Lightsquared Wants GPS Standards A Hail Mary Pass to Keep Plans Afloat? Tipped by WHT 
LightSquared is taking their battle with the GPS industry to a new level. Just a few weeks after the company accused the GPS industry of essentially rigging the testing process used to determine whether their planned hybrid satellite/LTE network will interfere with GPS equipment (a recent report says it does horribly, and the problems are not fixable), LightSquared is asking regulators to develop entirely new rules for GPS receivers. LightSquared is trying to flip the debate, arguing that the FCC needs to jump in and regulate the devices using the 1559-1610 MHz band: If sensible standards were in place, the GPS industry would not be facing the current interference problems and consumers would benefit from a more efficient use of spectrum. Furthermore, the way would be clear for LightSquared to launch its new nationwide wireless broadband network funded by a $14 billion private investment in the nation’s broadband infrastructure....Given the FCC’s previous statement on this issue, LightSquared believes it is time for the agency to take a close look at targeted rules aimed specifically at the 1559-1610 MHz band. LightSquared suggests that any new rules should ensure that spectrum is used more efficiently by allowing licensees the full use of their spectrum under FCC rules. Surely the GPS industry will be thrilled at the idea of additional regulation after previously being told they needed to implement a $400 million fix at their own expense. Meanwhile LightSquared, who is running out of time and money to make their project work, is going to need some kind of magical help on high to right the ship. That's not going to be easy work given the political opposition from multiple industries, including AT&T and Verizon -- who'd like it very much if this network never gets built.
|
  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters
| |
|  |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters yup they have that power | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters The Communications Act of 1934, followed up by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, gives the FCC broad authority to regulate communications devices, including receivers. TV's and radios used to have FCC Type registration numbers on them, 'don't know if they still do.
The bottom line is that if the FCC used to still have the regulatory philosophy that they had in the past, where they saw it as their role to set minimum performance standards for recievers to ensure good customer experience, this problem with Lightsquared never would have happened. The GPS industry would never have squatted on spectrum that wasn't there's to begin with, and then cried foul when the licensed user start using it.
No, the FCC thought a relaxed regulatory philosophy would work instead. They thought be merely giving the GPS industry a 10-year notice that the other spectrum was going to be used, that would be enough notice for the industry to get their act together. The Commission apparently didn't anticipate that the GPS industry would decide it was in their business interests to ignore the Commission's warning, and just cry outrage, as if they were the aggrieved party rather than the one causing the problem, when the time came. | |
| | | | | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters said by PDXPLT:The Communications Act of 1934, followed up by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, gives the FCC broad authority to regulate communications devices, including receivers. It's not that black and white. There's a good paper that describes the arguments pro and con here: »www.silicon-flatirons.org/docume···Memo.pdf but it gets pretty deep into the legalities.
Basically, the argument is that the FCC can only regulate receivers in a very limited way - such as requiring TVs to have UHF tuners, or V-Chip capability. Even that authority is arguable and the FCC wants Congress to give it explicit authority for such regulations. The only reason they haven't been challenged to date is that they have been very reluctant to take any kind of active role in receiver regulation. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters said by travelguy:said by PDXPLT:The Communications Act of 1934, followed up by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, gives the FCC broad authority to regulate communications devices, including receivers. It's not that black and white. There's a good paper that describes the arguments pro and con here: » www.silicon-flatirons.org/docume···Memo.pdf but it gets pretty deep into the legalities. Basically, the argument is that the FCC can only regulate receivers in a very limited way - such as requiring TVs to have UHF tuners, or V-Chip capability. Even that authority is arguable and the FCC wants Congress to give it explicit authority for such regulations. The only reason they haven't been challenged to date is that they have been very reluctant to take any kind of active role in receiver regulation. Thanks for link
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
|
| | | | said by PDXPLT:The bottom line is that if the FCC used to still have the regulatory philosophy that they had in the past, where they saw it as their role to set minimum performance standards for receivers to ensure good customer experience, this problem with Lightsquared never would have happened. The GPS industry would never have squatted on spectrum that wasn't there's to begin with, and then cried foul when the licensed user start using it.
I'm not sure that you have that correct.
My understanding is, that like all assigned frequencies, GPS frequencies are assigned 'guard bands' on either side of their principal band of operation. It is these guard bands which are designed to minimize the potential for interference between adjacent assigned frequencies.
In the case of GPS, the assigned frequency bands either side were originally designated for satellite use broadcasting back to earth. The effective received power on earth of those satellite transmissions would have been minimal due to power diminishing at the square of the distance traveled. And the width of the guard bands was assigned based on the effective received power on earth of those satellite transmissions.
However, somehow, LightSquared managed to convince the FCC that these frequencies should not be used for their original intended purpose - satellite transmissions - but rather that they be re-purposed for broadcast from terrestrial sites. So instead of transmissions of say 100's of watts from an altitude of 400 miles, LightSquared wants to transmit thousands of watts from 50 miles or less distance. But with that kind of radiated power from such short distances, the net effect is that the narrow guard bands become useless and GPS receivers get overwhelmed .
The essence of the problem is the original decision of the FCC to permit the re-purposing of the frequencies, followed by not restricting the output power of the LightSquared transmitters to levels which would not interfere with established GPS use.
However, if the FCC did in fact restrict the LightSquared radiated power, their business plan would probably prove to be un-economical. Thus LightSquared is trying to fight the FCC and ALL users of GPS in order to preserve a business model that should not have received any encouragement, let alone approval, in the first place. | |
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters I was amazed to hear about the waiver, when Karl first reported it here. Of course the military and everyone else with old GPS receivers aren't going to want to spend time and money changing to new ones. | |
| | | | | | | Re: What FCC powers to regulate receiver instead of transmitters The point of the *conditional* waiver was to give LS a chance to prove their claims that they wouldn't interfere with GPS. LS failed, so the conditions for the waiver were not met. | |
|
| | | |
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | gps problem What is the gps problem? Is the problem that other devices are leaking on to the lightsquared network and the lightsquared network causes interference for devices on it's own feequency? | |
| |
1 edit | Re: gps problem Supposedly, GPS devices haven't been confined to the range of frequencies that the FCC granted them, which is a regulatory blunder. It's not uncommon that the FCC gets things wrong. Who could forget that cordless phones could use the same frequencies as wireless routers?
The frequency that LightSquared wants to use to build its network goes into the uncharted range that GPS devices use.
To answer your question, yes that's the story. | |
| | | jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: gps problem If that is the case the FCC should enforce the rules. There has to be some lawsuit here. also if that is the case i feel i should back lightsquared more (not that i could do anything). | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: gps problem said by jgkolt:If that is the case the FCC should enforce the rules. There has to be some lawsuit here. also if that is the case i feel i should back lightsquared more (not that i could do anything).
Read this for an extensive discussion of the issues before agreeing that Lightsquared is in the right:
»freegeographytools.com/2011/how-···lanation
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| GPS devices are receivers, they receive the signals from a satellite in space. The rules state that most electronic devices must deal with whatever signal gets thrown their way unless they are vital to safety then they have to filter out the junk or someone might die.
It's like rain and umbrellas, when it rains you whip out the umbrella and stay dry, lightsquared came up with a way to make it rain sideways for 2 miles so now you're all wet, tell lightsquared to stop, and they're whining that your umbrella should work from the sides too.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | | | | | | Re: gps problem said by firephoto:It's like rain and umbrellas, when it rains you whip out the umbrella and stay dry, lightsquared came up with a way to make it rain sideways for 2 miles so now you're all wet, tell lightsquared to stop, and they're whining that your umbrella should work from the sides too.
Wow... that's actually a pretty good analogy. Is that an original, or did you read it somewhere else? Reason being: I'd like to re-use it, and I want to make sure of proper attribution  . | |
| | | | | | firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: gps problem said by jseymour:said by firephoto:It's like rain and umbrellas, when it rains you whip out the umbrella and stay dry, lightsquared came up with a way to make it rain sideways for 2 miles so now you're all wet, tell lightsquared to stop, and they're whining that your umbrella should work from the sides too.
Wow... that's actually a pretty good analogy. Is that an original, or did you read it somewhere else? Reason being: I'd like to re-use it, and I want to make sure of proper attribution . It actually just came to me as I was finishing up the first paragraph. Use as you wish. 
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | | | | |  FutureMonKeep your Mitts off RMoneyPremium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA | It is a great analogy, isn't it! I thought so too... | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Not really. From what I understand it is not a question of frequencies... it is a question of loudness. GPS receivers must be very sensitive to pick up the weak signals from satellites. As a consequence of the electronics needed to receive these weak signals, the receivers can be overloaded by a very strong signal on a nearby channel. These strong signals can be filtered out if you design for that ahead of time. but the GPSs were built when there were no strong signals nearby so they did not incorporate filters. Nor was there any reason to believe a company would use a loophole and transmit high powered terrestrial signals on what were suppose to be satellite frequencies. So no, LS is not broadcasting on GPS frequencies but they are still interfering with the receivers.
An analogy would be if you setup a parabolic mic to listen to far away birds and your neighbor started blasting his radio. All you are going to hear with your sensitive equipment is the radio which is much louder than the birds. | |
|
| | | | said by HaloFans:Supposedly, GPS devices haven't been confined to the range of frequencies that the FCC granted them, which is a regulatory blunder. Not quite. The FCC doesn't regulate receivers, it regulates transmitters and services. The receiver manufacturers designed receivers based on precedent and the FCC's assurance that the bands next to GPS would not be granted high power licenses.
Falcone/Lightsquared thought they could acquire that adjacent bandwidth and repurpose it for highpower data communications and make a killing financially. Too bad, so sad. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: gps problem said by travelguy:Not quite. The FCC doesn't regulate receivers, it regulates transmitters and services.
Actually, receivers cannot be imported or sold in the US unless they are approved by the FCC. There are different approval types depending on the type of equipment but receivers are definitely regulated. | |
| | | | | | | Re: gps problem said by CXM_Splicer:There are different approval types depending on the type of equipment but receivers are definitely regulated. That's they key point. People think when they see "regulated" that it means the FCC is passing judgement on the design or performance of the receiver and that somehow the FCC screwed up in letting current GPS receivers be sold.
The fact is that in almost all receiver cases, all the FCC is looking it is whether or not the receiver itself will interfere with some other service. They do this because it's almost impossible to build a receiver without using components (like local oscillators) that emit themselves. So basically all they are looking is shielding. There's a couple of exceptions - like general purpose scanners are are not allowed to scan cell phone frequencies, but those exceptions were specifically directed by congress.
They are most definitely not looking at things like performance or susceptibility to interference from other devices. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: gps problem Yes, I agree | |
| | | | | | TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by travelguy:The fact is that in almost all receiver cases, all the FCC is looking it is whether or not the receiver itself will interfere with some other service.
Indeed, most receivers would be tested/certified only for compliance with the part 15 FCC rules.
Receivers fall under the following definition:
"(z) Unintentional radiator. A device that intentionally generates radio frequency energy for use within the device, or that sends radio frequency signals by conduction to associated equipment via connecting wiring, but which is not intended to emit RF energy by radiation or induction." | |
|
| |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| said by HaloFans:Supposedly, GPS devices haven't been confined to the range of frequencies that the FCC granted them, which is a regulatory blunder. It's not uncommon that the FCC gets things wrong. Who could forget that cordless phones could use the same frequencies as wireless routers?
The frequency that LightSquared wants to use to build its network goes into the uncharted range that GPS devices use.
To answer your question, yes that's the story.
Nope.
GPS works as designed and all receivers are filtered.
GPS will red shift about 25 mhz into the 59 mhz lightsquare wants to use. So The receivers by design must listen to those frequencies. Red shifting is caused by moving satellites and is not something you can fix.
The FCC got nothing wrong and allocated those 59 mhz for satellite use only so it will not over power GPS signals.
The FCC allows so much out of band emissions by design for all frequency ranges as that is how radio waves work.
GPS was invented and used those frequencies in the 70s well before lightsquared. Also GPS is owned by the US tax payers, lightsquared has no business trying to screw up our investment.
FYI, 900 mhz, 2.4 ghz, 5.8 ghz are the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) bands that can be used for multiple purposes for FREE.
Microwaves ovens, cordless phones, wifi routers, bluetooth, and other unlicenses devices work on these frequencies.
The router and phone manufactures chose 2.4 ghz as it can use a smaller antenna, get more unobstructed range, and was FREE to use. The FCC did not force these device makers to use those frequencies.
You need to read more.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
| | | | | | Re: gps problem Red shift is in the 10s of Kilohertz, not 25 MHz | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the primary issue is that LightSquared owns a license for frequencies designed to be beamed from space and they want to blast it off towers at a much higher local power. id imagine GPS units could handle the light squared if it was purely satellite as the overall power at ground level from sats is minimal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: gps problem said by Kearnstd:the primary issue is that LightSquared owns a license for frequencies designed to be beamed from space and they want to blast it off towers at a much higher local power. id imagine GPS units could handle the light squared if it was purely satellite as the overall power at ground level from sats is minimal.
They already have as those frequencies were already used by satellite phone companies.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Double Edged Sword On the one hand, official standards if written and researched well could benefit the industry as a whole as they would set a baseline for the performance of GPS receivers and help to improve the product. On the downside, just about every device currently on the market could potentially be ruled non-compliant and thus ineligible for protection from LSQ interference. A solution to that could be a rules waiver that says all devices currently in operation are protected for ten to fifteen years to allow them to be phased out and replaced as they reach their end of life. Of course that does not help LSQ but it is a roadmap to getting standards in place. Frankly, even ten years may be a bit much as there are new GPS satellites and frequencies coming online in the next several years that will make it desirable to upgrade to newer devices (L2 and L5 for example).
It is a gutsy move by LSQ but still, as users have posted recently, it is time to put a fork in that company. L1 should be reserved for satellite communication as it is now and forget the terrestrial stuff. There is other spectrum for that (assuming you are willing to pay market rates to the taxpayers for it).
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
| Alec won't hang-up Given the growing intensity of competition over 'bandwidth' and usage, it only makes sense that there should be very strict enforcement and regulation of the 'airwaves'. When civil aviation is being pushed into the 'ADS-B' air traffic system (GPS dependent) you hope, when your airliner's on-final in IFR, that it's weak signal won't be fuzzed by someones gameboy. The Lightspeed / GPS frequency concerns need to be quickly and openly examined and resolved. And by 'openly', I mean absent the heavy-hand of the GPS lobby, who've up to now been making money hand over fist based upon a publicly funded satellite network. | |
| | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| Re: Alec won't hang-up said by MTU:Given the growing intensity of competition over 'bandwidth' and usage, it only makes sense that there should be very strict enforcement and regulation of the 'airwaves'. When civil aviation is being pushed into the 'ADS-B' air traffic system (GPS dependent) you hope, when your airliner's on-final in IFR, that it's weak signal won't be fuzzed by someones gameboy. The Lightspeed / GPS frequency concerns need to be quickly and openly examined and resolved. And by 'openly', I mean absent the heavy-hand of the GPS lobby, who've up to now been making money hand over fist based upon a publicly funded satellite network.
They have been 100% open. Everything is freely available.
The GPS lobby has not been invovled.
Lightsquared was allowed to conduct their own test, I though in boulder city, NV, where they could prove to the FCC it would not jam GPS. Lightsquareds own tests failed.
There is on controversy. Lightsquared said they had technology to allow them to operate so close to GPS. The FCC gave them a chance with a conditional waiver. Lightsquared failed the test and was denied.
FYI, GPS industry does not make money off US tax payer network. They make products so US taxpayers can use the GPS satellites we paid for.
How are we supposed to use our own satellites without having someone make receivers for us????
You make no sense.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
 IowaCowboyPremium
join:2010-10-16
Indian Orchard, MA | Solution LightSquared should just move their service to a differend frequency. Problem Solved  | |
|  Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | What?? They are trying to tell how GPS should operate?? GPS has been around a lot longer then July 20, 2010 Lightsquared | |
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | Standards are good Every industry should be held to ceratin expectation. GPS is no different using airwaves then Exxon is releasing pollution.
A standardized GPS would be a good thing for everyone. | |
| |  JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant?Premium
join:2006-09-05
Everywhere
kudos:1 | Re: Standards are good It is.
What part of the "1559-1610 MHz band" don't you get? 
It's the same as AM/ FM, or Sat radio. It's regulated. | |
|
| |
|
|
