LightSquared lobbyists pushing MN legislators to demand action from Klobuchar, Franken
posted at 2:25 pm on December 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Hot on the heels of catastrophically bad test results for LightSquared, their new strategy to get FCC approval for their commercial rollout has emerged — in St. Paul, Minnesota, of all places. Last week, lobbyists started a full-court press on state legislators in an effort to pressure US Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken into pushing for the FCC approval that the 75% failure rate in NTIA testing should disqualify. While the lobbying efforts of the Lehman Group are not new — Minnesota State News announced their efforts back in September — the lobbying has taken a more urgent tone of late.
The e-mail, as MnSN wrote back in September, leans heavily on LightSquared as a popular project among rural voters, as well as a long list of current supporters. However, it makes a few curious claims as well in light of more recent developments, and it’s worth highlighting a couple of them. (The complete e-mail is at the end of the post.)
LightSquared has a contract with Best Buy, which plans to roll out a national branded Best Buy cell phone product using LightSquared’s network. This is an exciting new business opportunity for this important Minnesota Company.
An important note for consumers is that the very low wholesale rates that LightSquared will be charging its retail partners means retail cell phone rates for LightSquared’s partners are expected to drop by 33-50%! That is very good news at a time when business and household budgets are stretched.
Best Buy is indeed a big Minnesota-based company, and a LightSquared deal makes sense — especially if those claims on retail cell phone rates are true. They almost certainly are — thanks to the waiver LightSquared got from the FCC to proceed with its plans, based on using a part of the spectrum it already owns and which is most emphatically not authorized for cell phone service. Other cell phone companies had to buy cell-phone service spectrum at auction from the FCC and paid billions of dollars to do so. If the FCC makes the waiver permanent, LightSquared can undercut prices on existing cell-phone providers — which is what LightSquared and its parent Harbinger intended all along. It’s also why Sen. Charles Grassley and others are looking at the political connections between Harbinger and the Obama administration and the curious actions of the FCC to keep this project on course for a rollout.
The lobbyist letter mentions the issues of LightSquared’s interference with GPS devices — by blaming the long-existing GPS equipment:
The GPS industry has raised concerns about LightSquared’s signals causing interference for GPS devices. The inteference is caused because GPS devices have been mismanufacturerd to receive signals outside their FCC-authorized spectrum. This means that when LightSquared broadcasts signals within its FCC-authorized spectrum, GPS devices “squatting” in the LightSquared spectrum pick up LightSquared’s signals.
First, this is absurd. GPS devices are receivers, not transmitters, and receivers do not “squat” on spectrum. They are built to receive very weak signals from satellites in space, which means they have to have a great deal of sensitivity. This is the very reason why LightSquared’s spectrum was not authorized for cell phone service in the first place. Second, the GPS industry has sold millions of these receivers for more years than LightSquared has attempted to get itself cell-phone spectrum on the cheap from a politically-allied administration. They are not “mismanufactured” just because LightSquared now wants to establish terrestrial networks that will swamp out the satellite signals these devices need to receive in order to operate.
The letter continues:
Despite the fact that the GPS community has done nothing to mitigate a problem that is caused by its devices operating in LightSquared’s spectrum, the good news is that a fix is coming thanks to a significant financial investment by LightSquared. In addition, several GPS manufacturers have come forward and are working with LightSquared on a fix that will restrict GPS devices to receiving signals only within their FCC-authorized spectrum.
Once again, the FCC authorizes spectrum to broadcasters, not receivers, but even so, this claim of a “fix” prompts another question. Who has to pay for the “fix,” and will it work with all existing GPS devices already in the field? Minnesota legislators who ask this question are told that the “fix” costs only 50 cents a unit, and that it will only take a “minor programming tweak.” According to my source on Capitol Hill, that’s not so; it will take the addition of an antenna and other modifications to the unit to successfully pinpoint terrestrial location with a less-sensitive receiver.
On the question of who pays for fixing all of the existing GPS units, which would apparently entail sticking an antenna on millions of the newer-generation smartphones that provide GPS tracking, the lobbyist response is that because the devices are “mismanufactured,” their makers should issue recalls and retrofit at their expense. They claim that the government would make Detroit automakers whose gas tanks explode in collisions fix the problem themselves. Of course, these GPS devices are not exploding, and they operate perfectly well under the spectrum assignments the FCC has had in place for all the years before LightSquared wanted a waiver for the use of its satellite-communication frequencies, so it’s unlikely that the NTSB or Consumer Product Safety Commission will order a recall.
What does that mean? It means that an FCC approval of LightSquared will force millions of people to abandon their current devices and buy the less-reliable and less-convenient devices that would have to take their place. Harbinger won’t be paying for those retrofits, and neither will GPS manufacturers who would stand to make more money by forcing people to change out the devices at their own expense. And even if the devices are retrofitted, how convenient would a smartphone with a big antenna be?
But what about the massive NTIA testing failure? They have an explanation for that too — that the NTIA tested their system at much higher power levels than what will take place in the rollout of the LightSquared service. Anticipating this argument, the satellite-communications industry blog TMF Associates explains the NTIA’s approach on power:
As I mentioned on Friday, the test results from the draft NTIA report indicated that 75% of cellular and general navigation devices suffer from harmful interference. These are the 400 million “cell phones and auto systems” whichLightSquared claimed were “already compatible” with its network, based on the “new plan, which was announced in June”. Now LightSquared claims that the tests did not take into account “a critical element in LightSquared’s mitigation proposal to manage the power from its network that GPS devices will be able to receive”. However, this “power on the ground” proposal was first set out in a presentation to the FCC in early September, and was never part of LightSquared’s June proposal. That was only a day or two before the NTIA mandated this further round of tests, so it is hardly surprising that it was not considered as part of the recent testing.
It is important to note that this phase of testing related to operation solely in the lower 10MHz block of L-band spectrum at LightSquared’s revised operational power limit of 32dBW (exactly as proposed by LightSquared in June). I understand that the test criteria was a limit of 1dB increase in the signal to noise ratio (rather than the 6dB that LightSquared originally proposed but the NTIA refused to accept), with line of sight to the tower. LightSquared’s newer “power on the ground” limits proposed in September do reduce the output power below 32dBW (to as little as 21dBW, i.e. ~15 times less) on the shortest towers (because these will produce the highest interference level close to the tower). However, LightSquared also proposes to increase these power levels by 3dB (i.e. double) in Jan 2015 and another 3dB (double again) in Jan 2017, so that far more towers will be operating at the 32dBW output level tested by the NTIA. Even a tall tower operating at the full power level could have a vehicle passing nearby in line of sight to the main beam, e.g. if the tower is next to an elevated roadway.
All in all, it is certainly true to say that the government conclusions are based on conservative assessments of interference (modest impact on devices in line of sight to a tower operating at the maximum power level). However, this is understandable when general navigation devices are relied on for vehicle safety, including in light aircraft.
Don’t forget that the FCC required LightSquared to pass this NTIA test as a condition of commercial rollout. The NTIA concluded that “No additional testing is required to confirm harmful interference exists,” which means the FCC has to withdraw the waiver. Hence, we now see LightSquared’s lobbyists scrambling here in Minnesota to generate the kind of political pressure that could convince the FCC to change its mind, and if that’s happening in Minnesota, I’m willing to bet it’s happening in other states as well.
Here’s the e-mail that state legislators are receiving:
I’m writing to give you an update on a technology issue and to ask for your help.
I’m working on a rural technology issue that promises to provide universal 4G wireless broadband Internet and cell coverage to all rural residents by using a satellite instead of cell towers to transmit signals. LightSquared is a private company seeking approval from the FCC to turn on its nationwide cell phone and wireless broadband Internet system that is based upon a patented satellite technology.*This technology will allow 4G signals anywhere in the U.S., even in areas without cell phone towers. This promises tremendous new economic development opportunities for rural communities as well as assist First Responders and law enforcement personnel.
LightSquared has contracts with about 20 national and regional cell carriers so far, including Sprint and other carriers that serve Minnesota.
LightSquared has a contract with Best Buy, which plans to roll out a national branded Best Buy cell phone product using LightSquared’s network. This is an exciting new business opportunity for this important Minnesota Company.
An important note for consumers is that the very low wholesale rates that LightSquared will be charging its retail partners means retail cell phone rates for LightSquared’s partners are expected to drop by 33-50%! That is very good news at a time when business and household budgets are stretched.
The FCC concluded its public comment period on LightSquared’s application in August and is now reviewing that proposal. It is expected that a decision will be issued later this Fall.
Support for Expanded Wireless Broadband Internet and Cell Coverage Grows
There is continuing and growing support for providing reliable wireless broadband and cell coverage to rural Minnesota and lower cell rates to urban residents. This support is bipartisan and reflects leaders from rural, suburban and urban Minnesota communities. Individual leaders and organizations from across Minnesota voicing their support by sending letters to the FCC and leaders in Minnesota’s congressional delegation include:
State Legislators:
*Senator Doug Magnus, Chair, Senate Agriculture and Rural Economies Committee;
*Senator Julie Rosen, Chair, Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee;
*Senator Geoff Michel, Chair, Senate Jobs and Economic Growth Committee;
*Senator Mike Parry, Chair, Senate State Government Innovation and Veterans Committee;
*Representative Rod Hamilton, Chair, House Agriculture and Rural Development Policy and Finance Committee;
*Representative Torrey Westrom, Chair, House Civil Law Committee;
*Representative Jim Abeler, Chair, House Health and Human Services Finance Committee;
*Representative Bob Gunther, Chair, House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Committee;
*Representative Dean Urdahl, Chair, House Legacy Funding Division;
*Senator Jeremy Miller;
*Senator David Brown;
*Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen;
*Senator Paul Gazelka;
*Representative Mary Franson;
*Representative Mike LeMieur;
*Represesentative Duane Quam; and
*Representative Joe Schomacker..
But this is not a partisan issue or a rural/metro issue. DFL legislators also support expanded telecommunciations services in rural Minnesota and more affordable cell coverage in the Metro. DFL legilsators contacting Washington on this issue include:
*Minority Leader Senator Tom Bakk;
*Assitant Minority Leader Senator Terri Bonoff;
*Senator LeRoy Stumpf;
*Senator Rod Skoe;
*Senator David Tomassoni;
*Senator Keith Langseth;
*Senator Tony Lourey;
*Senator Gary Kubly;
*Senator Dan Sparks;
*Senator Kathy Sheran;
*Senator Ron Latz;
*Senator Mary Jo McGuire;
*Senator Linda Higgins; and
*Senator Larry Pogemiller.
DFL State Representatives contacting Washington on this issue include:
*Minority Leader Representative Paul Thissen;
*Assistant Minority Leader Debra Hilstrom;
*Represenative Kent Eken;
*Representative Paul Marquart;
*Representative Tom Anzelc;
*Representative Tom Rukavina;
*Representative Carly Melin;
*Representative David Dill;
*Representative Tom Huntley;
*Representative John Ward;
*Representative Larry Hosch;
*Representative Andrew Falk;
*Representative Lyle Koenen;
*Representative Terry Morrow;
*Representative Patti Fritz;
*Representative Jeanne Poppe;
*Representative Steve Simon;
*Representative Sandra Peterson;
*Representative Jim Davnie;
*Representative Bobby Joe Champion;
*Representative Jeff Hayden;
*Representative Erin Murphy;
*Representative Rena Moran; and
*Representative Tim Mahoney.
County Commissioners and County Boards from Counties including:
·* Dodge;
·* Douglas;
·* Hennepin;
·* Grant;
·* Kanabec;
·* Koochiching;
·* McLeod;
·* Pope;
·* Renville; and.
·* Swift.
Organizations:
·* Economic Development Association of Minnesota;
·* Minnesota Association of Townships;
·* Minnesota Ambulance Association;
·* Minnesota Farmers Union;
·* Minnesota High Tech Association;
·* Minnesota Work Force Council Association; and
·* North Memorial Health Care (one of only three Level 1 Trauma centers in Minnesota)
GPS Interference Issue Being Resolved
The GPS industry has raised concerns about LightSquared’s signals causing interference for GPS devices. The inteference is caused because GPS devices have been mismanufacturerd to receive signals outside their FCC-authorized spectrum. This means that when LightSquared broadcasts signals within its FCC-authorized spectrum, GPS devices “squatting” in the LightSquared spectrum pick up LightSquared’s signals.
Despite the fact that the GPS community has done nothing to mitigate a problem that is caused by its devices operating in LightSquared’s spectrum, the good news is that a fix is coming thanks to a significant financial investment by LightSquared. In addition, several GPS manufacturers have come forward and are working with LightSquared on a fix that will restrict GPS devices to receiving signals only within their FCC-authorized spectrum. Initial tests by three different companies have been positive and a conclusive solution is expected later this Fall. One GPS manufacturer, JAVAD (http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/9228/), is already marketing a LightSquared-compatible device.
Ag Groups Reverse Opposition to LightSquared
The response to this imminent GPS fix has been positive. A number of leading national ag groups, including the Farm Bureau, the Farmer’s Union, the Wheat Growers, the Sugar Alliance and the Potato Growers, have reversed their earlier opposition to LightSquared and are asking the Congress to push the FCC to move forward with a solution to this problem that protects GPS AND allows LightSquared to proceed. A copy of their letter is attached.
How You Can Help
If you believe that rural Minnesota needs more tech jobs and consumers throughout Minnesota should have expanded cell phone and wireless broadband Internet options at lower prices, it would be helpful if you let Congressman Cravaack and Senators Klobuchar and Franken know and you urge them to contact the FCC. A sample letter for your consideration is attached.
Please note that the “ask” in the letter is very simple and is based upon the postiion taken by the Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Wheat Growers, Sugar Alliance and others – ask the FCC to reach a settlement that allows rural residents to enjoy the benefits of BOTH vital GPS services as well as expanded broadband wireless Internet and expanded call coverage.
This letter positions you in a “win-win” position:
·*You support farmers and the agricultural industry by making it clear that you oppose a solution that results in disruption to GPS signals vital to farmers.
·*At the same time, you are also an advocate for rural economic development and job creation. You support the local Chambers of Commerce, economic development directors, county commissioners and others who seek enhanced opportunities for technology jobs in rural communities. You recognize the technology deficits rural Minnesota faces in seeking to attract economic development. You also support the First Responders and law enforcement personnel who need reliable and consistent cell phone coverage to communicate with hospitals, families, law enforcement personnel and others in times of crisis.
This “win-win” position is what former Senator Norm Coleman called for in an op-ed published this week in ROLL CALL, a Capitol Hill publication. A copy of this piece is attached, fyi.
Thank you for your help on this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, can you please send me a copy of the final letters you send?
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps. That’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”
Electrongod on May 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM
So, in order to change the program, you need U.S. representatives to vote to take subsidy dollars away from their constituents.
Naga… naga… nagonnahappen!
Marcola on May 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM
WOMP !!!
ExpressoBold on May 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM
Is Pigford factored into the net result?
Odie1941 on May 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM
I also understand that there are many instances where food meant for impoverished and hungry people ends up being diverted by the local government or war lord, either used to feed his military and thereby make the suppression of the people more complete, or sold outright for cash to buy weapons and other materials to further that goal.
We need to be certain that the food actually reaches those for whom it was intended.
I’m all for getting the food there as cheaply and quickly as possible, but I also want to be certain that those from whom we make these purchases aren’t using the revenues to suppress their own people, too, or to finance the activities of those who do try to subjugate and suppress others. I’m also all for making sure that those whom we are feeding really need the aid and aren’t just making the very most of a good thing.
thatsafactjack on May 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Long term food aid can have no other impact than completely screwing over any local farmer at the destination. What could possibly come from that except losing local farmers at the one place that needs it most? The road to hell is paved…
There should not be food aid except for outright famine relief.
WitchDoctor on May 2, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Easy solution… Soylent Green!
Polish Rifle on May 2, 2013 at 7:55 PM
Meanwhile, was it 250,000 Somalians starved to death last year, or was it more? Great going guys!
Allahs vulva on May 2, 2013 at 8:05 PM
for how many decades are we supposed to “help” these people?
dmacleo on May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM
The problem there is that to guarantee the food actually reaches those in need, we would have to set up entire distribution networks in these countries, and protect the aid workers from the inevitable raids by the local warlords who try to steal the food, or prevent the passing out of food to tribes and groups they don’t want receiving it.
And then what happens when the troops we put in to protect these people have to do their jobs and kill a few attackers?
Gator Country on May 2, 2013 at 8:13 PM
It’s for placating liberals here in America. They get to feel all warm and squishy about our international outreach, while they drive their Prius by homeless people in their own neighborhoods.
Outpost has a sale on organic marmalade honey!
Polish Rifle on May 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM
One minor quibble – no liberal is going to tolerate homeless people hanging around his/her gated neighborhood. That’s what our neighborhoods are for.
Gator Country on May 2, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Get on the crazy train!
Sherman1864 on May 2, 2013 at 10:05 PM
That is the difference between great strategies and executable logistics. There are any number of ideas that sound great in the abstract, but the details of execution kill any perceived benefit and create a hornets nest of unintended consequences.
Food aid, like any aid to poor countries, almost always serves as a means to prop up bad governments while preventing corrective actions being taken by affected peoples.
More broadly, NGOs prolong the same kind of problem by the “sponsor a child” nonsense that so many of them do: they make beggars of populations even as cronies are allowed to continue oppressing them and ripping them off. I realise that’s a hard thing to say, but I believe it to be borne out by the lack of improvement in third world countries over many decades of “work” by those groups.
If we really wanted to help a famine-stricken government, we would offer to sell them food at a fair price, instead of giving them food for free (except in situations involving sudden events, such as storms, flash floods, tornadoes, hailstorms, etc.). The problem with giving them free food in general is, we unwittingly reward the bad behaviour and poor planning that brought them to famine to begin with, while preventing them from placing value on taking meaningful corrective actions to prevent it from happening again in the future.
Wanderlust on May 2, 2013 at 10:59 PM
How is this idea even an improvement? instead of dumping product and making food dirt cheap they will be bidding up the price in the very localities that need the food.
Then only the 1% will eat.
Lonetown on May 3, 2013 at 5:41 AM
Here is a better idea: How about we take the money we currently give to the farm industry for food and instead pay them to go to poverty-stricken areas to develop a self-sustaining farming industry there? Then, they get their precious subsidy and we teach these poor people how to live on their own.
“Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”
- Jesus
Odysseus on May 3, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Fabulous idea! Though, as Sam Kinison said, we might be better off taking them UHaul trucks in a lot of cases. (You live in a DESERT! The reason you’re starving is because FOOD DOESN’T GROW THERE! You want to eat? MOVE!)
Oh, and Jesus didn’t say that. It is a Chinese proverb.
As to this idea, it is fraught with problems (more than just the bad idea of food aid run by the government and the subsidy involved). If folks need food aid in an area – we certainly aren’t going to be able to buy the food locally – or they wouldn’t need food aid! If we buy it nearby, we risk problems related to intertribal/international grievances, buying it from the same groups of bad people who will intercept it upon delivery and then sell it to people we wanted to *give* it to, and massively multiplied corruption (like paying bribes to officials on both ends of the delivery chain).
GWB on May 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM
THIS.
And THIS:
I say the same thing to people who do things like live on a flood plain, fire zone, erosion zone (sea cliffs etc.). If you continually are having problems being able to live where you are living, do what humanity has always done. Move or die. It really is that simple.
You cannot expect people to keep carrying water for your a$$ bcs you are too stubborn &/or stupid to do anything about your situation.
Now I realize these people are very poor & literally probably have little to no options.
We cannot save the world from their problems. The US needs to stop being used as a police/humanitarian force in the world bcs when you feed the wildlife it gets dependent & soon cannot fend for itself.
Badger40 on May 3, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Really heartened by the realistic responses here. The situation with US food aid is really beginning to mirror the one with our ‘foreign policy’: we are running out of resources to bail the world out from itself. And a good many of the problems cannot be solved by any amount of ‘aid’, and would require something we do not have the spine for.
There is very little we can do about the fact that Third-World nations reproduce to a degree that the Duggars would be alarmed, are hobbled by primitive superstitions have no clue how to govern themselves besides with tinpot strongmen, and often simply do not have enough resources to support the population they already have. (hence the “move out of the desert” sentiments)
Frankly, folks, outright colonialism is the only thing that would even have a HOPE for solving some of this stuff. And the last colonialist nation is a wreck.
MelonCollie on May 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM