FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Oct-6 6:42 pm
FCC actually on firm legal ground if reject LS going forwardThe FCC is often on weak legal footing for many of their decisions because they went beyond their legislated authority. But one area that the FCC has always won in court is over interference issues and spectrum authorizations. The Congress gave the FCC very specific authority to regulate in that area. And Lightsquared could easily lose in a court case. They are probably just threatening legal action to try & cause some of the FCC bureaucrats to wet their pants, though I doubt the FCC legal team is intimidated. | |
|
| jack bGone Fishing MVM join:2000-09-08 Cape Cod |
Re: FCC actually on firm legal ground if reject LS going forwardI wonder if LightSquared will demand the government give them their money back, plus damages, for spectrum they legally purchased at auction, which will essentially be worthless if they are denied the ability to even use it. | |
|
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Oct-6 7:13 pm
Re: FCC actually on firm legal ground if reject LS going forwardsaid by jack b:I wonder if LightSquared will demand the government give them their money back, plus damages, for spectrum they legally purchased at auction, which will essentially be worthless if they are denied the ability to even use it. 1st, they didn't purchase it. They leased it. 2nd, it was leased for sat to ground communication ONLY and not for ground based transmitters. Now the FCC did give them a waiver TO TEST ground based transmitters(a mistake made thru political pressure). So maybe Lightsquared could recoup some of the testing costs related to ground based transmitters based on FCC stupidity, But I believe that would be the extent of their potential win in a court. | |
|
| | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
1 recommendation |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2011-Oct-6 7:53 pm
Re: FCC actually on firm legal ground if reject LS going forwardExactly. They're attempting to use a block of spectrum for a purpose it was never intended for. This whole fiasco would have never gotten this far if pay to play politics wasn't involved.
Leave the spectrum use issues up to the RF engineers, and not to the political cronies.
GPS is just too vital a service to be toyed with..... | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
to jack b
said by jack b:I wonder if LightSquared will demand the government give them their money back, plus damages, for spectrum they legally purchased at auction, which will essentially be worthless if they are denied the ability to even use it. FYI lightsquare bought the satellite only frequency to offer statellite broadband. Offering satellite broadband will not jam GPS. The frequency is already used for Sat phones. After they bought the spectrum they change their minds and wanted to build a ground based system, so they asked the FCC for a waiver. Waiver denied due to interference issues. If they could have converted the satellite only spectrum to ground base use they would have increased the value of the spectrum by at least 5 times. They essentially would have gotten ground frequencies for the price of statellite only frequency. Lightsquare is stuck with exactly what they paid for, spectrum for satellite only. No refunds for their gamble. | |
|
| | r81984 |
to jack b
How can you be listed as a MVM, but write complete lies???? Why do people make things up????
Lightsquare bought satellite only spectrum and tried to convert it to ground base use after they already purchased it. The original intention when they bought it was to offer satellite broadband. | |
|
| | | |
BUCKEYECOM
Anon
2011-Oct-8 8:51 pm
Re: FCC actually on firm legal ground if reject LS going forwardbecause you only have to agree with a select few people and you get what you want with nothing against you for the lies. If you don't agree with those people you get your posts flagged and your account locked due to "trolling" | |
|
| |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:The Congress gave the FCC very specific authority to regulate in that area. And Lightsquared could easily lose in a court case. They are probably just threatening legal action to try & cause some of the FCC bureaucrats to wet their pants, though I doubt the FCC legal team is intimidated. Given outcry against GPS interference during public LS hearings from the chorus of 3 and 4 letter agencies something tells me dealing with lawsuits LS will easily loose is by far the least intimidating approach. | |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2011-Oct-6 7:34 pm
The FCC should be tighter!GPS interference is already an issue for me. Locally, parts of Troy, NY have presented temporary loss of GPS signal and GPS lag on smartphones that otherwise work fine. My Mercedes built in GPS experiences significant lag in these areas, though full signal loss is rarer. Better antennas in most hardware GPS units vs smartphones, but still shows a real issue. Thank goodness I know Troy well these days lol because they have a very significant issue downtown. | |
|
| |
BUCKEYECOM
Anon
2011-Oct-8 11:35 am
Re: The FCC should be tighter!with your smart phone sounds more of an issue with it. Many smart phones now also use the Internet for GPS as well so if it even loses signal for a few seconds it will still keep going. But lose Internet and you can be screwed. | |
|
| | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2011-Oct-8 12:29 pm
Re: The FCC should be tighter!Yeah there is an issue on both. Android-based phones will show a route with your approximate location upon GPS loss, but apps like maps will disable the turn by turn style GPS until the signal comes back. Many of these spots with messed up GPS have an ok cell signal. With my hardware GPS built into my car, it's better about keeping the signal, but still experiences enough interference in said areas to cause significant lag. | |
|
| | | |
BUCKEYECOM
Anon
2011-Oct-8 8:52 pm
Re: The FCC should be tighter!Google Maps for GPS sucks in general. I always have issues with it in Toledo and in Cleveland Ohio. And anywhere else in PA and Michigan. I use TelNav for GPS now. If i lose the Internet it will still keep going just won't update certain things like speed, and delays, or search for things. | |
|
| | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2011-Oct-8 11:15 pm
Re: The FCC should be tighter!Google Maps has treated me pretty well, except where the phone lost the GPS signal, in general. Most places are fine. I had an old feature phone that had Telenav available and it performed surprisingly well, considering it used the cell towers, as opposed to a real GPS chip. Maybe I'll check up on it for Android. The gps built-in to my baby(the Mercedes) lags in the noted areas but does not fully lose the signal, like 2 different model phones(mine and my mate's). | |
|
HIPAR join:2005-11-10 Tannersville, PA 1 edit |
HIPAR
Member
2011-Oct-6 7:51 pm
Depends upon what happened behind the scenesLightsquared spent a lot of money with the intention of supporting President Obama's broadband initiative. If they can establish the government encouraged that to get a head start on the network buildout they might have a case.
I believe that's what happened. Details reveled arguing that case would be scandalous and that circle of friends behind this debacle would certainly be broken.
--- CHAS | |
|
| |
BUCKEYECOM
Anon
2011-Oct-8 11:36 am
Re: Depends upon what happened behind the scenestrue! i agree and LQ should go and buy up Open Range- hell their site doesn't even say they're closing and still allows you to order. Although I bet local ISPs will be buying up OR. | |
|
|
Just How Stupid Does LightSquared Think People?quote: Jeff Carlisle, LightSquared's vice president of regulatory affairs and public policy... said LightSquared has tried to conduct itself as a "good neighbor" to GPS receiver manufacturers and users...
Is that a fact? Let's see, if I recall the time-line correctly, LightSquared: First claimed their system wouldn't interfere with GPS. Then admitted it would interfere, but the millions of GPS receivers could easily be retrofitted with filters to mitigate the interference. Then, one supposes in response to wide-spread ridicule over such a patently silly assertion, said "ok, we'll move away a bit." When it was shown that still wouldn't eliminate the problem, next claimed they were working on a super secret project with Somebody Else that would violate the laws of physics and solve the interference problem. (Still waiting to see that.) Now they're claiming "well, its really the fault of the GPS receivers with which our service will interfere," and threatening to sue to win permission to be... yup, a Bad Neighbour to GPS receiver manufacturers and users. How stupid does LightSquared think people are? Jim | |
|
r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Oct-6 8:18 pm
Lightsquared can Frack ThemselvesThis company is a joke. They took a hail marry to try and convert satellite only frequency to ground based frequency and lost because they will jam GPS. They need to move on.
Lightsquared's CEO is free to jam GPS in his home country of India if he wants to. | |
|
ctgreybeardOld dogs can learn new tricks Premium Member join:2001-11-13 Bethel, CT |
Nope, sorry L2Fortunately I believe that GPS services are recognized as being critical, and growing, to the US populace. I don't think LightSquared has a chance in hell of prevailing. They may be able to get some of their money back but that's chump change compared to the original gamble. | |
|
RDC17 join:2011-05-15 Vienna, VA |
RDC17
Member
2011-Oct-6 8:34 pm
LightSquared sues the FCC........and then the families of people killed in auto and airplane accidents caused by GPS interference sue LightSquared, who then sues the FCC. It's just a circle of love. | |
|
|
A little knowledge is a dangerous thingThe spectrum is not neatly divided into cute little blocks like the typical NTIA poster would have you think. The actual allocation documents from the ITU lists all kinds of caveats and taboos to be followed, in addition to the general swaths of spectrum that show up on a chart. It ain't like picking a house in a new subdivision. | |
|
| mix join:2002-03-19 Romeo, MI |
mix
Member
2011-Oct-7 9:32 am
Re: A little knowledge is a dangerous thingYou are correct sir. | |
|
|
|