  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | GNSS is not the solution As I said on the last article like this...
Javad uses the Russian GNSS location system.
That simply is not an acceptable solution for US industries, especially defense related (the DOD itself has its own frequencies).
While GNSS is a good complementary system, you have to have high accuracy GPS with it. | |
|
 |  mix
join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI
1 edit | Re: GNSS is not the solution GNSS is an acronym for Global Navigation Satellite Systems. It simply means multiple systems, like GPS, Glonass, Galileo and Compass. Javad is a company, named after it's owner Javad Ashjaee, that makes high precession GPS equipment that works with these satellite systems. Leica, Trimble, Topcon, Ashtech, etc., etc., etc. all offer multi constellation receivers now. The more satellites you can track, the better. GPS and Glonass are the only currently fully functional satellite navigation systems. And GPS accuracy is better than Glonass.
No land surveyor who has spent in excess of $15,000 per high accuracy receiver is going to want to pay anything extra nor want to do anything to degrade the accuracy of their equipment. No farmer or construction contractor who uses high accuracy GPS for machine control wants too either. I doubt the military or the airlines want to equip their planes and other equipment. This issue is far from over. | |
|
| | Truth or FUD? "...the GPS industry should have vacated the spectrum years ago" | |
|
| | | Re: Truth or FUD? According to the cNet article: "The GPS industry has long relied on equipment that relies on spectrum which bleeds into the spectrum that LightSquared plans to use for its network. While the industry had been warned of its potential use, the GPS companies opted not to change the design of their devices or shield them against potential interference"
So if true, yes, it is the GPS industry's responsibility. They cheaped out and bled into spectrum they are not licenses to use, assuming it would be ok since no one else was using it either, at the time. Now someone is and it is no longer ok. But that was bad design on their part, and in any case you're not entitled to bleed into spectrum blocks that you don't own. Lightsquared seems to be blameless on this particular issue. | |
|
| |
2 edits | Re: Truth or FUD? Yeah, the GPS industry is at fault here. If they use spectrum they are not allocated to, they obviously either need to fix it or buy the spectrum from LS.
There's only so much spectrum to go around though and the future of wireless is more and more data - that spectrum is highly valuable. The FCC needs to set a timetable for the GPS industry to clean up the mess with major fines as a consequence. If the net fines are over $400M, then the LS proposal might be taken seriously by the industry. | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Truth or FUD? said by xenophon:The FCC needs to set a timetable for the GPS industry to clean up the mess with major fines as a consequence. Actually, since the regulatory body responsible for mitigating spectrum interference is at fault for allowing this situation to happen, it needs to resolve this dispute. Spectrum reallocation is the best solution IMO. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Truth or FUD? have the government pay 1/3, have the gps industry pay 1/3, and have lightsquared pay 1/3.
problem solved and everyone pays for their portion of the mess. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | RokHed
join:2000-09-09
Pennsville, NJ Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 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! | |
|
| | | | | | said by openbox9:said by xenophon:The FCC needs to set a timetable for the GPS industry to clean up the mess with major fines as a consequence. Actually, since the regulatory body responsible for mitigating spectrum interference is at fault for allowing this situation to happen, it needs to resolve this dispute. Spectrum reallocation is the best solution IMO. Give T-Mobile's spectrum to Lightsquared. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Truth or FUD? I assume you mean following its potential acquisition by AT&T? | |
|
| | | | | Someone needs to teach you guys (and lightsquared) the concept of a guard band. | |
|
| | |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by xenophon:Yeah, the GPS industry is at fault here. If they use spectrum they are not allocated to, they obviously either need to fix it or buy the spectrum from LS.
Yea, I mean when those billion dollar military satellites were made I can't believe how they went cheap on the radios which is wrecking havoc on our job creators on the ground trying attract investors with the next generation broadband. . . ... /s
The fact is that this scheming company is using frequencies and bands that might someday totally not be used by gps systems anymore and part of them being able to do this is by not interfering with said systems. Now they come up with some add-on box that doesn't fix the problem it compensates for it, for $400 a whack which I'm sure some of that they pocket for themselves.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | | mix
join:2002-03-19
Utica, MI | The idea of the GPS industry "using" spectrum is what irks me. GPS receivers are receive only. They are only listening to signals broadcast to them. Apparently listening to signals outside the allotted GPS bands that the GPS satellites broadcast on has some sort of positive effect if you are looking for high accuracy, high precession results from very low power signals coming from orbit. Go figure. | |
|
| | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Truth or FUD? said by mix:The idea of the GPS industry "using" spectrum is what irks me. GPS receivers are receive only. They are only listening to signals broadcast to them. Apparently listening to signals outside the allotted GPS bands that the GPS satellites broadcast on has some sort of positive effect if you are looking for high accuracy, high precession results from very low power signals coming from orbit. Go figure.
The laws of physics causes signals from moving satellites to red shift into 25 mhz of the specturm lightsquare will want to use. That is the laws of physics.
GPS receivers will listen for that red shift signals.
If lightsquare trys to use more powerful ground transmitters on those frequencies they will block the red shifted GPS signals and your GPS will not see those satellites.
People use the spectrum not the GPS industry. US tax payers paid for the GPS network over the years since the 70s. We own GPS. Will lightsquared pays us all back for that investment??
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | 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. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Earthlink Cable ..
| Wrong! GPS receivers do not "bleed". GPS transmitters are hundreds of miles away and the receivers must be very sensitive and must fit in a postage stamp sized device. Spectrum is not "brick wall"; there are guard bands to protect sensitive receivers all over the allocations. Lightsquared ASSUMED they could do whatever they want with the spectrum because they were getting bad advice from someone sorely lacking any real world RF experience. Caveat emptor! They got hosed. Get over it. | |
|
| | | | FUD-ish...
GPS satellites, because they are moving pretty darn fast, undergo a large doppler shift. High precision receivers need to be able to see the satellites even when heavily red-shifted.
Since the neighboring bands to the GPS were reserved for satellite to ground communication, this was not a problem as the level of interference from use of the neighboring band would not be a problem.
The problem is, Lightsquared is a ground-based system, with much much much more powerful transmitters than the GPS-neighbors ever expected nor had to deal with.
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... | |
|
| | | | | Re: Truth or FUD? 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. If this is correct then why is it unreasonable to expect the gps market to shoulder the burden of dealing with it, or at least to be willing to work with lightsquared rather than trying to kill lightsquared's plans. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | 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? | |
|
| | | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: Truth or FUD? 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
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | 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. | |
|
| | | | | "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. | |
|
| | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: Truth or FUD? 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. | |
|
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Yes it's true. They've long sold receivers for years that were susceptable to signals outside the GPS band, even though they were told by the FCC years ago that those bands wouldn't stay vacant for long, and they better prepare for the day when those bands get allocated.
What did the GPS do? Nothing. They stuck their heads in the sand. They continued to sell cheap, poorly designed receivers into the marketplace, even though the FCC told them that in a few years they would be experiencing interference. Unfortunately, receivers don't emit signals, and the regulatory ability to do something about them is limited; e.g., if you want to sell crap receivers, you can. The GPS industry decided they could instead wage a PR war, as that would be the less expensive way to deal with it, and most people don't understand the issue. From the sympathetic reception they've gotten from most places, including this website, it appears to be working. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | all I hear is... WHAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAA we have to spend money to fix or borked equipment. | |
|
| | | Re: all I hear is... said by FBGuy:WHAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAA we have to spend money to fix or borked equipment.
There is nothing wrong with anyone's equipment. Light Squared wants to use spectrum that impinges on high accuracy GPS systems. These systems are integral to air safety as well as our military (all of which had systems that were designed to the standards that Light Squared now wants to infringe on).
As a more technical explanation, because of the spread spectrum nature of the signals, the "skirts" now can intersect if Light Squared does not provide a sharp enough filter on their transmission. Their "solution" is to force a front end filter on the high precision GPS receivers rather than controlling their own power spectrum AND expect the existing device owners / manufacturers to foot the bill.
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! | |
|
| |
See 17 replies to this post |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | LightSquared? It seems to be doing the most whining. Maybe like a 2-yr old it hopes that if it cries enough it will get its way. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 | All I know is that... Your average GPS consumer is not going to be happy if their devices stop working correctly.
At which point, the offending towers will be located and probably taken off line. | |
|
| | Hook, Line and Sinker Gotta love how some people here, who obviously don't understand the first thing about how radio works, are swallowing LightSquared's bull-pucky hook, line and sinker--then turning around and re-spewing it.
Two things, here: As somebody else noted: The RF spectrum doesn't consist of nicely channelized "slots" with the RF equivalent of brick walls between them. Depending upon a variety of factors, closely-located services will interfere with one another. However, in this case, it'd be a one-way street, since LightSquared's transmitters would be terrestrial, and GPS' are way out in space, which brings us to...
Problem the second: LightSquared is trying to re-purpose the allocation they "inherited." It was purposed to space-based transmitters, not earth-based. If they were trying to use it for that for which it was initially allocated, there'd be no problem.
LightSquared needs to bugger-off.
Jim | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| dont cry for lightsquared The problem is that the original l-band was meant for MSS, and for those who dont know GPS specifically uses a low-power PRC so that multiple sats can transmit on the same frequency and not "interfere" with each other. The bands that lightsquared for 4GLTE was not designed for terrestrial and this signal is billions of times more powerful than the GPS signals.
These freq are meant for supplementing GPS signals where the sat-based signal cannot penetrate objects, NOT for 4G LTE.
Now there are two different signals L1 (what consumer GPS use) and L2 (high-precision/military). Make no mistake these lightsquared devices will still interfere w/ consumer GPS, however because of the nature of the L2 signal (much harder to track) it will pretty much render them useless.
Now we know that cells are pretty much harmless in planes, but if you have a new lightsquared device on the plane and dont turn it off, you can now interfere w/ the planes GPS. I would call that a problem.
In addition when lightsquared did their tests the "bent" there transmitters lower to the ground than what they would actually need to deploy in the wild, obviously mitigating the actual interference.
Now dont cry for lightsquared, they got this for "free" in an acquisition, so it's not like they are out dollars, and also they havent actually produced any handsets (which would clearly show the problem).
This is yet one of the first situations of the bandwidth wars, and the government needs to step in and protect our GPS frequencies because however today most GPS receivers use L1, many more designs in the future will use L2 with the need for more accurate positioning.
So what lightsquared is trying to do is to reclassify free spectrum they got for 4GLTE when in fact those freq were never meant for it, and now are pushing for the government to give them "free" spectrum worth billions in other bands for nothing.
This is pure corporate squatting, and IMHO lightsquared should go out of business or pay the billions for actual 4G spectrum. | |
|
| | | Re: dont cry for lightsquared said by elefante72:Now dont cry for lightsquared, they got this for "free" in an acquisition, so it's not like they are out dollars, and also they havent actually produced any handsets (which would clearly show the problem).
if they paid for the company they acquired, then they paid for the spectrum. Unless you're saying the government gave lightsquared the spectrum entirely for free..... | |
|
| | | | Re: dont cry for lightsquared said by sparc:said by elefante72:Now dont cry for lightsquared, they got this for "free" in an acquisition, so it's not like they are out dollars, and also they havent actually produced any handsets (which would clearly show the problem).
if they paid for the company they acquired, then they paid for the spectrum. Unless you're saying the government gave lightsquared the spectrum entirely for free..... The government gave the company they bought the spectrum for free, but only for ground to satellite communications. | |
|
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | My 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. | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Everyone is at fault The government shouldn't have allowed this.
The GPS industry should have lobbied against this before Lighsquared got its permits.
Lightsuared should have known it would interfere with GPS.
GPS is far more ubiquitous than LTE. The world already depends on GPS, they don't depend on LTE. So GPS should have precedence where a conflict is discovered.
If the government fucked up, then it should give Lightsquared another frequency to play with. | |
|
| | Lightsquared and FCC morons Lightsquared should bear full responsibility for the following reasons.
1. When they acquired the spectrum it was with the knowledge and presumption that it would not be for terrestrial based transmitters.
2. Other companies who may have been interested in the spectrum did not bid on it because it was not considered valuable spectrum at the time since transmitters would be based in outerspace.
3. Lightsquared changed the rules after acquiring the spectrum. They should deal with any costs to make it work, or they should be forced to return the spectrum and a new auction should be opened for bidding on it. This time with no after-the-fact sissy waivers.
Yes the FCC was incompetent and fumbled this one. They simply should not have granted the waiver and now its come back to bite them in the butt. Verizon, at&t, sprint, etc should take advantage of the stupidity of the FCC, and request waivers and turn up the juice on their transmitters so we can all get better cell coverage regardless of what it interferes with. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: Lightsquared and FCC morons 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. | |
|
| | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Lightsquared and FCC morons said 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.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Lightsquared and FCC morons You 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: Lightsquared and FCC morons for 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. | |
|
sw30908
join:2002-06-02
Morrisville, NC | LightSquared never should have gotten this far. Any interference in military GPS is completely unacceptable. They had to have known this. | |
|
Reviews:
·Earthlink Cable ..
| Doppler Shift is only a few KHz Disinformation 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? | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 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... | |
|
HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | The conundrum The 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 | |
|
| | | Re: The conundrum 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-washingto···-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. | |
|
|
|
FCC Class B Notice: "must accept any interference received&
Lightsquared - chutzpah