannot approve the license after having bowed to political pressures stating GPS interference/compatability issues must first be resolved.
Lightsquared to FCC - 'Enough of these delays. Nothing is our fault. You encouraged us to spend lots of money to get a jump on our network buildout and we expect you to make things right for us. We're going to sue.'