Featured Surveying Discussions - Land Surveyors United - Global Surveying Community2024-03-29T09:35:12Zhttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/feed/featuredLights Out for LightSquaredhttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/lights-out-for-lightsquared2012-02-19T22:30:42.000Z2012-02-19T22:30:42.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><p>LightSquared Snuffed by NITA, FCC<br/> February 16, 2012 By: Eric Gakstatter</p><p>The more than year-long battle between wireless start-up LightSquared and the GPS industry peaked earlier this week when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), tasked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the potential interference problem between LightSquared's mobile wireless proposal and GPS receivers, issued a statement and report with the following conclusion:</p><p>"The federal agencies and LightSquared have invested significant time and resources to identify and analyze proposed solutions to address the impact of LightSquared's planned network implementations. Based on the testing and analyses conducted to date, as well as numerous discussions with LightSquared, it is clear that LightSquared's proposed implementation plans, including operations in the lower 10MHz would impact both general/personal navigation and certified aviation GPS receivers. We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment."</p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/lightsquared-letter-chairman-genachowski-021412-12635" target="_blank">Read the entire letter from the NTIA to the FCC here (pdf)</a>.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/npef_lsq_follow-on_test_report_final_public_release.pdf" target="_blank">Read the NTIA technical report here (pdf).</a></p><p>The FCC subsequently issued a statement including the following paragraph:</p><p>“NTIA, the federal agency that coordinates spectrum uses for the military and other federal government entities, has now concluded that there is no practical way to mitigate potential interference at this time. Consequently, the Commission will not lift the prohibition on LightSquared. The International Bureau of the Commission is proposing to (1) vacate the Conditional Waiver Order, and (2) suspend indefinitely LightSquared’s Ancillary Terrestrial Component authority to an extent consistent with the NTIA letter. A Public Notice seeking comment on NTIA’s conclusions and on these proposals will be released tomorrow."</p><p>As promised, the FCC subsequently opened a Public Notice seeking comments based on NTIA's report and conclusions. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021860418" target="_blank">View the Public Notice here.</a> Public comments close on March 1, 2012. If you have invested in GPS technology, you should enter your comments to protect your investment.</p><p>Submitting your comments to the FCC only takes five minutes. You don't need to write an essay. Just state that you support the NTIA's conclusion.</p><p>You can compose your comments in a text editor like Notepad, then save the file and attach it. Once you go to the FCC comment submission website, it will make sense. If you have any problems, email me.</p><p>Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here. <br/> Type in the following information:</p><p>Proceeding Number: 11-109<br/> Name of Filer: Enter your name<br/> Address Line 1: Enter your address<br/> City: Enter your city<br/> State: Enter your state<br/> Zip: Enter your zipe code<br/> Attach your comments</p><p>That's it. Five minutes and you're done.</p><p>You might have heard about another Public Notice that the FCC issued regarding LightSquared. It is in response to LightSquared's petition to rule that GPS receivers are not entitled to interference protection. I wrote about it last week. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/survey/lightsquared-burn-out-12613" target="_blank">You can read my article here</a>. At that time, I was planning to submit my comments, but that was before the NTIA released its report and conclusions this week. I wouldn't suggest you not enter a comment to the earlier Public Notice, but certainly I'd focus on entering comments on the latest Public Notice in support of NTIA's report and recommendations.</p><p>For those of you who heard that LightSquared might have been a good idea in order to make wireless mobile Internet access more affordable, I have serious doubts about that statement. Here's why...</p><p>Borrowing from my article last week, LightSquared is relying on Sprint's infrastructure (~31,000 towers) for its terrestrial operations, and supplementing them with ~3,400 LightSquared towers at some point. I've used Sprint's mobile phone service for about 12 years, and I used Sprint's data card service for several years (not any longer). I pretty much know that Sprint is good for metro areas and poor for rural areas. Like other wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.), Sprint is strong in some geographic areas, and weak in others. Since LightSquared is focused on serving people (densely populated areas) rather than geographic areas (e.g., farmlands), their terrestrial service is not going to be even close to being nationwide. LightSquared's solution for areas not covered by their terrestrial service is to use satellite communications for internet connectivity. If you want to know more about this, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/12/07/theres-no-there-there/" target="_blank">read Tim Farrar's blog on the subject</a>, which includes a map of LightSquared's terrestrial coverage. I've asked LightSquared for the most current deployment map, but received no response. I've been unable to find it even in their FCC filings (maybe you can), but I have to believe that if it was something to be proud of, they would be showing it to everyone.</p><p>Furthermore, in a huge FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) document release last week by the FCC, documents reveal what LightSquared was planning to charge their wholesale customers (not retail) when customers were out of range of their terrestrial system and forced to use LightSquared's satellite for wireless broadband. The wholesale cost of their satellite broadband service was to be $10 per megabyte (not gigabyte), an astonishingly high price for a company that's been touting affordable, nationwide wireless broadband Internet service. If you want to read for yourself, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tmfassociates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Waiver-coordination-meeting-Nov-2010.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>. You can read about LightSquared's objections to the FOIA document release <a rel="nofollow" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/210545-lightsquared-objects-to-disclosure-of-records" target="_blank">here.</a></p><p>LightSquared bankruptcy looming?</p><p>Of course, after the NTIA issued its report and conclusions this week, there were many rumors that LightSquared would soon declare bankruptcy. In response, LightSquared financier Phil Falcone <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/lightsquared-falcone-idUSL2E8DFJBY20120216" target="_blank">told Reuters</a> "It is clearly not on our table" and that "There are other ways around this."</p><p>Other rumors include a proposed spectrum swap that <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/GNSS%20System/news/lightsquared-exploring-spectrum-swap-12563" target="_blank">GPS World reported two weeks ago.</a> Although it's tough to rule out anything, this would be quite a stretch, especially for the spectrum mentioned in the GPS World article (1515-1525 MHz) since it's still close enough to LightSquared's 10L signal (1526-1536 MHz) that failed to pass the NTIA's interference testing that it would likely require another round of GPS interference testing. Furthermore, one of the NTIA's sticking points was the potential interference from LightSquared's mobile devices, which operate (uplink) in the 1626.5-1660.5 Mhz range, so that would need to be addressed as well.</p><p>The beginning of a new era of GPS/GNSS technology.</p><p>Included in the NTIA report was a recommendation that, with time, GPS receivers could be redesigned in order to accomodate LightSquared's 10L signal.</p><p>NTIA also reported that during the January 13 Excom (Position, Navigation, Timing Executive Committee) meeting, it was agreed that "federal agencies will move forward this year to develop and establish new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals and ensure that any such proposals are implemented without affecting existing and evolving uses of space-based PNT services vital to economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs."</p><p>In summary, GPS/GNSS receiver designs will change in the coming years and move towards more efficient use of spectrum. To me, a critical statement in the NTIA letter to the FCC is "without affecting existing and evolving," meaning that not only should GPS be considered but also GPS-like systems from other countries such as Russia's GLONASS, Europe's Galileo, and other evolving satellite navigation systems and applications.</p><p>For the latest news, join me next Monday on the ACSM Radio Hour (Monday, February 20)</p><p>The LightSquared situation is still very fluid. There seems to be a new twist almost daily.</p><p>This past Monday, I was a guest on ACSM's (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) Radio Hour with Gavin Schrock and Laurence Socci, hosted by ACSM's Curt Sumner. You can listen to a recording of the show <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gis/gss-weekly/lightsquared-snuffed-nita-fcc-12641?utm_source=GSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Geospatial-Weekly_02_15_2012&utm_content=lightsquared-snuffed-nita-fcc-12641" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>Due to the significant events that occured this week, I'm returning as a guest either next Monday or the following along with Gavin Schrock to discuss the latest developments. You can join us here at 8 a.m. Pacific/11 a.m. Eastern U.S. time on either day, or the show will be recorded and available for you to listen to at a later date.</p><p>Thanks, and see you next week.</p><p>Follow me on Twitter at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric">http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric</a></p><p>Source: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gis/gss-weekly/lightsquared-snuffed-nita-fcc-12641?utm_source=GSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Geospatial-Weekly_02_15_2012&utm_content=lightsquared-snuffed-nita-fcc-12641" target="_blank">GPS World</a></p></div>LightSquared GPS Disruptionhttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/lightsquared-gps-disruption2011-06-18T16:46:10.000Z2011-06-18T16:46:10.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">WASHINGTON — Disruption of GPS positioning and navigation signals used for aviation and other applications within U.S. territory will be unavoidable if startup firm LightSquared is permitted to deploy a hybrid satellite-terrestrial broadband network as currently planned, a pair of technical reports released June 9 concluded.</span><br/></span><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">The reports, one by a White House-chartered panel and the other by a technical association that supports U.S. federal agencies, come in advance of an analysis of the interference issue being conducted by a technical working group led by LightSquared and including government and industry experts. That analysis is due June 15 to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is weighing whether to levy additional licensing requirements on the struggling company.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">After considering what they said were all possible mitigation options including reducing the power of the planned LightSquared base stations and outfitting GPS receivers with special filters, the authors of both newly released reports found there is no practical way for the high-power LightSquared terrestrial network to coexist with myriad applications that rely on relatively low-power GPS signals in an adjacent part of the electromagnetic spectrum.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">Reston, Va.-based LightSquared and its predecessor companies since 2003 have been planning a nationwide L-band mobile broadband communications network that relies on a pair of large geostationary-orbiting satellites and tens of thousands of broadcast towers on the ground. The company has invested roughly $1 billion so far, has one satellite in orbit, and is seeking several billion dollars of additional financing for the ground-based portion of its network.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">Jeff Carlisle, LightSquared’s vice president of regulatory and public affairs, did not dispute the specific technical methods or findings of either report. But he said the interference issue could be mitigated by network modifications including lowering the power ceiling for the ground-based transmitters of LightSquared’s network.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">LightSquared’s FCC operating license originally included strict provisions intended to ensure the network would be primarily a satellite-based system, with terrestrial components serving as a backup when users were not able to link with a satellite. But these provisions have been softened over time via several license modifications; most recently, the FCC granted LightSquared permission to sell terrestrial-only handsets, a concession the company said would help it raise the financing it needs.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">But the move alarmed the GPS community, which worries it could lead to mass adoption of the service and drive LightSquared to increase the power of its broadcast towers, affecting more and more GPS users. These concerns, formally registered with the FCC, triggered a detailed technical investigation of LightSquared’s potential impacts on both civil and military GPS users.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">The investigation, featuring laboratory and field experiments, has been carried out over the past several months by teams from both military and civil agencies as well as from industry. U.S. Air Force Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, in May told the Senate Armed Services Committee that military, civilian and commercial GPS receivers experienced interference during the tests.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">The final results of the testing showed significant impacts on many civil applications such as air traffic control and emergency response, said Deane Bunce, co-chair of the White House-chartered National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Systems Engineering Forum, or NPEF, which coordinated the testing among U.S. civil agencies. NPEF, a White House-chartered panel that provides technical analysis for GPS-related issues, submitted its final report to the FCC on June 1 and soon expects to publicly release a redacted version, Bunce said during a meeting of the National Space-Based Position, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board here.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">In simulating the deployed LightSquared network with the most current information available from the firm, NPEF found that aviation users could effectively experience a blackout of GPS capabilities, particularly around densely populated areas, where LightSquared ground stations are expected to be spaced 400 to 800 meters apart, Bunce said.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">At altitudes of 3,040 meters and below, aircraft could not rely on GPS for navigation over the nation’s capitol, most of Virginia and Maryland, and significant parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, according to a graphic shown during Bunce’s presentation. Bunce noted that particular scenario used the GPS aviation receiver that performed worst in testing and thus represented the worst-case scenario.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">The NPEF report also showed police cars could not acquire GPS signals within 182 meters of a LightSquared tower broadcasting at the maximum allowed power of 15 kilowatts, Bunce said. Signals to ambulances and fire trucks were nullified within 304 meters of a tower, he said.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">There are no feasible options for mitigating LightSquared interference, Bunce said. Analyses indicate that outfitting all GPS aviation receivers with special filters to ensure they do not pick up LightSquared signals would take between seven and 15 years and cost an unknown but extremely large sum, he said. Furthermore, the filters would reduce receiver performance, he said.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" class="font-size-2">Other options, such as modifying LightSquare antenna patterns and exclusion zones or operating at lower power levels, are not good solutions because they would require more ground stations to be deployed, increasing the aggregate power output of the system, Bunce said.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="font-size-2">The only remaining viable solution, Bunce said, would be for LightSquared to acquire the rights to another part of the electromagnetic spectrum in which to deploy its ground network, Bunce said.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="font-size-2">A separate report submitted to the FCC June 1 by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics came to similar conclusions. All GPS aviation receivers tested by the organization experienced an unacceptable level of signal degradation, said Robert Frazier, who led the report for the nonprofit corporation, which develops consensus-based engineering recommendations for the Federal Aviation Administration.</span></p><p style="font-size: 1.4em;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="font-size-2">The LightSquared terrestrial network would use two specific L-band frequencies. The report recommended that LightSquared not be permitted to transmit in the higher of these two frequencies, Frazier said.</span></p></div>LightSquared: The So-Called "Fix"https://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/lightsquared-the-so-called-fix2011-10-23T21:17:34.000Z2011-10-23T21:17:34.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><p><span style="color: #000000;">LightSquared: The So-Called "Fix" Source: gpsworld.com by Eric Gakstatter.</span></p><p> </p><h3><span style="color: #000000;">Survey Scene, October 2011</span></h3><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;">LightSquared’s been in the news quite a bit since my last Survey Scene newsletter a month ago, but very little of it has actual consequence. A lot of the “news” is just noise. LightSquared pumped up its </span><span style="color: #000000;">propaganda campaign nationwide to try to build a consensus in their favor and</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">put pressure on the FCC, and is threatening a lawsuit if the FCC doesn’t do </span><span style="color: #000000;">what LightSquared wants. No surprises there. However, other things have </span><span style="color: #000000;">happened that I think you might be interested in hearing about.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Most interesting was the partnership announced between JAVAD GNSS and LightSquared to develop a solution for LightSquared’s GPS-jamming problem. I had the opportunity to sit down briefly with Dr. Javad Ashjaee </span><span style="color: #000000;">at the INTERGEO conference in Germany after he announced his company's </span><span style="color: #000000;">partnership with LightSquared. He's a sharp engineer and well-worth listening</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">to. Essentially, he made three points:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">1. This is s spectrum issue that isn’t going away even if LightSquared isn’t allowed to proceed, so it’s in the best interest of the GPS industry to work on a solution no matter</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">what the FCC's decision is. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">I've written about this issue before and I agree that the MSS spectrum has got a bull’s-eye on it. It’s a big piece of spectrum when not a lot of wireless spectrum is left to be developed. One could argue that it has </span><span style="color: #000000;">its purpose as an MSS band, but the counter to that argument is that it's</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">under-performing. There's only so much one can do with MSS spectrum.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">That leaves two choices: the first is to keep it allocated as low-power MSS (satellite-to-earth communications) as it has historically been used. It could also be officially established and recognized as a guard band </span><span style="color: #000000;">for GPS so this problem doesn't crop up again. GPS is an important enough </span><span style="color: #000000;">national asset to make this a reasonable discussion. The LightSquared debate </span><span style="color: #000000;">has done a fantastic job of raising awareness of the importance of GPS </span><span style="color: #000000;">technology in our everyday lives as well as the commercial and military </span><span style="color: #000000;">markets. GPS has and will continue to contribute more jobs, revenue, and growth </span><span style="color: #000000;">to the U.S. and world economy than LightSquared could ever dream of. You can </span><span style="color: #000000;">quickly dismiss anyone who claims otherwise. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">2. Secondly, Dr. Ashjaee opines that 4G LTE is something that the GPS industry needs. I don't disagree with that statement. More and more you see the latest </span><span style="color: #000000;">high-precision GPS receivers designed with integrated communications, primarily </span><span style="color: #000000;">GSM modems to enable internet connectivity in the field. Connectivity in the </span><span style="color: #000000;">field has always been a weak point of GPS systems. If one wireless technology </span><span style="color: #000000;">could replace UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS, that would be a good thing. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">I'm skeptical, though. I don't believe LightSquared will be available where many GPS users need wireless communications even when it's fully deployed — namely rural areas. They are going to chase after the money.</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">The money is in the urban areas where the population is dense. Who in their</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">right mind would spend money to establish and maintain infrastructure in areas</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">with a very sparse potential customer base? I wouldn't.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">So, that still leaves us with needing UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS communications technology. It doesn't solve the problem. But, I'm not against trying as long as LightSquared's system has no </span><span style="color: #000000;">affect on the performance of high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Incidentally, JAVAD GNSS intends to integrate a LightSquared mobile device into their product to manage potential interference from the uplink band (1626.50-1660.5MHz). However, this still doesn't prevent </span><span style="color: #000000;">interference from LightSquared mobile devices in the vicinity of JAVAD </span><span style="color: #000000;">receivers. To this, Dr. Ashjaee says (I'm paraphrasing) “interference already </span><span style="color: #000000;">exists today. Our mobile phones of today already create interference. If that </span><span style="color: #000000;">happens, we simply move it away.”</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">3. Lastly, Dr. Ashjaee states that with GPS modernization in full swing and with new GPS signals being deployed, GPS users are going to need to upgrade their equipment to keep up</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">with the latest technology in order to stay productive.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">This is a point that he and I disagree on. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">There is no reason your GPS L1 receiver will become obsolete in the foreseeable future, whether it's a high-performance sub-meter receiver or a cm-level surveying receiver (L1-only). There is no plan by the U.S. </span><span style="color: #000000;">Government to change or obsolete the L1 C/A signal. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">For legacy L1/L2 GPS receivers that aren't designed to utilize L2C or L5, it's a different story. If you recall, back in 2008 the U.S. government floated the idea that it wanted to discontinue supporting the legacy </span><span style="color: #000000;">semicodeless technique used by every L1/L2 GPS receiver in existence.</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">Literally, several hundred thousand high-precision dual frequency GPS receivers </span><span style="color: #000000;">would be rendered obsolete. At the end of the public comment period, the U.S. </span><span style="color: #000000;">Air Force and Department of Commerce established a date of December 31, 2020 </span><span style="color: #000000;">for this to happen. I wrote about this extensively at the time. My point is </span><span style="color: #000000;">that there's certain high-precision equipment that's going to become obsolete </span><span style="color: #000000;">at that time. However, that's nearly ten years from now. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Should those users be forced to upgrade earlier to accommodate LightSquared?</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Another point, and more serious, are the users who already upgraded in the past few years to equipment that was advertised as “future-proof”. In other words, they paid a premium for GNSS equipment that </span><span style="color: #000000;">could track “all current and planned signals” such as L2C, L5, Galileo, </span><span style="color: #000000;">GLONASS, etc. There is absolutely no reason those users would be required to </span><span style="color: #000000;">upgrade their equipment for any imaginable reason. In fact, I'd be rather </span><span style="color: #000000;">miffed if someone suggested I needed to spend money to do so. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">How much money are we talking about?</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">That's an interesting question. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Dr. Ashjaee guarantees that he will upgrade all JAVAD GNSS receivers for between US$300 and US$800. If you think about it, that's similar to what you might pay in annual maintenance fees on many receivers. The issue </span><span style="color: #000000;">is that JAVAD receivers aren't that common in the U.S. Realistically, there's a </span><span style="color: #000000;">wide variety of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. market. Many of them </span><span style="color: #000000;">are not the latest models, but still working perfectly fine. Manufacturers are </span><span style="color: #000000;">not going to re-open those product designs and try to implement </span><span style="color: #000000;">LightSquared-hardened antenna and circuitry. At that point, the user's only </span><span style="color: #000000;">choice is to purchase new equipment. I think that would be a step backwards. Many </span><span style="color: #000000;">small organizations were able to purchase GPS technology with a one-time grant </span><span style="color: #000000;">or specific project funds. Faced with the prospect of spending thousands of </span><span style="color: #000000;">dollars on a new high-precision GPS receiver, I think many would opt not to use</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">GPS. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">To its credit, LightSquared has offered up $50 million to help retrofit or otherwise upgrade receivers owned by Federal government agencies. I think it will cost a lot more than that. I don't believe $50 </span><span style="color: #000000;">million would come close to covering the hard costs, not to mention the amount</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">of time and effort that would be required to facilitate such a trade-in. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Let's talk about “the fix”</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">JAVAD GNSS has a lot on the line, so it’s hard to imagine that the company hasn’t come up with something that works. That said, the conversation about retrofitting is meaningless until the design concept is </span><span style="color: #000000;">proven, and empirical data demonstrates that it isn’t affected by</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">LightSquared’s downlink (1526-1536MHz) or uplink (1626.5-1660.5MHz) signals,</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">and that GPS receiver performance doesn’t pay a penalty. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Of course, LightSquared is talking like this is a done deal and predicting FCC approval by the end of the year. This is just noise, like back in August when it predicted an FCC decision within a month. Do not put any </span><span style="color: #000000;">credibility in LightSquared statements. Its track record is poor, as few of</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">their claims have materialized. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">There’s no way the FCC is going to announce a decision by the end of the year. Mark my words. There’s not enough time to confirm a fix, how it might be implemented across multiple manufacturer’s receivers, and what the </span><span style="color: #000000;">impact is. Believe me, there are many more hearings and information requests </span><span style="color: #000000;">that are going to take place before any decisions are made by the FCC. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The “fix”, as I understand it, includes a new antenna design as well as new circuitry (filter). If you understand the high-precision GPS industry, you know this includes a substantial number of handheld units such as </span><span style="color: #000000;">the Trimble Geo series, Ashtech (formerly Magellan) Mobile Mapper and ProMark </span><span style="color: #000000;">series to name a few. Replacing antennas and changing circuit design is not a</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">minor effort in a handheld unit that’s already packed tight with electronics. </span><span style="color: #000000;">Which models do you support? Which models don’t you support? Which models can’t </span><span style="color: #000000;">be upgraded? There are many questions to answer.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">New antennas also mean new antenna calibrations by the NGS if you’re an OPUS user. Manufacturer software needs to be updated to reflect any change in antenna </span><span style="color: #000000;">phase center. All of this will take time to investigate and understand. It </span><span style="color: #000000;">should not be rushed just because LightSquared is in a hurry. Its “end of year” </span><span style="color: #000000;">decision prediction, I’m sure, is directly correlated to an agreement with </span><span style="color: #000000;">Sprint, which says the deal is off if FCC approval isn’t granted by the end of</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">the year. Take a look at the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021713708" target="_blank">Sprintpresentation here</a>. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Don’t let LightSquared over-simplify this “fix." LightSquared Executive VP and lawyer Jeff Carlisle likes to play “engineer” like he did last week at a congressional hearing looking at the LightSquared </span><span style="color: #000000;">GPS-jamming impact on small business. I couldn’t believe it when he pulled out </span><span style="color: #000000;">a massive GPS receiver head and demonstrated how he would retrofit it with a $6 </span><span style="color: #000000;">component to solve the problem, even going so far as showing where he would </span><span style="color: #000000;">place it on a circuit board. The sad part is that there was not an engineer in </span><span style="color: #000000;">sight to call him on it. Take a look at the 4:50 mark in this video:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s_c5G0FRzMg#!">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s_c5G0FRzMg - !</a></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Speaking of last week’s hearing, what a nightmare for the GPS industry. The House Committee on Small Business conducted a hearing entitled “<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/lightsquareds-impact-small-business-explored-hearing-12145" target="_blank">LightSquared: The Impact to Small Business GPS Users</a>."</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Whoever put that panel together really did a disservice to this entire debate. LightSquared clearly came out on top, not because they should have, but because the witness list was not informed/prepared and the </span><span style="color: #000000;">witness list wasn’t represented by the largest users of GPS in small business, </span><span style="color: #000000;">surveying/engineering/construction/GIS.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The epitome of this trainwreck was when Rep. Steve King asked the guy representing the agricultural community about delineation of spectrum. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The grilling starts at the 1:49 minute mark and ends at the 4:20 minute mark.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;"> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s_c5G0FRzMg#!">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s_c5G0FRzMg - !</a></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Somehow, the witness doesn’t know or doesn’t know how to communicate that LightSquared/Skyterra sells satellite communications services to the high-precision GPS user community (via OmniSTAR) and therefore has </span><span style="color: #000000;">encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers to look into the MSS </span><span style="color: #000000;">spectrum. LightSquared/Skyterra has generated tens of millions of dollars in </span><span style="color: #000000;">revenue from agriculture and other high-precision GPS users, and now it is</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">whining about the very people who are paying for its satellite communications</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">data services? Are you kidding me?</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Look, if LightSquared doesn’t want to sell satellite data communication services to the high-precision GPS industry anymore, that’s its decision, but don’t make this ridiculous claim that somehow GPS receiver </span><span style="color: #000000;">designers are abusing LightSquared-licensed spectrum when LightSquared has been </span><span style="color: #000000;">cashing in on it. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">By the way, if you watch the grilling video, the “first-come, first-served” argument is really weak. Someone needs to brief the witness better than that. Even I don’t believe in squatter’s rights, and that </span><span style="color: #000000;">argument will never fly with the FCC. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;"> </span>ACSM Radio Show Last Monday on LightSquared</p><p><span style="color: #000000;">I spent an hour talking with ACSM Executive Director Curt Sumner about the latest on LightSquared. We also touched a bit on the exciting Galileo satellite launch </span><span style="color: #000000;">scheduled for this week, Oct. 20, that ended up being postponed for a day. You </span><span style="color: #000000;">can listen to the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.radiosandysprings.com/podcasts/ACSMOct17.2011.mp3" target="_blank">radio broadcast here or download and listen to it on your MP3 player</a>. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The debate goes on…stay tuned. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Thanks, and see you next time.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Follow me on Twitter at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric</a></span></p><p> </p></div>Javad Calls for End to P-Code Encryptionhttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/javad-calls-for-end-to-p-code-2011-07-22T00:23:19.000Z2011-07-22T00:23:19.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span></span></p><p><strong>Javad Calls for End to P-Code Encryption</strong>? This man is a genius and my next GPS equipment is likely to be PURPLE!</p><p><a target="_self" href="{{#staticFileLink}}1200634791,original{{/staticFileLink}}"><img class="align-full" width="150" src="{{#staticFileLink}}1200634791,original{{/staticFileLink}}"/></a></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.questexenews.com/t.do?id=8668640:29540650"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;">To Solve LightSquared Issue, Javad Calls for End to P-Code Encryption</span></strong><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: none;"> </span></b></a> </span> <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br/></span> <span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">To solve the LightSquared<br/> versus GPS controversy, Javad Ashjaee, president and CEO of JAVAD GNSS, has<br/> appealed directly to President Obama to discontinue the encryption of P-code,<br/> the restricted military GPS signal. His comments came in the context of the LightSquared/GPS<br/>interference imbroglio, as part of his solution to the conflict over spectrum.<br/>"This policy is not helping national security. It is hurting both<br/>precision users and the broadband project. We need more broadband, for global,<br/>fast, and inexpensive real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS."</span> <span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"><br/><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.questexenews.com/t.do?id=8668641:29540650"><b><span style="font-size: 8.5pt; text-decoration: none;">Read<br/>More...</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 8.5pt; text-decoration: none;"> </span></b></a> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; color: #ffffff;">-from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com">www.gpsworld.com</a></span></p></div>Help Save Our GPS- Please Submit Comments to FCC Through This Posthttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/help-save-our-gps-please2011-07-13T23:06:59.000Z2011-07-13T23:06:59.000Z⚡Survenator⌁https://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/Survenator<div><p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>We hope you will take a moment to file your comments with the FCC about the LIghtSquared proposal. Please also feel free to share the information below with your employees, members, colleagues and other concerned GPS users (I’ve also attached a pdf). The link provided will take them to an easy-to-use express filing form. If you want to file more extensive comments at this link you can do so at this link:</span></strong><span><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs-expert" target="_blank"><span>http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs-expert</span></a>. </span><strong><span>Be certain to personalize your comments. The FCC may discount mass and duplicate submissions</span></strong><span>.</span><strong><span> The Coalition to Save Our GPS will also be filing comments. The “reply to comments” period is August 1-15.</span><span> </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong><span>HELP SAVE OUR GPS!</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong><span>Please Submit your Comments to the FCC by July 30</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conditionally allowed a company called LightSquared to offer wireless broadband services in radio frequency bands adjacent to those used by GPS receivers.  Based on feedback from public and private sector GPS users, the FCC told LightSquared that it could not launch service until testing could be completed to determine the extent of the problems that LightSquared would cause.  The report of that testing was submitted to the FCC on June 30<sup>th</sup> and it showed that there would be massive interference to GPS from LightSquared’s proposed operations.  The FCC has asked for feedback from the public on the report. Comments will be taken until Saturday, July 30.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>What can I do?</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everyone who cares about GPS should let the FCC know about the threat that LightSquared poses.  In writing to the FCC, we encourage you to cover the following points <strong>in your own words</strong>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p><span><span>·<span>         </span></span></span>How you use GPS technology in your business and/or personal life</p>
<p><span><span>·<span>         </span></span></span>What would happen to your business/personal life if GPS became unavailable or unreliable</p>
<p><span><span>·<span>         </span></span></span>While more capacity for wireless broadband services is important, it should not come at the expense of GPS, which is critical to our country’s economy</p>
<p><span><span>·<span>         </span></span></span>The results of the testing that were performed at the FCC’s request are conclusive – they show that GPS reception would be wiped out by LightSquared’s proposed service.</p>
<p><span><span>·<span>         </span></span></span>Now that the test results have shown interference to GPS, the FCC shouldn’t allow LightSquared to keep trying out modified versions of its plan to use the spectrum near the GPS band.  LightSquared’s operations and GPS are fundamentally incompatible and the FCC should order LightSquared out of that band.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>How do I tell the FCC to save GPS?</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong> </strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The FCC has an easy-to-use portal on its website to submit feedback on the testing results:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1)  Click on this link for the FCC’s Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS):  <a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X" target="_blank">http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X</a>  </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2)  In the box which says “Proceeding Number,” type:  <strong>11-109. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">It is important to include this docket number with your comments.</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3)  In the designated boxes, enter (a) your name or your company’s name, and (b) your mailing address/city/state/zip.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(4)  In the box which says “Type in or paste your brief comments,” do so.  Click “Continue”.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(5)  A review page will load listing all of the information entered.  If correct, click “Confirm.” (6)  If you have trouble, contact the FCC ECFS Helpdesk at <a target="_blank">202-418-0193</a> or e-mail at <a href="mailto:ecfshelp@fcc.gov" target="_blank">ecfshelp@fcc.gov</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Mary F. Hanley</strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Prism Public Affairs</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1825 Eye Street. NW – Suite 600</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Washington, DC 20006</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">O: <a target="_blank">202-207-3664</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">C: <a target="_blank">202-258-9048</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:mhanley@prismpublicaffairs.com" target="_blank">mhanley@prismpublicaffairs.com</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://www.prismpublicaffairs.com/" target="_blank"><span>www.prismpublicaffairs.com</span></a></span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>Face-off between LightSquared and U.S. Government Agencieshttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/faceoff-between-lightsquared2011-07-13T22:56:54.000Z2011-07-13T22:56:54.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><h1 style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 19.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal;">U.S. Defense, Transportation Say Keep Wireless Comm Away from L-Band</span></h1><h3 style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt;"> </h3><h3 style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: normal;">Top Government Agencies Weigh In</span></h3><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #000000;"> </span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">The U.S. Departments of Defense and Transportation declared their strong opposition to the proposal of LightSquared Subsidiary LLC to operate a nationwide<br/> broadband service within the spectrum immediately adjacent to GPS signals, in a<br/> letter sent on June 14 to the National Telecommunications and Information<br/> Administration (NTIA). The agencies acted on behalf of the on behalf of the<br/>National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and<br/>Timing, which they are responsible for co-chairing.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">The Departments asked the NTIA administrator to advise the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to continue to withhold authorization for LightSquared to<br/> commence commercial service per its proposed deployment of a terrestrial<br/> service within the 1525-1559 MHz bands. LightSquared's proposal is to deploy a<br/> network of 40,000 base stations along with some satellite coverage over 139<br/>major markets in the United States.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">According to their official statement, "The Departments continue to support the National Broadband Plan, but cannot do so at the expense of a global,<br/> ubiquitous utility such as the Global Positioning System. The Departments<br/> encourage further assessment of any alternative spectrum and/or signal<br/> configuration plans."</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">The DoD/DoT letter was sent just prior to the original deadline for the final report of the Technical Working Group commissioned by the FCC to research and<br/> recommend on this matter. Certainly, the respective signers were cognizant of<br/> the contents of that report, at least on the test results regarding<br/> interference with GPS. As it turned out, on June 15 LightSquared asked for more<br/>time, and was granted a two-week extension. The final report was filed with the<br/>FCC on June 30.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">The Departments' position followed an interagency review of the findings of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Systems Engineering<br/> Forum (NPEF), tasked to assess the GPS impacts of LightSquared's<br/> deployment plan as originally filed. The NPEF determined that, if permitted to<br/> operate as originally planned, LightSquared's signals would significantly<br/>interfere with GPS users and, as a result, impact national security, economic<br/>security, and public safety nationwide. The NPEF report served as working<br/>material for the TWG report.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">The NTIA Administrator forwarded the letter and report to the FCC Chairman on July 6. These materials can be found at<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pnt.gov/">www.PNT.gov</a>.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt; line-height: 12.0pt;"><span class="font-size-2" style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000;">Article from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com">www.gpsworld.com</a></span></p></div>Final Report of FCC Working Group: Lose LightSquared from L-Bandhttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/final-report-of-fcc-working2011-07-13T02:12:26.000Z2011-07-13T02:12:26.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><h1 style="margin: 0in; margin-bottom: .0001pt;"><span style="font-size: 19.5pt; font-family: Arial; color: #b50a1a; font-weight: normal;">Final Report of FCC Working Group: Lose LightSquared from L-Band</span></h1><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 12.0pt;"> </p><p><span style="color: #000000;">“Based on the analysis performed, LightSquared should not be permitted to use the L-Band spectrum for a densely-deployed, non-integrated terrestrial-only</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">network. Such a network would cause unacceptable interference to GPS</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">operations, wiping out an installed base of over 500 million units used in a</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">wide array of public safety, aviation, industrial and consumer applications.</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">While mitigation techniques utilizing filters were discussed in theory, they</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">could not be tested as part of the WG effort because filters do not exist, even</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">in prototypes. No information considered by the WG demonstrated that any</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">mitigation techniques — other than relocation of the proposed terrestrial</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">network to an alternative band — would be successful.” (From the U.S. GPS</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Industry Council's overview of the WG report)</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The final report to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on three months of research by the technical working group (TWG) tasked to investigate and analyze effects of</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">powerful terrestrial L-band transmitters on the GPS signal and services finally</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">appeared on June 30, nearly two weeks after its assigned date. LightSquared had</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">requested an extension, and apparently the lawyers on its staff used the extra</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">time to write many pages of self-justification and further argumentation of the</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">company’s case. But the facts are clear: the LightSquared signal would</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">devastate services for users of all GPS receivers tested.</span><br/><br/><span style="color: #000000;">The final report is not easy to find on the FCC's labyrinthine website. Read</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">the full "final report of the Working Group (WG) that was formed to study</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">the GPS overload/desensitization issue as described by the Federal</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Communications Commission (FCC) in DA 11-133" <a rel="nofollow" href="http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=900848">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">See also four appendices: </span><br/><span style="color: #000000;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=900850">one</a>, "Appendix A.1: MOPS Based Procedure</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">for Minimum Recommended Testing of LightSquared RFI to GPS Aviation</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">Receivers"</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=900853">two</a>, "Appendix G.2: from Alcatel-Lucent</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Labs, LightSquared L-Band GPS Receiver Equipment Impact Evaluation</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Testing"</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=900855">three</a>, "Appendix H.1.1: JPL/NASA Report</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">on Laboratory Testing of Receivers for the Space-Based Sub-Team and the High</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Precision Sub-Team"</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=900856">four</a>, "Appendix H.1.10: High Precision</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Receivers - NAVAIR Anechoic Chamber Test Results."</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Full data for all device tests conducted by the Working Group is available for download at:<a rel="nofollow" href="ftp://twg:freeforall@ftp.novatel.ca/">ftp://twg:freeforall@ftp.novatel.ca</a></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">GPS World readers may also be interested in the thoughtful and intelligible analyses provided by the U.S. GPS Industry Council ("<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/us-gpsic-overview-final-report-working-group-11850">Overview of the Final Report of the Working Group</a>") and the Coalition to Save Our GPS ("<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.saveourgps.org/pdf/Coalition_TWG_Release_06302011.pdf">FCC-Mandated Working Group Report Documents Pervasive<br/> Harmful Interference with GPS</a>").</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">The TWG conclusions of widespread disruption and harm to GPS services are consistent with those reached by third parties that have reported independent</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">analyses: RTCA, Inc., a Federal Advisory Committee that evaluates aviation, and</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC).</span><br/> <br/><span style="color: #000000;">“The TWG faced an extraordinary challenge of trying to determine if the laws of</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">physics would allow the high-power LightSquared signals to co-exist in adjacent</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">radio spectrum with the low-power satellite signals of GPS over and above the</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">complex regulatory challenges of managing spectrum sharing,” said Charles</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Trimble, chairman of the U.S. GPS Industry Council. “In the end, the laws of</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">physics won out.”</span><br/><br/><span style="color: #000000;">Trimble, who co-chaired the TWG, added, “There is no single, simple solution</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">that can eliminate interference for all classes of GPS receivers in the near</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">term. GPS touches every aspect of our lives. It goes beyond the most</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">widely known navigation applications such as car navigation and cell phones to</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">hugely important applications such as agriculture, electric power grids,</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">communications networks, infrastructure monitoring and construction.” </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Regarding possible effective solutions, he offered the view that “greater separation of the LightSquared signals and those of GPS are necessary if the value of GPS is</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">to be protected and broadband communications can grow to its potential over the</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">long term.”</span><br/> <br/><span style="color: #000000;">In the area of high-precision receivers used for precision agriculture, survey,</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">construction, machine control, mining, geographic information systems (GIS),</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">structural deformation monitoring, and science, the group found that damaging</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">interference existed at times at very long distances for the LightSquared</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">transmitters. NovAtel president and CEO Michael Ritter said, “Allowing</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">LightSquared to interfere with the utilization of these high precision</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">receivers would eliminate the productivity improvements provided to these</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">industries and applications during the past 20 years and will result in</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">significantly higher prices for goods and services from these industries to the</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">consumer."</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">Key Results and Findings from the WG Report:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">1. The LightSquared Terrestrial Broadband Service Will Cause Harmful Interference to Nearly All GPS Receivers and GPS-Dependent Applications</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">2. Limited Testing of LightSquared Terrestrial Broadband Operations in the “Lower” 4G LTE Channel Does Not Eliminate Harmful Interference to GPS Receivers and</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">GPS-Dependent Applications.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">3. Increasing Filtering on GPS Receivers Is Not an Available Mitigation Technique.</span></p><ul type="disc"><li><span style="color: #000000;"> No Suitable Filters Exist;</span></li><li><span style="color: #000000;"> Even if Filters Were Available, They Have Undesirable Performance Impacts on GPS Receivers That Have Not Been Evaluated.</span></li><li><span style="color: #000000;"> Increased Filtering Does Not Mitigate Interference to Hundreds of Millions of GPS Users in the Installed Base.</span></li></ul><p><span style="color: #000000;">4. The Only Feasible Solution to the Harmful Interference Effects LightSquared’s Proposed 4G LTE Terrestrial Broadband Service Will Cause to GPS Receivers and</span><br/><span style="color: #000000;">GPS-Dependent Applications Is to Relocate the LightSquared Service to Spectrum</span><br/> <span style="color: #000000;">that is Not Adjacent to GPS/RNSS, outside of the L-Band.</span></p></div>Coalition to Save Our GPShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/coalition-to-save-our-gps2011-07-06T01:49:10.000Z2011-07-06T01:49:10.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong>Coalition to Save Our GPS</strong></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:</b> July 1, 2011</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>CONTACT</b>: Prism Public Affairs</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Dale Leibach: 202-207-3630 or <font color="#0000FF"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:dleibach@prismpublicaffairs.com">dleibach@prismpublicaffairs.com</a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">July 1, 2011</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="center"><font size="5"><b>LightSquared’s “Recommendation” Document: A Review</b></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">On June 30, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Technical Working Group filed a 1,000-plus page report analyzing interference from LightSquared’s proposed deployment plans in theMobile Satellite Service (MSS) band adjacent to the GlobalPositioning System (GPS).</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The report was based on LightSquared’s February 2011, description of its planned three phases for deployment: Phase 0, Phase 1 and Phase 2. All three phases identified by LightSquared for study used aportion of the MSS band directly adjacent to GPS, 1545.2-1555.2 MHz(the “Upper MSS band”). The working group test results showedthat use of this portion of the MSS band caused overwhelminginterference to every category of the 500 million GPS receivers inuse in the United States, from those used by airplanes, policevehicles and ambulances to everyday consumer cell phones and personalnavigational devices.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Up to the point of the June 30 report filing, LightSquared had for months repeatedly said that its proposed operations would not interfere with GPS. Faced with the report’s overwhelming evidenceof massive interference – and no doubt in order to preempt thesehighly negative results -- LightSquared simultaneously released a 37page “Recommendation” document (RD) that it developed totallyoutside of the Technical Working Group established to collaborativelystudy the problem.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">In that document, LightSquared proposed an entirely new deployment scenario, not included in the initial scope of the working group analysis, which would not use the Upper MSS band at all, and a seriesof mitigation measures – many of which were never disclosed ordiscussed during the four month working group study process.Further, the document tries to blame the “commercial GPS industry”for any interference caused by its operations, and also claims,without citation to the working group study or any other supportingdata, that its proposal will solve interference for 99 percent of GPSreceivers.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The utter failure of LightSquared’s initial deployment plans to pass interference tests raises fundamental questions about the representations LightSquared made to the FCC prior to its January2011 decision that convinced the FCC to grant the waiver and convenethe interference study process in the first place, and raisessignificant questions about the credibility of LightSquared’svarious claims and whether they hold up to scrutiny.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The current strong indication is that whatever LightSquared told the FCC prior to January 2011 was highly inaccurate, to a degree that verges on negligence. These questions logically follow from the failure ofthe original deployment plan: Was LightSquared transparent in itsdealings with the FCC? In other words, what did LightSquared know,and when did it know it?</font></p><ul><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">In all of its documents and public statements, LightSquared claims a long history of familiarity with the technical rules of the MSS band and a wealth of technical expertise on interference issues.LightSquared is clearly the most knowledgeable about its own networktechnology, and also claims to be intimately familiar with priorproceedings relating to MSS interference and GPS. And it appears toclaim that it has been working on these plans for years. Yet, inFebruary 2011 it proposed only deployment scenarios which used theupper MSS bands, which overwhelming technical evidence shows willcause massive interference to every GPS receiver studied.</font></p></li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">This raises a variety of questions: Did LightSquared not know that its proposed upper MSS band operations would cause interference? If it didn’t know, that places its technical competence in severe doubt.Did LightSquared know, or have very strong reason to believe,before January 2011 that massive interference would result? If so,why did it not disclose this to the FCC?</font></p></li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">There certainly was ample available evidence that harmful interference would result. The US GPS Council knew, and presented testing results and analysis demonstrating this interference to the FCC in bothDecember 2010 and January 2011. So did major U.S. governmentdepartments and agencies, which communicated serious concerns to theFCC in a formal letter in January 2011. LightSquared’s reaction?It dismissed these findings out of hand.</font></p></li></ul><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Since LightSquared was completely wrong in formulating its initial deployment plans and claiming that they would not cause interference, why should the company’s reassuring technical claims about its“new” deployment plan be given credibility? LightSquared’s“recommendation” document makes a host of other inaccurate ormisleading statements, and a number of its major misstatements arediscussed below. The bottom line is that, just as LightSquared waswrong in 2010 and the first six months of 2011, it is wrong now.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 1: The Recommendation Document mischaracterizes the GPS industry’s position, claiming that the industry is trying to force LightSquared to buy other spectrum or go out of business:</b></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;">“[T]<font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">he commercial GPS device industry now argues that LightSquared should not be permitted to operate its L-band terrestrial network on its authorized frequencies but, rather, should have to find or buy newfrequencies. . . .This choice would doom an innovative Americanstart-up company that has devoted more than 10 years of effort andbillions of dollars in reliance on explicit regulations andauthorizations permitting it to proceed as planned with a vital newwireless network.” RD p. 3</font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;">“<font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">LightSquared must begin to deploy its network immediately or it may not survive.” RD p. 24</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>The Facts:</b></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The Coalition to Save Our GPS has simply said that until it can be</font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>conclusively</i></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">shown that there willbe no interference to critical GPS uses, LightSquared should not beallowed to deploy in the upper</font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>or</i></font><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">lower MSS band. Unless and until that is demonstrated, LightSquaredalready has other spectrum and should use it. LightSquared’swebsite states that:</font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>LightSquared</b></font></font></strong><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">already owns valuable high quality spectrum assets, including 59 MHz of nationwide ubiquitous spectrum in an advantageous frequency position.</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>Viewableat:</i></font></font> <font color="#0000FF"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lightsquared.com/about-us/our-investor"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">http://www.lightsquared.com/about-us/our-investor</font></font></a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The Upper and Lower MSS band together account for 20 MHz of spectrum. This leaves 39 MHz of “high quality spectrum assets,” to which LightSquared asserts it has access, available to be used for initialdeployment. Since the RD clearly indicates that only 20 MHz ofspectrum is needed for initial deployment,</font></font><sup><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"></font></font></sup> <a rel="nofollow" href="#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc" class="sdfootnoteanc" id="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">LightSquared already has ample spectrum to support deploymentwithout using any of the MSS Upper or Lower band. In any case, toallow for a clear understanding of the impact of the presentproceeding on its plans, LightSquared should provide a full anddetailed accounting of its spectrum holdings instead of paintingbaseless “doom and gloom” scenarios.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 2: The Recommendation Document falsely implies that this is a fight between LightSquared and the “commercial GPS industry,” and that only the “commercial GPS industry” has raised interferenceobjections to LightSquared’s plans:</b></font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;">“<font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">[T]he commercial GPS device industry wants the Commission to shut down an unprecedented effort to establish a nationwide wireless broadband network built with private funding.” RD p. 4</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>The Facts:</b></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The Coalition to Save Our GPS was founded initially by leading GPS manufacturers, but it has grown to include includes companies and trade associationscutting across virtually every sector of the US economy. Itsmembers include: the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA),AGCO, Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), Air TransportAssociation (ATA), Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), AircraftOwners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Air Line Pilots Association,International (ALPA), American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO), American Petroleum Institute(API), American Car Rental Association (ACRA), American Congress onSurveying and Mapping (ACSM), American Council of EngineeringCompanies/Council of Professional Surveyors (ACEC/COPS), AmericanRental Association (ARA), Associated Equipment Distributors (AED),Associated General Contractors of America to the Coalition,Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI),Association of American Geographers (AAG), Association of AmericanRailroads (AAR), Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), ATXGroup, Avidyne Corporation, BoatU.S. - The Boat Owners Association ofThe United States, California Land Surveyors Association, CaliforniaSpace Authority (CSA), Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA),Case New Holland, Caterpillar, Deere & Company, Delta Air Lines,Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Equipped to Survive Foundation, Inc.(ETSFI), Esri, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), FarmEquipment Manufacturers Association (FEMA), FedEx, Fire Department ofNew York (FDNY), Garmin, General Aviation Manufacturers Association(GAMA), GROWMARK, Inc., Hemisphere GPS, Inside GNSS, InternationalAir Transport Association (IATA), Intelligent Transportation Societyof America (ITS America), Leica Geosystems, MACHINE CONTROL Online,Magellan GPS, Mid-Atlantic Aviation Coalition-New Jersey (MAAC-NJ),National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), NationalAssociation of Manufacturers (NAM), National Business AviationAssociation (NBAA), National Cotton Council of America (NCCA),National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA),Networkfleet, New World Systems, North American Equipment DealersAssociation (NAEDA), OmniSTAR, Orienteering USA, Payment AssuranceTechnology Association (PATA), PeopleNet, PocketGPSWorld.com Ltd,Regional Airline Association (RAA), Reinke Mfg. Co. Inc., TomTom,Topcon Positioning Systems, Trimble, UNAVCO, UPS, and the USA RiceFederation.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">More importantly, LightSquared ignores the fact that the GPS constellation is a U.S. government-owned asset representing historical investment of over $35 billion of taxpayer money and annual investment of $1.7billion to maintain the constellation. The U.S. government,including practically every major federal department and agency, isthe biggest single user of GPS equipment and services, and hasinvested many more billions of dollars in GPS-based equipment andsystems, such as the NextGen aviation guidance system.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="justify"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">These government agencies lodged strong objections to LightSquared’s deployment plans in multiple letters to the FCC in January and March 2011. Recently, a study was prepared on behalf of the federalgovernment users which concluded that LightSquared’s initialdeployment plans (phases 0, 1 and 2) created unacceptableinterference to all classes of GPS receivers in use by the federalgovernment, and that use of Lower MSS band only by LightSquared hadnot been proven to solve these interference issues.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 3: The Recommendation Document suggests that interference is the result of design decisions made by the “commercial GPS industry” that resulted in GPS receivers that wrongfully “listen” toLightSquared’s frequencies.</b></font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;">“<font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">GPS devices, such as wideband precision measurement receivers, deliberately use LightSquared’s L-band frequencies. Their receivers employ wideband front-ends in order to increase precision and inorder to receive satellite augmentation signals throughout the1525-1559 MHz L-Band. By failing to build receivers resistant tolawful transmissions in an adjacent band, GPS manufacturers haveeffectively appropriated LightSquared’s L-band spectrum.” RD p.18</font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;">“<font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">[I]t is inescapable that it is [the GPS manufacturers’] disregard for the Commission’s policies regarding the immunity of receivers to transmissions in nearby frequency bands that is the source of thetechnical problem.” RD p. 2</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>The Facts:</b></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Many high precision GPS are in fact intentionally designed to receive signals in the MSS band, but not because GPS manufacturersintentionally “fail[ed] to build receivers resistant to lawfultransmissions” in this band. Rather, many high precision receiversare designed this way to take advantage of services that LightSquareditself provides, as does Inmarsat – so as LightSquared knows well,but elects not to explain,</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>LightSquareditself earns revenue by selling satellite capacity for the very sameGPS augmentation services that high precision receivers are designedto receive.</i></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">LightSquared also fails to disclose that its own contracts withsatellite customers reserve the right to transmit signals anywhere inthe entire MSS band upon notice, so GPS receivers which useLightSquared MSS services</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>hadto be designed to receive signals in the entire MSS band.</i></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Inother words, the ”design decision” to make high precision GPSreceivers that were vulnerable to interference from high powerterrestrial interference in the MSS band</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>wasimposed by LightSquared itself</i></font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The fact is that LightSquared’s original plans, as well as its new “recommended” plan, create massive interference to customers from which LightSquared has been happily collecting revenue for years.And LightSquared adds insult to injury by blaming GPS manufacturersfor designing high precision GPS receivers in a way that allowedtheir customers to pay money to LightSquared.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The proven potential for interference to high precision GPS receivers that use MSS based augmentation services, interference which LightSquared acknowledges, also raises fundamental questions aboutLightSquared’s business practices: If it knew since 2001 that itwas planning a service that was incompatible with GPS augmentationservices, what did it do to disclose this fact to customers? Has itdisclosed this fact to customers recently based on its current plans?Based on all reports from the affected users, the answers are“nothing” and “no.”</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The suggestion that design decisions by commercial GPS manufacturers created the interference problem through “bad” design decisions is also belied by the fact that many GPS receivers that LightSquaredwill interfere with are designed according to the demandingspecifications of the Department of Defense or in accordance with theexacting standards applicable to national and international aviationnavigation imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, the</font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">InternationalCivil Aviation Organization, International Telecommunication Union</font></font><b></b> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">andother industry standards bodies. Further, integrated L-band MSS-GPSequipment has for many years been built to International MaritimeOrganization standards for Global Maritime Distress and SafetySystems (GMDSS). Such equipment was shown to suffer devastatinginterference during government tests at White Sands Missile Range.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Either LightSquared failed to do the most minimal due diligence on GPS receiver standards, or it has conveniently ignored them. Either way, LightSquared’s current opinions on what is “good” GPS designare entirely self-serving and baseless.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 4: The Recommendation Document states that the “commercial GPS industry” knew of LightSquared’s plans and acquiesced in them.</b></font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in;">“<font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Since 2003, the commercial GPS device industry has not only known about plans to develop a terrestrial wireless network in L-band spectrum, it actually approved those plans.” RD, pgs. 6-7</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><b>The Facts:</b></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">This claim merely recycles a simplistic view, endlessly repeated in LightSquared sound bites, about the history of the FCC’s “ancillaryterrestrial component” rules, and also glosses over theinconvenient fact that LightSquared required a waiver of the FCC’srules, which was granted in January 2011, to proceed with its plans.Simple repetition does not make the claim any more accurate.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">But the claim is lacking even in basic logic. If LightSquared knew beginning in 2001 that it was going to build the nationwide network it is now proposing, and was so intimately involved in FCCproceedings defining interference standards for MSS and GPS, how isit that between 2001 and the present, the “commercial GPS industry”built and sold</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>500million GPS receivers</i></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">thatdid not meet purported FCC standards, and that were incompatible withits carefully conceived plans, without LightSquared ever noticingthis “fact”? Hundreds of millions of these same receivers hadbeen sold to the public by the time Harbinger bought LightSquared in2010. Did Harbinger know when it invested further “billions” inits satellite and network that there were so many non-compliant GPSreceivers in the hands of customers and businesses, and elect to moveforward anyway, without addressing this proactively with the FCC?And if it didn’t know, why not? As a sophisticated New York hedgefund with billions of dollars of investors capital at its command, itshould be expected to do basic due diligence. Or was the massivedetrimental effect on GPS users from LightSquared’s initial planssimply “someone else’s problem” that could be safely ignored?</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">In short, even if LightSquared’s account of history were true, if anyone “slept on their rights” it was LightSquared, and not the “commercial GPS industry.” The GPS industry has done what realinnovators do – build great products that tens of millions ofpeople and businesses want to buy and put to an incredible variety ofcutting edge uses. LightSquared, on the other hand, has not yetprovided broadband services to a single customer.</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">But the more basic truth is that LightSquared’s version of history is simply groundless. The Coalition to save Our GPS has already debunked this revisionist history in detail.</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>Viewableat:</i></font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"></font></font> <font color="#0000FF"><span lang="zxx" xml:lang="zxx"><u><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.saveourgps.org/studies-reports.aspx"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">http://www.saveourgps.org/studies-reports.aspx#letters</font></font></a></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">One final point deserves emphasis. There is simply no escaping the fact that it is and was</font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>the FCC’s responsibility</i></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">toidentify and proactively address GPS interference issues to protectthe substantial investment the federal government has in GPS.</font></font><font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i></i></font></font> <font face="Calibri, serif"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">TheFCC expressly committed to do this in 2005, in a passage that bearsquotation at length:</font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-top: 0.08in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><i>While we agree with the GPS Industry Council, NTIA, and other government agencies that it is essential to ensure that GPS does not suffer harmful interference,</i> it is also important to ensure thatnew technologies are not unnecessarily constrained. In this regard,we recognize that the President's new national policy for space-basedpositioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) directs the Secretary ofCommerce to protect the radio frequency spectrum used by GPS and itsaugmentations through appropriate domestic and international spectrummanagement regulatory practices… Furthermore, the President's PNTpolicy calls for the establishment of an inter-agency ExecutiveCommittee, on which the Chairman of the FCC will be invited toparticipate as a liaison, and a National Space-Based PNT CoordinationOffice. <i>It is our intention to establish discussions with otheragencies, through the PNT Executive Committee and Coordination Officeas appropriate, to better understand what protection levels for GPSare warranted.</i> The results of those discussions may lead tofuture rulemaking proposals <i>in order to ensure that all FCCservices provide adequate protection to GPS</i>, and produce a morecomplete record upon which to establish final GPS protection limitsfor MSS ATC licensees.<a rel="nofollow" href="#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc" class="sdfootnoteanc" id="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></p><p style="margin-top: 0.08in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Ironically, this is this same PNT that has objected strenuously to LightSquared’s plans after reviewing the results of government interference tests. It does not appear that the FCC has taken steps to implement thiscommitment, nor has LightSquared supported the FCC by submittingcomplete and accurate disclosures of interference potential from itsproposed operations at any point during this process. If, forwhatever reason, the FCC has failed to fulfill this responsibility todate, LightSquared should not be allowed to make the “commercialGPS industry” the scapegoat.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0.08in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 5: LightSquared claims that by limiting its operations to the Lower MSS band, it will eliminate interference to more than 99 percent of GPS receivers.</b></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-top: 0.08in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">[T]ransmissions in the 10 MHz band at the bottom of LightSquared downlink frequencies</font> <font style="font-size: 8pt;" size="1">3</font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">— the band farthestaway from the GPS frequencies — will not adversely affect theperformance of over 99 percent of GPS receivers. Exceptions aremostly limited to those precision measurement devices used largely inagriculture, mining and construction. . . RD p. 2</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0.08in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>The Facts:</b></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">LightSquared has cited absolutely no data from the working group study or elsewhere to support this claim and the 99 percent figure is foundnowhere in the Technical Working Group’s final report. Theavailable data show that this claim is blatantly false. As best onecan tell from LightSquared’s public statements, the claim appearsto be based on the assertion that Lower band operations will notaffect mass market GPS devices such as personal navigation devices orcell phones. But this is not at all what the working group data show.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><a rel="nofollow" name="_DV_C16" id="_DV_C16"></a><a rel="nofollow" name="_DV_M37" id="_DV_M37"></a><a rel="nofollow" name="_DV_C28" id="_DV_C28"></a> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The technical working group report of the General Navigation sub-group, which studied mass market personal navigation devices, stated that “l</font><font color="#000000"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">abtesting revealed that many devices suffered from harmful interferencefrom the lower 10 MHz channel; specifically, 20 out of 29 devicesexperienced harmful interference.” TWG Final Report at pgs. 16,177. Similarly, data from the cellular sub-group report clearlyshows that 6 out of the 39, or 15 percent, of cellphone GPS receiverstested failed the defined interference tests. TWG Final ReportFigure 3.2.2.</font></font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font color="#000000"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Simply counting a percentage of affected devices also ignores the true costs and benefits of interference from LightSquared’s new plan. Whileprecision receivers account for a relatively small percentage of GPSreceivers, they account for enormous economic benefits. A recentlyreleased economic study demonstrated that high precision receiversused in construction, agriculture and survey and mapping accountedfor $10 billion in private investment in GPS equipment over the lastfive years, and produced $30 billion in economic benefits per year.It’s highly irresponsible for LightSquared to so lightly dismisstens of billions of dollars of potential damage to the economy.</font></font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font color="#000000"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>Statement 6: LightSquared claims that the use of inexpensive filters would prevent GPS receivers from “listening” to LightSquared’sfrequencies and would solve the interference problem.</b></font></font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;">“<font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Despite the commercial GPS device industry’s best efforts to rewrite the record and obfuscate the nature of the problem, the simple fact remains that GPS receiversdo not adequately reject base station transmissions in the adjacentband.’” RD p. 17</font></p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;">“<font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">[B]y failing to deploy receivers with sufficient filters, the GPS industry essentially uses LightSquared’s L-Band spectrum even though it is beyond thespectrum allocated to GPS.” RD p.19</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><b>The Facts:</b></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">Aside from integrated MSS-GPS equipment designed to use L-band satellite communications, the idea that GPS receivers are “using”LightSquared’s spectrum is nothing more than a sound bite, with nobasis in any established or generally accepted concepts of spectrumusage or radio frequency engineering. To be able to receive faintsatellite signals, GPS receivers must be designed to be highlysensitive. GPS receivers incorporate filters that rejecttransmissions in adjacent bands that are hundreds of millions timesmore powerful than the signals that are transmitted within the bandthey are designed to receive.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">LightSquared, however, is proposing to transmit signals in the band adjacent to GPS that are</font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>billions</i></font><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">of times more powerful than GPS satellite signals. In fact, thehighest recorded power levels at the Las Vegas tests conducted in thestudy were a staggering</font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3"><i>800billion times</i></font> <font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">thepower of GPS signals. There has never been, nor will there ever be, afilter that can block out signals in an immediately adjacentfrequency band that are so much more powerful, nor has LightSquaredput forward any credible, independent expert opinion or otherevidence that this is possible.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">The FCC mandated that the technical working group consider possible ways to “mitigate” interference. As the technical working group report confirms – itssound bites about filters notwithstanding – the only deviceLightSquared produced for testing was an antenna with filters soextreme that they would filter out more than 95 percent of the GPSsignals as well, with an extremely severe penalty to receiverperformance. Other than that, LightSquared did not produce a singlefilter for testing, only PowerPoint presentations and conceptualvendor proposals. Even these theoretical filters did not address theinsurmountable technical problem presented by extremely high poweredsignals immediately adjacent to GPS.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">If LightSquared’s theoretical filters ever made it off of the drawing board, they would force GPS receivers to retreat into only a tiny portion of the legitimate GPSband and would render useless millions of GPS devices and billions ofdollars of investment by government, industry and consumers.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">And even real filters are not a solution for the 500 million receivers in use in the United States. The entire population of GPS users would require a minimum of 15years to prepare for such a change. For example, factory GPS systemsinstalled in automobiles are typically not replaced for the 10-15years life of the vehicle and the same can be said for aircraft,trucks, ambulances, agricultural and construction machinery to namebut a few. The idea of effecting such a transition in a matter ofmonths is absurd.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" size="3">While the nation needs more wireless broadband services, there are many places in the radio spectrum already identified or allocated to 4G cellular uses, whereinterference to adjacent space based communications such as GPS wouldnot occur. The satellite component of LightSquared’s network –serving rural and public safety users outside of cellular coverage –is fully compatible with the adjacent uses and is already in use. Toallow a new unproven use for fewer users to diminish along-established, highly productive spectrum use for the majority isnot in the public interest and must not be allowed.</font></p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"> </p><p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;" align="center"># # #</p><div id="sdfootnote1"><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%; page-break-before: always;"><font size="2"><a rel="nofollow" href="#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym" class="sdfootnotesym" id="sdfootnote1sym">1</a> Under LightSquared’s new proposal, it will initially deploy using the 10 MHz in the lower MSS band. The need for 20 MHz is derivedfrom the need in wireless networks to have equal amounts of paireduplink and downlink spectrum. The 10 MHz lower band presents 10MHzof downlink spectrum.</font></p><p class="sdfootnote"> </p></div><div id="sdfootnote2"><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%; page-break-before: always;"><a rel="nofollow" href="#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym" class="sdfootnotesym" id="sdfootnote2sym">2</a> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz</i></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><i>Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, serif">, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"><font size="2"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4616, ¶ 70 (2005).</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%;"> </p><p class="sdfootnote"> </p></div></div>LightSquared Has No Boundaries? I think otherwisehttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/hubs/surveyorsagainstlightsquared/forum/lightsquared-has-no-boundaries2011-06-30T23:26:26.000Z2011-06-30T23:26:26.000ZScott D. Warner, PLShttps://landsurveyorsunited.com/surveyors/ScottDWarnerRLS<div><p><strong>LightSquared Has No Boundaries? I think otherwise.</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><h1 style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 26px; color: #b50a1a; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #525252; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px;">LightSquared Goes Global; GLONASS, Galileo May Be at Risk, Too</span></h1><span style="color: #525252; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px;"><span style="display: block; font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" class="innerArticle_span">June 29, 2011</span><span style="display: block; font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" class="innerArticle_span">By: <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Arial; margin-left: 1px; text-decoration: none; padding: 0px;" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gps-author/alan-cameron/121">Alan Cameron</a></span><span style="display: block; font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" class="innerArticle_span"> </span></span><div id="facebooklike"></div><hr style="border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: #e7aeb4; height: 0px;"/><h3 style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 18px; color: #b50a1a; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"></h3><br/><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Recent events, some of them summarized here, may appear to have dealt setbacks to LightSquared, the boundless opportunist of wireless broadband that just happens to interfere with GPS. But the company has not run out of moves yet. Would you, if you had $20 billion at stake? The latest gambit, led by lawyers and cloaked in jargon, appears to be an end-run around the U.S. government to appeal to the International Telecommunications Union, which has ultimate and international authority over spectrum. Watch out, GLONASS and Galileo — and U.S. troops operating in foreign theaters.<br/><br/><em>GPS World</em> has received copies of three “fact sheets” authored by two lawyers and a strategic consultant. The documents are addressed to ITU-R WP 4C, the International Telecommunications Union Working Party that handles mobile satellite services (MSS) and radio determination satellite service (RDSS spectrum) and orbits. One document is titled “ Compatibility between Complimentary Ground Componenet in the 1525–1559 Mhz and 1626.5–1660.5 Mhz Bands and Other Service.” All three documents appear to be cover sheets for longer treatises, and their language and citations are not entirely clear to me, as my legal and regulatory background leaves something to be desired.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">However, they announce their purpose as “to modify and refine the example methodology to calculate aeronautical mobile satellite (route) service spectrum requirements,” and “to address ongoing Integrated Mobile Satellite Service Complimentary Ground Component compatibility matters,” and finally “to update the Integrated Mobile Satellite Service Complimentary Ground Component technical characteristics based upon the most recent information regarding CGC deployment plans in this frequency band.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">One source familiar with the documents, who did not wish to be named, commented that “One should interpret what LightSquared is doing with ITU as a bellwether indication of intent to use the whole band at the full authorized power, no matter how they spin ‘protect GPS’ in their press releases. </p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">“At first blush, the filings look innocuous; let me assure you, they are not. This is the first salvo. Watch what they do, much more than what they say.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"> “These are fact sheets intended to inform the U.S. government that LightSquared intends to develop papers with the intent to get the U.S. government to approve the papers to be sent to the ITU WP-4C, the Working Party that handles MSS and RDSS spectrum & orbits. The ultimate goal is to work internationally to allow LightSquared to allow ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) broadcast globally.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The three so-called <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/lightsquared-fact-sheets-11824" target="_blank">fact sheets are appended here</a>.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">In other developments, going now in reverse chronological order, from most recent to early June:</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong>Congressional Activity</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">On June 23, the U.S. House of RepresentativesAppropriations Committee approved the fiscal year 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. One amendment to the bill prohibits funding for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to remove conditions on or permit certain commercial broadband operations until the FCC has resolved concerns of harmful interference by these operations on GPS devices. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote. <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/congressional-committee-blocks-fcc-approval-lightsquared-11818">More details here</a>.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Previously, on May 27, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill stating that the FCC shall not provide final authorization for LightSquared operations until Defense Department concerns about GPS interference have been resolved. The bill then went to the U.S. Senate for its action.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The House actions and a letter to the FCC signed by 32 U.S. senators may presage a showdown over the issue between Congress and the president, who has promised increased broadband access. A 4G wireless network providing this access could be facilitated by LightSquared sales of service via its tower transmitters to wireless carriers. LightSquared has already signed a $20 billion, 15-year deal with Sprint.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong>Money Talks</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">A report on “<a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/the-economics-disruption-96-billion-annually-risk-11825">The Economic Benefits of Commercial GPS Use in the United States and the Costs of Potential Disruption</a>” was presented by during a June 21 webinar sponsored by the Coalition to Save Our GPS. The report estimates that “the direct economic benefits of GPS technology on commercial GPS users are . . . over $67.6 billion per year in the United States,” but also that ““the direct economic costs of full GPS disruption to commercial GPS users and GPS manufacturers are estimated to be $96 billion per year in the United States.”<br/><strong><br/>Final Report Withheld</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">At the last minute of a June 15 deadline for the final Working Group report on interference, <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/lightsquared-asks-receives-extension-final-interference-report-11794">LightSquared asked for a two-week extension</a>. Federal regulators granted the request, and the final report is now due on July 1.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">A spokesperson for the Coalition to Save Our GPS revealed that “The Working Group results show devastating interference to GPS and no proven method of mitigation. Delay will not change these results. These results are the same results the FCC had had before it granted the waiver.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong>Some Solution. </strong>Three days after requesting the delay, LightSquared announced it had solved the problem, by proposing to broadcast only from the lower end of its permitted spectrum band. GPS experts countered that this would still disable the functioning of high-precision receivers.<br/><br/>“This comes out of the blue, without the knowledge, agreement or consensus of the industry group studying the problem,” riposted the Coalition to Save Our GPS. “That may well be because virtually nothing has actually changed in this “new” proposal relative to what LIghtSquared pledged at the outset of testing. The power levels don’t change. Nor do the frequencies. In fact, the only thing that has changed is the <strong><em>order</em></strong> in which the channels within the band adjacent to GPS would be deployed.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">“LightSquared’s announced “solution” has two components:</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">“1. LightSquared acknowledges that “[e]arly test results indicated that one of LightSquared’s 10MHz blocks of frequencies poses interference to many GPS receivers.” LightSquared states that for “the next several years” it would not operate in this band – which is directly adjacent to GPS spectrum and is referred to as the “upper MSS band.” During this period, LightSquared would commence operations in a second 10 MHz block of the MSS band , referred to as the “lower MSS band,” slightly further away from GPS. <br/><br/>“2. According to the proposal ‘LightSquared will modify its FCC license to reduce the maximum authorized power of its base-station transmitters by over 50 percent. This action will limit LightSquared to the power it was authorized to use in 2005.’ <br/><br/>“This so-called solution is not a solution in any shape, form or fashion,” continues the Coalition. “This is not a move to an alternative frequency band. Nor is it a reduction in power relative to what has been tested from the beginning. The “solution” would cause massive disruption to many critical U.S. economic sectors, initially including public sector users of high precision GPS, later followed – after “the next several years” — by other GPS users. The only real solution to the LightSquared interference problem is to move out of the MSS band altogether."</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Click here for the full document, “<a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/new-solution-is-a-non-starter-11823" target="_blank">New ‘Solution’ Is a Non-Starter</a>.”<br/><br/><strong>Air Transport Opposes Waiver</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Air Transport Association and the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association told Congress that the only acceptable mitigation is for LightSquared’s operations to be moved outside of the L-band and away from GPS. “With so much of the early evidence showing that LightSquared’s proposed network would potentially endanger nearly every flight operating in U.S. airspace, it seems evident that no further development of this system can be allowed.”<br/><br/><strong>Military Report Calls for FCC Retreat</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The National PNT Engineering Forum concluded after testing classified and GPS receivers under LightSquared terrestrial transmission conditions: “Significant concerns remain that operation of an ATC integrated service as originally envisioned by the FCC cannot successfully coexist with GPS.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/npef-report-military-receivers-calls-fcc-recision-11800">The NPEF report</a> calls for rescinding the FCC waiver for LightSquared terrestrial transmissions, conducting more thorough studies on impacts, and revisiting the 2003–2010 authorizations. The group tested a variety of military receivers under classified categorization, also known as “government receivers.”<br/><strong><br/>Rebuttals Distort Record</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Claims by LightSquared’s Carlisle and FCC chair Julius Genachowski, that the GPS industry knew long ago about LightSquared’s plan for powerful terrestrial transmitters, contradict the truth. Examination of FCC filings show that the GPS industry knew about and agreed to a plan by a previous ownership of the company, for a different purpose, with a different business concept, and employing a completely different technological approach, one that would not have harmed GPS transmissions and disabled GPS users the way the current LightSquared plan does.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The terrestrial broadband operations first unveiled in November 2010 cannot be described as ancillary to the purpose for which Lightsquared predecessors Motient, MSV, and SkyTerra received their spectrum and licenses — that is, to provide a service that was primarily a mobile satellite service. The November letter to the FCC described a new business model that turns the original concept on its head. LightSquared for the first time revealed plans to build a “nationwide network of 40,000 terrestrial base stations,” and stated that “the capacity of its fully deployed terrestrial network across all base stations will be tens of thousands of times the capacity of either of [its] satellites.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The deviations from established policy required to accommodate LightSquared’s new business model are not technicalities. They represent a fundamental change to a complex and interrelated set of rules that were carefully designed to protect GPS users from interference.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The predecessor companies had to protect their own primary satellite operations from interference. The protection that their own satellite operations required was also sufficient — at that time — to protect GPS receivers. The terrestrial network and powerful signal LightSquared now proposes bear no resemblance to the operations the FCC authorized in 2003.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">For further commentary in this vein, see <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/lightsquared-fcc-rebuttals-distort-record-11774">LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record</a>.<br/><strong><br/>PNT Advisory Board: Move ATC</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">At its June 9–10 meeting, the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board found that GPS services cannot be assured if the LightSquared plan is approved, and that the only viable option for continued availability of GPS as well as new wireless broadband is to find another spectrum for LightSquared not adjacent to the GPS frequency.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">The formal recommendation reads: “The provision of GPS services cannot be assured if the LightSquared proposal for satellite and terrestrial broadband provision using the MSS L-Band receives final approval.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">“The only reasonable and viable option to continue ubiquitous availability of GPS and the provision of a new 4G wireless broadband capability would be for the FCC to assign an alternate frequency spectrum to LightSquared that has little or no probability of affecting the delivery or utilization of GPS/GNSS services.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">During its meeting, the Advisory Board heard directly from one representative of LightSquared, the company's executive vice president, regulatory affairs and public policy, Jeff Carlisle, and from Jim Kirkland, vice president and general counsel, Trimble Navigation, speaking on behalf of the Save Our GPS Coalition. "Without knowing otherwise," commented one observer, "one might have thought they were talking about two different sets of FCC actions. Their interpretations of FCC actions were completely orthogonal to each other."</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">During the discussion, one Advisory Board member, a former governor of the state of Wyoming, told presenter Jeff Carlisle of LightSquared, “Your definition of mitigation seems more tied to a legal argument than a common-sense argument.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"> Other speakers on the LightSquared/GPS panel included Dean Bunce, co-chair of the National PNT Engineering Forum (NPEF), which has had responsibility for testing various classified GPS receivers under LightSquared conditions; and Robert Frazier of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Spectrum Planning and International Office. </p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Most of the presentations from the meeting <a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.pnt.gov/advisory/2011/06/">are now posted online</a>.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Another observer at the Advisory Board meeting opined of the LightSquared presentation and subsequent replies to questions from board members, “I’ve seen weasels before, but not like this. Misinformation, mis-statements, reversals and take-backs, outright lies.”</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong>Tests Slam Hi-Precision Receivers</strong></p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Data from Las Vegas field tests show that wide-bandwidth, high-precision GPS receivers started feeling the effects of the LightSquared transmission about 1,800 meters from the tower. Medium-bandwidth high-precision GPS receivers started feeling the effects of the LightSquared transmission at about 1,200 meters from the tower. In each case, there was about a 200-meter buffer from when the GPS receivers started to feel the effects of the LightSquared transmission to the GPS receiver being jammed, at 1,600 meters and 1,000 meters respectively. For further details, see<a rel="nofollow" style="color: #b50a1a; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-weight: normal; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;" target="_blank" href="http://www.gpsworld.com/survey/test-data-shows-lightsquared-slams-medium-and-high-precision-gps-receivers-11726">this article</a>.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;"><em>GPS World</em> has received further details of the tests but not an authorization to publish them yet.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">Deere & Company, a major provider of precision agriculture equipment and services, notified the FCC on May 26 of substantial interference with its GPS receivers by the LightSquared signal. Deere receivers registered impact of and interference by the LightSquared signal as far away as 22 miles from a transmitter. Further, the company has found no practicable technical solution to the problem.</p><p style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; color: #525252; line-height: 16px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px;">-From GPSWORLD.COM</p><p></p></div>