dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
261
Brisk6
join:2003-07-11
Denver, CO

Brisk6

Member

It's not about the network's potential to interfere with GPS

It's about the network's potential to interfere with poorly-designed GPS receivers that work outside of specification.
LightSquared did nothing wrong in it's business plans, I believe it falls on the backs of the receiver manufacturers to fix this. They made sloppy equipment.
If the FCC had interference concerns, then it shouldn't have licensed the spectrum to begin with.

Speaking of which, isn't this covered under the old FCC adage "Device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" ?

GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium Member
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
ARRIS TM1602
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
Ooma Telo

2 recommendations

GeekJedi

Premium Member

said by Brisk6:

It's about the network's potential to interfere with poorly-designed GPS receivers that work outside of specification.
LightSquared did nothing wrong in it's business plans, I believe it falls on the backs of the receiver manufacturers to fix this. They made sloppy equipment.
If the FCC had interference concerns, then it shouldn't have licensed the spectrum to begin with.

Speaking of which, isn't this covered under the old FCC adage "Device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" ?

Here we go again...

No it's not covered under Part 15 or anything else.

LS's license is for Satellite-to-ground communication. The FCC granted a waiver *if* LS could prove that they wouldn't interfere with GPS devices. Well, they couldn't.

Modern low-end GPS devices do not have the sharp filtering necessary to filter out LS's ground-to-ground signal which is an order of magnitude more powerful than the space-to-ground signal that everyone originally expected to be there.

Had LS done space-to-ground, then there'd be no interference problem with GPS devices because they were designed with that in mind. The burden is on LS to essentially build a ground network using the same power level as that which would be received from space. That, unfortunately would be difficult and expensive but would not interfere with GPS.

The problem here was that LS thought they had found "free money" by converting this satellite-to-ground license into essentially a nation-wide ground-based license. Now they're angry because they're finding out that the licenses are really worth what they paid for them, which wasn't a lot, compared to what similar licenses would go for at auction.

So the bottom line again is this: Either change your biz plan to utilize satellite-to-ground comms like your license states, or try and get your money back and turn in the license.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Brisk6

Premium Member

to Brisk6
said by Brisk6:

Speaking of which, isn't this covered under the old FCC adage "Device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" ?

But that conflicts with another old FCC adage - don't mess with the military, or the FAA, or any other large federal agency with a lot of influence in Congress.
HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA

HIPAR to Brisk6

Member

to Brisk6
Part 15 doesn't apply to avionics and military devices.

MrUmbra
@verizon.net

MrUmbra to Brisk6

Anon

to Brisk6

Re: Bogus Lightsquared spin

You might find that part 15 sticker on your Garmin or TomTom but I'll defy anyone to find one glued onto the GPS in the avionics bay of an airliner.

And, I wish someone would post a link to those GPS receiver specifications mandated by FCC or anyone else that the industry has failed to comply with.

Is there anyone here who could have guessed what kind of filter to fit into a GPS receiver way back during 2003? The engineers were flabbergasted when they finally saw the Lightsquared network operating plan after it was provided to the interference test group early 2011.