 | | Boneheaded decision by FCC This situation is a complete mess. Why on earth, literally, the FCC approved light-squared frequency allocation for terestrial use is beyond comprehension. (Historically, Lightsquared was supposed to be primarily satellite based, so L-band was sensible.)
This was a major major major F-up and the FCC is too arrogant to admit it. | |
|
 |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC said by Anonposter :Why on earth, literally, the FCC approved light-squared frequency allocation for terestrial use is beyond comprehension. It has nothing to do with science or good engineering practice and everything to do with money. Money talks and B$ walks. I have no doubt that when all the testing is done, the FCC will issue a license to proceed with the build out on our about June 15, 2011. My gut feeling is LightSquared will pay whatever it takes to make government users happy (including the FAA) and throw the consumer market users (us) under the bus leaving us with bricks in our cars.
Don't expect any relief from Congress as they too will cave to the money flowing around.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC I don't think the FAA will be happy no matter how much money is thrown at them if this test shows interference. With planes moving to GPS for precision approaches at airports, you can't sacrifice safety for money. If this became nation wide and there's actually an interference problem then GPS approaches wouldn't be reliable and won't be used. | |
|
| | | n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC said by yabos:I don't think the FAA will be happy no matter how much money is thrown at them if this test shows interference. I didn't elaborate on my statement. I was not inferring that LightSquared would just pay the FAA money to go away. What I am saying is LightSquared would pay for whatever hardware upgrades/replacement is necessary to make the FAA happy. If aircraft need new GPS receivers with tighter notching to ignore RF below 1559MHz they will pay it as it will be only a fraction of what they will reap when their network goes live. The millions of consumer grade receiver owners will be out of luck and the FCC's position, as reiterated in the article, is it is the fault of the GPS manufacturers and not an issue the FCC is concerned with. In other words, the purchasers of PND's are at fault for buying faulty equipment and we can live with it as the FCC will not be protecting our interests.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC And I am sure the GPS manufacturers would welcome a reason to sell us all "upgraded" "improved" in car GPS units to reduce the cases of interference. | |
|
| | | | | | said by n2jtx: If aircraft need new GPS receivers with tighter notching to ignore RF below 1559MHz they will pay it as it will be only a fraction of what they will reap when their network goes live.
The only problem with that is that there are actually 2 different frequencies for GPS (known as L1 and L2). These are 1575 MHz and 1227 MHz with L2 being used by the military (don't know if commercial aircraft use it as well).
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! | |
|
| | | | | n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC There is a civilian L2 frequency available (L2C) on the newer birds. That frequency is not subject LightSquared's interference as 1227MHz is quite far from their allocated frequencies.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | what happened to flying an aircraft like they did before gps precision? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC said by FBGuy:what happened to flying an aircraft like they did before gps precision?
Or writing a letter carried by pony express! | |
|
| | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | They still do it but GPS approach is used in bad weather conditions mainly. You still have ILS but generally there is a minimum height of 200 feet where if you can't see the runway 200 feet above the ground you break off the approach. I think with a GPS approach you can land in worse conditions than that. The other benefit is flying direct to your destination. Commercial flights will often follow airways which are like highways in the sky. The airways are usually lines between ground navigation stations called VORs. You don't always travel in the most direct route when following VORs. With thousands of flights, there will be a lot of money saved flying direct rather than zig zagging between VORs. | |
|
| | | | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC Aww, shucks. Just bring back the ol' four course range.
Who needs that pesky newfangled GPS stuff
»www.navfltsm.addr.com/ndb-nav-history.htm
BTW, when I did my primary flight training back in the 90's, our trainers had 1 Nav and 1 Com radio. Handheld GPS units were still running in the above $1000 range.
What I would have given to have the equivalent of a modern smart phone in the cockpit back then. There would have been a lot less "lost" going on!
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
| | | | HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | I had an argument with an 'Old Salt' who insisted I should only use my GPS to verify what I measured by sextant. | |
|
| | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | GPS will allow direct point to point flight paths which is substanially more efficent (like 10-15% fuel savings, a big deal at current prices)
If there is ANY indication that GPS is being interfered the FAA and FCC will end the experiment | |
|
| | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC just pass the cost onto the customers. big whoop. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC but if you cut out 10% of the expense, and reduce US oil consumption be by 10%+ fuel prices will drop across the board = consumers with some cash to spend on plane tickets.
Plus a 10+% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (airplane "exhaust" is released high in the atmoshere and is particularly bad for global warming)
further this represents far more money than lightsquared can put up
GPS is far more important for current uses then another LTE product which may or maynot work as designed (that's part of what these tests will show)
| |
|
| | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC lol americans don't care about greenhouse gasses. people are always bitching about the price of gas. they care about the price not the environment. | |
|
| | | | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC Ahh! but by law we are required to reduce our emissions, so it has a great influence on the cost for EVERYONE. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC we are? i don't see people actively doing this. I do it, but in general I don't see it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC it's not the individuals being forced, but govt will spend billions on this and force corparations to spend hundreds of billions (and by tricke down all of us will pay) on this over the next 20 years.
Every "Green" product/project has a "green" premium which ends up on your bill.
said by FBGuy:we are? i don't see people actively doing this. I do it, but in general I don't see it. and that's the problem, had more peeps started being a little greener on Earth Day 1 (1970) we would be in the hole we are now.
it's always far more expensive to repair something than it is to avoid damaging it in the first place.
Anyway fully functional GPS is FAR more important then LTE. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC said by tshirt:Anyway fully functional GPS is FAR more important then LTE.
you are probably right. I just wish that these fangled GPS things actually were used in my life. I could appreciate them more. | |
|
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
kudos:3 | said by Anonposter :This was a major major major F-up and the FCC is too arrogant to admit it.
I'm sure the FCC will admit they goofed up, just like they admitted BPL was a failure.
Oh, wait...they didn't. | |
|
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC That is a problem... the FCC has had an unspoken policy for many years that all decisions are final and not subject to reexamination.
20 years ago that was ok as decisions were based on technical merit, now they are highly politicized and technical proofs/errors are too frequently ignored. | |
|
| | | Get educated. Opponents and lobbyists to Lightsquared want to stifle competition that almost certainly will result in lower data rates for people using mobile phones. People like you are ignorant to the real issue which is gps devices going outside their licensed band which is a fineable offense by the FCC. I have no doubt that LightSquared will develop measures that will protect GPS ... people like you should be working to promote competition and lobbying to force companies to make solutions to this issue instead of falling prey to the FUD | |
|
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Boneheaded decision by FCC let's see... ALL gps RECIEVERS do only that RECIEVE the only broadcasters in the GPS system are satellites (this is what Lightsquared was liecenced for , broadcast FROM satellite, and what their higher power terestrial 2 way usage may/is reported to interfere with) and WAAS (ground augmentation) which uses other frequentcies and is not effected here.
it isn't GPS broadcast going outside their freq. that's a problem, it's Lightsquared using those freq,s at ground level a "stepping" on GPS/making noise/interfering with the recievers.
And GPS is vital to planes, trains, automobiles, ships, cell phones, earthquake and volcanic research, track of packages and perps under house arrest, plus hundreds of other uses by millions of devices.
Were this the ONLY chance for LTE it MIGHT be worth the risk, however there are plenty of other player with appropriete freq, in the LTE game. | |
|
HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | Big problems L2C currently isn't transmitting navigation data. It probably won't do so until the new OCX master control station is installed (2015).
Avionics GPS receivers are purposely designed with wide bandwidth to maximize accuracy .. might not be possible to tighten the input filtering a still retain performance required for certification. If the equipment is modified, it will need to be recertified and 100,000 (plus) receivers will need to be reworked.
Lightsquared is going to filter companies for help. | |
|
| | Why this is an issue... Check out: »www.gpsworld.com/government/emer···gency-se
First responders are not happy at all.
"Law enforcement, emergency medical service (EMS), and fire first-responders in the state of New Mexico who participated in LightSquared/GPS interference testing at Holloman Air Force Base have submitted reports verifying a negative effect of LightSquared transmissions on their GPS equipment.
A cover letter from the New Mexico E-911 program director states that the reports “substantiate concerns that the LightSquared network will . . . jeopardize 911 and public safety nationwide.” | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| GPS requires for aviation growth Growth is aircraft traffic requires GPS. It isn't just a question of saving fuel, it is also allowing greater number of aircraft in the air and thus increasing capacity and reducing congestion.
With precision flight, more corridors can be opened adding to the capacity of highways in the sky without adding to risk of collisions.
And with GPS, they can also have more capacity for landing aircraft at airports.
The thing about GPS is that it can report the aircraft's exact position at a precise time back to the ground to aid air traffic control.
When GPS is unreliable, they can't do this, and must force aircraft to be much further apart from each other. | |
|
| | Why did Lightssquared pick this frequency to begin with? Why did Lightsquared pick this frequency to begin with?
Is radio spectrum is so crowded that this was the only available frequency? I don't believe they didn't know this can interfere with GPS | |
|
| HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | Re: Why did Lightssquared pick this frequency to begin with? I'm not sure 'pick' is the exactly correct word. My (limited) understanding is the saga goes something like this:
Lightsquared bought a bankrupt satellite service that held a license to transmit from space on those frequencies. There was an 'understanding' that satellite operators could also augment space coverage with a 'few' terrestrial base stations. That arrangement didn't concern the GPS community so long that terrestrial signals didn't spill over into the GPS band.
So Lightsquared 'procured' that spectrum license without going through a spectrum auction process. Smart business .. OK.
But here is how the intrigue begins. Lightsquared applies for a license modification allowing 40,000 powerful base stations. FCC puts the application on fast track over the Thanksgiving holidays not allowing the usual amount of time for public comment. They were to grant the waiver claiming it's only a 'minor' license modification. As such, no engineering studies were required.
The opposition argues that effectively converts the spectrum allocation from a space based service to a terrestrial service. This also displeases competitors Verizon, ATT etc who bought their spectrum through auction.
So, when the DoD, FAA, GPS Council and Lightsquared competitors woke up to these proceedings, all hell broke lose. The FCC was forced to grant the waiver conditionally pending GPS compatibility testing it required Lightsquared itself to organize.
That's where we are today.
--- CHAS | |
|
|
|
