  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Huh? "expediting government approval of the LightSquared network"
There is no approval to expedite, so what is Falcone talking about? They cant bypass the laws of physics so lightsquared wont work adjacent to GPS. | |
|
 | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: Huh? can still get the FCC to rubber stamp it. but then the FAA will block it. | |
|
| |  racer9876Defender Of The UniversePremium
join:2000-07-03
Rosamond, CA
 ·Antelecom
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Huh? Well the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction to stop the network layout per frequency disruption concerns, i.e. GPS interference. Until recently only the FCC had that jurisdiction but with the recent passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) the DoD now has final say on any potential frequency issues concerning GPS. And considering all DoD tests showed anywhere from marginal to extreme interference, the likely hood of LightSquared getting DoD approval is nil. | |
|
| | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: Huh? the FAA could stand up and stop it regardless. GPS is used in auto-pilot for air traffic and is used at the FAA Control Towers. If that does NOT work a LOT of airports and airlines are going to have problems. How can you explain to someone that 2 airplanes just ran into each other in mid air? | |
|
| HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | He's demanding a waiver of the physical laws. | |
|
| | | said by Oh_No:"expediting government approval of the LightSquared network"
There is no approval to expedite, so what is Falcone talking about? They cant bypass the laws of physics so lightsquared wont work adjacent to GPS.
Probably a spectrum swap. It'd be good for everyone if the government does that. | |
|
| | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Huh? said by sonicmerlin:said by Oh_No:"expediting government approval of the LightSquared network"
There is no approval to expedite, so what is Falcone talking about? They cant bypass the laws of physics so lightsquared wont work adjacent to GPS.
Probably a spectrum swap. It'd be good for everyone if the government does that. Agreed, but we should not give away spectrum if another company is will to pay for it. They could have a chance to bid on it like anyone else.
Lightsquared got use of the satellite only spectrum for free based on their plan to offer satellite internet which they never did, instead of statellite internet they have been trying forever to get waiver to use it for ground based use.
The only way we should give them valuable spectrum for free is if they agree to some kind of caps on prices for X amount of years and have no caps or throttling forever. | |
|
| | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: Huh? no company in their right mind would really agree to that- let alone would let the FCC try to enforce that. They'd say okay to get it to go through; and then drag the FCC through court later saying they can't force a private company to do such a thing.
Remember the gov't can NOT get into the affairs of a private business. | |
|
| | | | | All Spectrum thats in the 800mhz band was GIVIN to companys . That includes todays Verizon and ATT!!
Lets get the facts straight | |
|
| |  GeekJediRF is Good For YouPremium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
·CenturyLink
 ·VOIPo
| said by sonicmerlin:Probably a spectrum swap. It'd be good for everyone if the government does that.
No it wouldn't. It would set a horrible precedent. Want to avoid paying big bucks for spectrum? Get your hands on a cheap swath that won't work with your business plan, then yell and scream until the FCC gives you the spectrum you want!
No. LS either needs to use the spectrum as licensed or return it and bid for the appropriate spectrum like everyone else. They need to stop trying to get a free lunch out of this.
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!! | |
|
| | rtfm8
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by sonicmerlin:Probably a spectrum swap. It'd be good for everyone if the government does that.
I think you meant "very good for Falcone who got the current spectrum for free, and would get a billion dollar payoff..."
I don't see "everyone" in there... | |
|
| | Demand new GPS Filters No im sure he was the FCC to demand that everyone uses filters that stop interference.
There are many white papers out that all of the GPS man's could of done this a long while ago and did nothing.
Even todays GPS's get interference when you get to close about a mile or so from a FM/AM tower. Why should this be allowed, the filters that are out even right now could fix this ?
I ask again WHY didnt and why shouldnt the FCC for them to stop using cheap junk filters. | |
|
| NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: Demand new GPS Filters I wanna why the FCC would even consider this plan anyway? Oh wait! its because of Sprint had something to do with it! | |
|
| | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters LMAO the FCC ok'ed this over 10 years ago.
Sprint just last year ok'ed LS to allow it to hosting on its network | |
|
| | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: Demand new GPS Filters said by rlharris02:LMAO the FCC ok'ed this over 10 years ago.
Sprint just last year ok'ed LS to allow it to hosting on its network
Ok now we know you work for Lightsquared as that is a complete lie.
The FCC leased for free this satllite only spectrum to the company that is now lightsquared, it had a different name them. The free spectrum was issued with a gaurantee they would launch satellites for a satellite broadband network to have more competition, they has so many years to do this. Part of the deal was to have some low powered ground transmitters as a backup for emergencies only if the satellite failed.
Lightsquared decided they could make 10 times more money if they used that spectrum for ground based LTE. So they applied for a waiver from the FCC.
The FCC never gives waivers like this, they did it with the stipulation if they could somehow get it to work without interference they would be allowed to do it.
The FCC gave them a chance even though any engineer could tell you it would not work.
LIghtsquare tried and failed.
Spectrum can only be used for satellite only. They were never approved to build their ground based internet network. It is a lie to say they where.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | |  mix
join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Yeah this dude always posts about how GPS companies are evil and stupid every time there is a LightSquared will never happen article on this website. Funny that most of us who have in depth knowledge and rely on GPS for their livelihoods were right when we called it many months ago that LightSquared would never happen without a spectrum swap. | |
|
| | | | | | Stop replying on your posts with another of your screen names!!
All Spectrum thats in the 800mhz band was GIVIN to companys . That includes todays Verizon and ATT!!
Lets get the facts straight | |
|
| | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: Demand new GPS Filters said by rlharris02:Stop replying on your posts with another of your screen names!!
All Spectrum thats in the 800mhz band was GIVIN to companys . That includes todays Verizon and ATT!!
Lets get the facts straight
What are you talking about?
I have had the same screen name forever.
You are paranoid? You need a tin foil hat.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | With another company. And L2 is depending on the money from Sprint-Nextel. No $$ means no company. Which S-N barley has now- if any since they just spent their cash reserves. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters said by NWOhio:With another company. And L2 is depending on the money from Sprint-Nextel.
Umm, no. Sprint isn't paying them, at least not at this juncture, they're paying Sprint ($15B in cash and credits over 11 years) to build their network. That is if they can ever get approval... | |
|
| Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by rlharris02:No im sure he was the FCC to demand that everyone uses filters that stop interference.
There are many white papers out that all of the GPS man's could of done this a long while ago and did nothing.
Even todays GPS's get interference when you get to close about a mile or so from a FM/AM tower. Why should this be allowed, the filters that are out even right now could fix this ?
I ask again WHY didnt and why shouldnt the FCC for them to stop using cheap junk filters.
What are you talking about?
GPS signals red shift according to the laws of physics into some of the spectrum lightsquare is trying to use.
Then Lightsquare's transmitters will overpower the weak satellite signals that are close in frequency.
There is good reason the FCC allocated this frequency for satellite use only. The FCC was nice enough to let lightsquare try to bend the laws of physics and lightsquare failed.
They need to go away. Their Indian CEO can go take their equipment and jam GPS in india.
As for you FM/AM transmitter jamming GPS, if that is happening it could not be stopped by a passive filter. The powerful transmitter is just drowing out any other signal if you are right next to it.
Its like trying to view the stars in the middle of a bright city. | |
|
| | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Hi,
There has already been several tests showing that filters already in production that help reduce red shift issue. To say soemthing is just the law of physics and cant be solved is very short sighted thinking.
Over 10years ago the FCC ok'ed this venture.
Also your racists comments are not needed.
It does happen right now and it can be changed, the best example is millions of cell phones. The GPS filter in millions of cell phone stop much much more interference than any John Deer GPS does.
Wonder why that is ? Well becuase cell phone man's do not put cheap junk in there filter designs. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: Demand new GPS Filters you also forget that most of India does NOT drive they walk or use public transit. My housemate is from there and says most can't afford a car. and hell- 1 American Dollar is equal to 50 dollars of theirs. | |
|
| | | | | | Please stop posting for 3 different screen names to try to make people think you are right.
One of your screen names can do a google search and see several whitepapers and tests that prove that filters RIGHT now stop interference from LS and AM/FM towers and etc.
To say you are not racists since you have one India friend is they biggest load of BS. You are what you are!
The original company LS bought has/had FCC's ok to do a terrestrial LTE network with that spectrum.
Alll of your screen names post the same BS. | |
|
| | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by rlharris02:Hi,
There has already been several tests showing that filters already in production that help reduce red shift issue. To say soemthing is just the law of physics and cant be solved is very short sighted thinking.
Over 10years ago the FCC ok'ed this venture.
Also your racists comments are not needed.
It does happen right now and it can be changed, the best example is millions of cell phones. The GPS filter in millions of cell phone stop much much more interference than any John Deer GPS does.
Wonder why that is ? Well becuase cell phone man's do not put cheap junk in there filter designs.
The FCC never OKed anything except a test for interference. | |
|
| | | | | said by rlharris02:Hi,
There has already been several tests showing that filters already in production that help reduce red shift issue. To say soemthing is just the law of physics and cant be solved is very short sighted thinking. As has been pointed-out numerous times: It's not just the red shift issue. It's also the simple facts that: 1. No transmitter is 100% clean. They all emit some "noise" outside their designed frequency (ranges). LightSquared's would be no different. The strength of these unwanted signals is usually proportional to the distance from their designed frequency (ranges). 2. Unwanted spurious emissions aside: A strong signal on frequency A and a receiver listening for weak signals on nearby frequency B, where the two are in relatively close proximity, distance-wise, will result in the A signal swamping the B receiver's front end, filters notwithstanding. 3. Who's going to pay to retrofit all the currently perfectly functional GPS' that LS' system would break?
said by rlharris02:Over 10years ago the FCC ok'ed this venture. Cite?
said by rlharris02:It does happen right now and it can be changed, the best example is millions of cell phones. The GPS filter in millions of cell phone stop much much more interference than any John Deer GPS does.
Wonder why that is ? Well becuase cell phone man's do not put cheap junk in there filter designs.
There is so much wrong with the above statement, I really have no idea where to begin. Suffice it to say: You've absolutely no clue whatsoever as to what you're babbling on about.
Btw: I've seen my phone's front-end swamped by a nearby cell tower that my phone couldn't use in just the way I described above.
Jim | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Now its four accounts with one person posts.
Know your facts read the white papers and look at the reports.
Everything is out there for you to read and even test your self if you have the knowledge and ability.
But why do that when one person can have 4 screen names to post as | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Do you ever get tired of spamming the forum? | |
|
| | | | | | | said by rlharris02:Now its four accounts with one person posts. I am me and me alone. I have only one account on DSLR. One account is all I've ever had. One account is all I've ever needed.
But if you believe I'm a sock-puppet, I suggest you register a complaint with DSLR's management. I'm pretty sure that's grounds for banning.
I do. You don't.
Jim | |
|
| | | | | | | said by rlharris02:Now its four accounts with one person posts.
Know your facts read the white papers and look at the reports.
Everything is out there for you to read and even test your self if you have the knowledge and ability.
But why do that when one person can have 4 screen names to post as
You have posted many statements with not one link to back up anything you have said. You, sir, are sounding more and more like either a corporate shill and/or someone who has a financial stake in what is happening. This destroys whatever credibility you have and even puts Lightsquared in a bad light.
Either back up your views and accusations or kindly leave this thread.
kthxbye | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Hi,
Really I dont think I should have to, the 1 poster on here with several accounts. Has made it clear that he/she has a $$ investment on stoping progress.
Lets be clear I in no way work with LS. And i live in a city for 3 different broadband ISPs and 4 cellular options.
Not everyone in the US has that option, thats the great thing about LS.
This is one of many that I have read, that has been nothing from the GPS community to disprove this.
»www.pobonline.com/Articles/Indus···01140328
People on here need to realize that they should not want to stop progress. If we only listen to people like that we would NEVER have been to Space, never had cell phones, never had internet, etc. To say something is impossible and then dig your head into the ground is just plan wrong.
Im sure people will not care, and the 1 poster will keep on but if LS fails if will be a huge let down to millions of people around the US. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters That article is just like your posts: All assertion and no proof or evidence. In fact... waitaminute! Are you Javad Ashjaee, by chance?
As for his assertion that getting a GPS receiver near an AM or FM commercial transmitter will reduce its performance: Well, I suppose that may be true. Fact is: RF is RF and if you get any sensitive receiver close enough to any other strong source of RF, that receiver's performance is bound to be negatively affected. But: The amount of de-sensitization (we call it "desense" in the radio world) is, to a large degree, directly affected by frequency proximity. In other words: A several-kilowatts AM transmitter (that's longwave, btw) will affect a GHz-range receiver far less than a several-kilowatts transmitter operating in an adjacent GHz range. That's the crux of the problem. The spectrum that LightSquared obtained with their acquisition was originally allocated for SatCom, not terrestrial operations.
LightSquared is trying to take a piece of property it bought for a song that was zoned residential and get a zoning variance to build a heavy industrial plant on it. The neighbours are saying "Hey, wait just a minute, here" and the zoning board is saying "Uhm, it's residential. You knew that when you bought it. Unless you can use it in a manner that won't thoroughly trash the adjacent residential neighbourhoods: Denied."
Lastly: Again: If you think somebody here is a sockpuppet: Call 'em out. Call 'em out or shut up about it.
Jim | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by rlharris02:Hi,
Really I dont think I should have to, the 1 poster on here with several accounts. Has made it clear that he/she has a $$ investment on stoping progress. Ahhh, yes, you do. You see, making baseless accusations is akin to a boy "crying wolf." Anyone can make an accusation but if you fail to back it up, the credibility goes out the window.
said by rlharris02:Lets be clear I in no way work with LS. And i live in a city for 3 different broadband ISPs and 4 cellular options.
Not everyone in the US has that option, thats the great thing about LS. And it is statements like this that would lead some to believe that you do have a monetary interest in Lightsquared going forward.
Any paper that starts off with a term such as "Political Noise" is bound to be nothing but a rant sprinkled with technical jargon.
Even Javad says the "perfect filter" does not yet exist but wants others to build it so that Lightsquared can do as it pleases.
What you failed to realize was the original license was for a satellite based system with NO ground towers. When that didn't work, the towers came into play and that's when the interference started. Lightsquared looks like they knew they had problems and then tried to change the game.
said by rlharris02:People on here need to realize that they should not want to stop progress. If we only listen to people like that we would NEVER have been to Space, never had cell phones, never had internet, etc. To say something is impossible and then dig your head into the ground is just plan wrong. Go look up how you are using the same, failed arguments that BPL tried to use when their system caused interference and said to hell with the amateur radio operators and anyone else we interfere with. Didn't work out so well for them.
said by rlharris02:Im sure people will not care, and the 1 poster will keep on but if LS fails if will be a huge let down to millions of people around the US.
Again, unless you have proof that 1 person is multiple accounts, please stop stating that as fact. There are many technical people on here who actually read the evidence and know what they are talking about. | |
|
| | | | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
2 edits | said by rlharris02:Hi,
Really I dont think I should have to, the 1 poster on here with several accounts. Has made it clear that he/she has a $$ investment on stoping progress.
Lets be clear I in no way work with LS. And i live in a city for 3 different broadband ISPs and 4 cellular options.
Not everyone in the US has that option, thats the great thing about LS.
This is one of many that I have read, that has been nothing from the GPS community to disprove this.
»www.pobonline.com/Articles/Indus···01140328
People on here need to realize that they should not want to stop progress. If we only listen to people like that we would NEVER have been to Space, never had cell phones, never had internet, etc. To say something is impossible and then dig your head into the ground is just plan wrong.
Im sure people will not care, and the 1 poster will keep on but if LS fails if will be a huge let down to millions of people around the US.
Please tell me how anyone would make money from stopping Lightsquared???
Sorry, but Lightsquared's results from their test to the FCC admitted they failed. What more do you want?
That article you linked to written by Javad is a joke. Sorry but it does not help their cause.
If their filters worked like their photoshopped graph on the first page then all the red and blue shifted signals would be blocked.
LOLLOLOL, Your white paper says they would need a ground base single to augment gps satellites for high precision. That is a joke and aint going to happen.
Let me guess you work for Javad??
So everyone needs to buy your filters and pay for your augmented signal? LOL.
Sorry but without your filters we can have high precision with no augmented signal all space based.
They need to stop trying to convert satelite only frequencies for ground use. The spectrum should stay what it was intended for.
You never know what future company will come alone and actually want to launch a satellite on those frequencies.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by rlharris02:There has already been several tests showing that filters already in production that help reduce red shift issue. To say soemthing is just the law of physics and cant be solved is very short sighted thinking.
WOW... They are going to get a nobel prize and all kinds of awards.
Redshift is caused by movement, so they either found a way to send the signal by subspace to bypass the distance or they changed the speed of light.
I really want to see how that works because its going to be revolutionary. | |
|
|  SmokChsrWho let the magic smoke out?Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by rlharris02:Even todays GPS's get interference when you get to close about a mile or so from a FM/AM tower.
That's news to me.. I use them all the time right at the base of operating full power AM & FM towers to measure the tower location and run radials from the tower. Never had a problem yet with that.
This is a case where the FCC chairman and some commissioners should be fired. The FCC's OET (office of engineering and technology) told the commission that what Lsq wanted to do would NOT, could NOT work. The commission ignored that for political reasons.
The filters won't work.. but hey there's lots of money at stake so lets just rewrite the rules so we can show progress long enough to sell our interest in it to some other sucker at a profit before the whole thing crashes and burns. | |
|
| | | | Re: Demand new GPS Filters Really you have the testing equipment and knowledge to see how much DB lose you have?
Doubt that | |
|
| | | SmokChsrWho let the magic smoke out?Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: Demand new GPS Filters said by rlharris02:Really you have the testing equipment and knowledge to see how much DB lose you have?
The FCC's Office of Engineering & Technology did the testing..
and yes I do have the equipment and knowledge, to do the testing, but I haven't done any testing on GPS equipment myself, so I'll just trust the word of the OET.
Seems you have been confused into thinking the laws of physics can be changed by politicians.
| |
|
| | FCC are all lawyers now and have no technical insight. We use GPS receivers at radio sites. So does cellular. Once the interference takes down federal radio systems and cellular phone systems, then maybe they'll understand. | |
|
| | | Re: FCC are all lawyers now and have no technical insight. That wont happen the filters and design of the cellular GPS are far better than wants in the GPS being talked about now. | |
|
| | Any RF engineers reading this? (Please ignore the discussions about nontechnical FCC lawyers and the FAA: Congress effectively closed those potential loopholes with the 2012 NDAA language.)
Having said that, it sure would be nice to see some RF engineering input here -- as opposed to some of the policy wonk BS and stone-throwing -- re the more likely impact of heterodyning beat frequency interference.
Note: Heterodyning beat frequency interference is important enough to the FCC to have it appear among the questions on their Commercial Radio Operator License exams.
Reportedly, the laws of physics preclude filtering this interference effectively, even with a filter the weight of a railroad locomotive and the size of a house. (This was from an experienced RF engineer's blog posting -- n.b., not from me.)
Most (reasonable) folks would concur that, if that's true, this interference would make filtering to solve most GPS applications wildly impractical. In theory, heterodyning beat frequency interference would mean GPS satellite signals would also similarly interfere with LS freqs, but wait, no, that's only theoretical given the sharp disparity in their comparative signal strengths.
Unfortunately, there's been almost no mention I can find of this specific effect and its potential to render all "filtering solution" discussions moot, anywhere in any published dialogue about the LS/GPS controversy, from any quarter.
A fast Google, , yields zip/zed/nada. QED.
So, could we _please_ have some input from any of the _real_ RF engineers out there reading this, who can discuss this in lay terms the rest of us more modestly qualified folks can understand, intelligently and backed by credentialed authority?
TIA... | |
|
|
|
