FCC and their relationship to "lightsourced"

Thank you for brining two interesting articles to our attention. Politics and Profit is the next step--as Lightsquared continues to fight with politics. I did the Boat US requested contacts to my congressional representatives. But they are also being hit by powerful lobbysts.

We were at our farm in rural Illinois about a month ago. In past years, no cell service--this year there was cell service. Internet was a little slow--but LightSquared's system would cost a lot and not make a lot of difference.

I hope that we can stop this grab of spectrum for use for which it was not intended, and increased risks for us as boaters and drivers etc. by interfering with our GPS signal....
 
one more response from letters to my gumint



August 24, 2011
David Deem


Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me regarding LightSquared. It is an honor to serve as your Representative in Congress. I welcome your thoughts on this important issue.
In January of 2011 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted permission to offer wholesale broadband via its satellite and base station networks to a wide variety of mobile broadband partners, one of these being LightSquared. LightSquared is a mobile satellite service (MSS) provider with two space vessels that cover North America. These systems operate in the 1.5-1.6GHz zone, part of what the FCC calls the L-Band. In November of 2010, the company applied to the FCC for more expansive rules that would allow it greater leeway to transmit satellite broadband signals to its "Ancillary Terrestrial Component" (ATC), sometimes referred to as Ground Based Systems. One apprehension is that LightSquared's L Band frequencies may broadcast too close to the Global Positioning System (GPS) bands, and there have been concerns within the FCC and commercial GPS users about this possible interference.
The concerns that you have expressed were shared by both the Department of Defense as well as the Department of Transportation, because of the possible detrimental effects that jamming type signals could have on commercial GPS systems. Due to these concerns, the FCC instructed LightSquared to convene a study group addressing the interference concerns regarding GPS before LightSquared commenced offering commercial service pursuant to a waiver on its L-band MSS frequencies. Furthermore, the company was required to send regular reports to the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and submit a final report on the interference question by June 15 of this year. In response to further study, LightSquared unveiled a new plan for deploying its network using different different wireless band that is further away from the GPS band.
Thank you again for reaching out regarding this issue. If legislation about these systems comes to the floor of the House for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding telecommunications or any other legislative matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (202) 225-4276. For additional information, please visit my website www.fitzpatrick.house.gov. From this site you can sign up for my e-newsletter, access statements about current events or pending legislation and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for the 8th District of Pennsylvania. You can also connect with me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RepFitzpatrick, or follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/RepFitzpatrick.


Sincerely,

Mike Fitzpatrick

D.D.
 
Now here is a possible moral issue. Major campaign donor connected to Lightsourced may have received special treatment from someone in the gumint. How unusual is this? I guess you get what you pay for. This kind of thing is a product of both parties. Not picking on any particular one. :disgust
D.D.
 
I had seen this on the News today also. One of the investment news letters had predicted that LightSquared eventually would get some form of approval. I noted in the link that it said over 1 million users would be affected--maybe that was just farmers etc--but I would put the number of people affected at far more than one million. Yes, we use GPS on our farm tractors.

I would be more worried about the police, SAR and fire etc more than the farmers or even recreational boating. We are currently enrolled in a citizens police academy, and our county has a very sophisticated GIS system which is shared by all of the agencies. Accurate location and dispatch is dependent on GPS, It has become so ingrained in our communication systems that any interference would be critical.
 
This is mostly a dead issue. Yes LightSquared will eventually get some sort of approval - probably in different spectrum and/or at significantly lower power levels on the terrestrial airwaves (most likely in different spectrum). There's far too much evidence to let them proceed as originally planned and it ain't going to happen. As for the Fox story, I believe everything I hear/read from them. :roll:
 
I would question the accuracy of the reporting of The Daily Beast. I am not questioning the story because Fox reported it as well as other sources.

I doubt The Daily Beast broke this story. Look at the date stamp of the story “Sep 15, 2011 12:24 AM EDT” then look at the following quote in the article. “Shelton finally gave his testimony Thursday, and made clear the Pentagon's concern about LightSquared's project.” That was after the date stamp, so how can this be? Are they trying to make it look like they were out front with the story? Or was it an honest mistake and they added an incorrect date stamp by 24 hours?


Dave dlt.gif
www.marinautboats.com
 
Brent,

I read that on Panbo last night and finally got a better level of understanding. One thing I got out of the Panbo article was where the filters come in. Basically, you would have to filter the signal between the physical antenna and the amplifier section that is in the antenna assembly. To implement this kind of fix you would have to replace the external antenna on most GPS units. This will have an effect on performance, however I am not sure how much.

Alot of us have our GPS antennas inside the cabin. A filter would probably decrease the signal strength from the various satellites in view possibly reducing the reliability of the GPS unit. You might be able to gain it back by putting the antenna outside the cabin.
 
Tom, I believe that you are correct.

Most interesting was Keith Peshak's comments:
"LightSquared shuts down GPS receivers because the powerful signal (15,750 watts, or, maybe ½ that) just right near GPS receivers (up to many miles away) saturates the antenna amplifier in the GPS receiver trying to receive about 300 watts from about 11,000 miles away. No filter on LightSquared transmitters can prevent that. Need a filter on the GPS receiver after the patch before the gain stage to ground out the LightSquared off band signal. Here is ours: http://www.imcsd.com $1200 and the size of a brick and NOT a complete solution. Sanjiv Ahuja has said he has one for 30 cents. We are waiting to see one. Javad says they have a better GPS. We are waiting to see one. Either way, you all get to buy a new GPS.

Another way is to alter the LightSquared protocol, to contain "holes" that GPS can listen through. Doug.Smith@lightsquared.com who is Chief Network Officer for LightSquared says "…I do not intend to follow up with you regarding your proposal" and "Please understand we have received hundreds of offers to solve our issue and simply do not have time to engage everyone." That option does not have you all buying a new GPS".

We have one of the John Deere precision GPS systems on one of our farm tractors (about 5 cm accuracy). Their secondary signal (somewhat similar to WAAS) is right under the upper frequency spectrum which LS has obtained. But the filter by LS claims to cover it, at over - 80 DB. This is an extremely sharp filter--and although it is obtainable, there are often other problems associated with its use. I remain very skeptical of the entire LS situation. They are driven by time related contracts with cell phone providers, and many millions of not billions of dollars are at stake for them.

Even if the filter is developed, it means that every one of our GPS will have to have the filter fitted. The installation of the filter, might be more costly than the actual cost of the filter (if it can be built for 30 cents--which I doubt). As Keith points out if the antenna/first stage amp is over loaded, no filter beyond that stage will remedy the problem.
 
No matter how I read the letter, it seems that lightsquared will not be happy making billions of dollars unless I spend thousands of dollars to replace my perfectly good equipment so it does not interfer with their money making plans.
 
I see some confusion between DOD standards and those used for non DOD GPS use. I would expect DOD to specify some stringent filter standards on GPS systems used in defense systems, but I don't see how that would spill over to other GPS users. I know my hand held Garmin probably won't work near a high energy marine radar or similar transmitter, but GPS technology has become so ubiquitous that the FCC probably needs a new rule making session on high energy use of adjacent frequencies to GPS so there can be some certainty in GPS manufacturing. The GPS industry counting the consumer side is a lot bigger than Lightsquared and needs to flex it's muscle. I think the FCC may have stepped in a pile of pooh with their previous decisions on Lightsquared. If this had been an issue of clean air or water and drilling for oil, the Feds and Lightsquared would have been sued six ways from Sunday by a dozen organizations but GPS users aren't that well organized.
 
Tom,
There is a GPS consortium, which is active, and I think will enter any legal action--they have been in the forefront in testing.

After re-reading Ben Ellison's article, I feel that he was a bit "flim flamed" by the presentation by LightSquared. If you look at the spectrum allocation, it was never intend that high power be used next to the GPS frequencies. (The spectrum allocation is international in scope). My personal feeling is that LS got caught (as they should have)--but that FCC was complacent by allowing any of this to go forward. If you look at the struggles that Ham radio has gone thru to keep (and they have lost some) their spectrum; LS just stepped up, bought a company, and had some tentative approval.

There is lots of other spectrum available (for example the old analogue TV) for broad band--but by using the L spectrum in both terrestrial and satellite it made the technology of the receiver much cheaper. (meaning more profit)
 
Oh I was commenting on the blatant disconnect of the lightsquares owners for the rest of us. I have not respect of a late comer that did not do their home work and attempted to buy their way in to profit by over running the end users. This is akin to damming a river above long owned farm land to run a power plant and not make either allowances to the farm owners to continue to use the water they had and instead expect the farmer to build a pipeline by passing the damm.

I have no problem with light square making a profit and selling this service, hell I would be all for buying it if it works and is cheaper. But I will be dammed if I am going to go buy all new gps, phone, ipads, etc just so they can get it to work right.

I fully understand the technical issues involved with light squares project. That is why I'm so mad about this. They either did not have a clue what they were doing, which I find hard to believe. This problem should have been a red flag as soon as someone proposed it to the geeks that work for them. OR they did know and just though they could buy their way around the problems. Either they are incompetent or they are crooked. No other choice.
 
Back
Top