Lights out for LightSquared
posted at 9:50 am on February 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
National Journal calls it “a colossal fall from grace,” but it comes only as a political surprise that the FCC acted yesterday to kill off the LightSquared proposal. After an extraordinary one-year grace period to resolve the interference issues of its network with existing GPS systems, the FCC reluctantly admitted that “no practical way” to fix the basic problem of high-powered terrestrial broadcasts on a spectrum slice intended for low-power satellite communications (via Instapundit):
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to reject LightSquared’s planned wireless network on Tuesday after the president’s top adviser on telecom issues said there is “no practical way” to prevent the network from disrupting GPS devices.
Philip Falcone and his investment firm Harbinger Capital invested billions of dollars in LightSquared’s plan to build a nationwide high-speed cellphone network, which now appears dead. …
On Tuesday, Lawrence Strickling, the assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, said government testing showed LightSquared’s network would cause widespread problems with GPS devices, including ones used by pilots to prevent their airplanes from crashing.
“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,” Strickling wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.
The action by the FCC would not only end the waiver process, it would force LSQ off of the terrestrial towers it now uses on those frequencies, ending all of their operations:
As a result of Strickling’s recommendation, the FCC will propose revoking LightSquared’s conditional waiver and and indefinitely suspending its authority to operate cell towers.
LSQ was caught unawares, according to National Journal:
The quick reaction seemed to catch LightSquared off guard. Just an hour before the FCC announced its decision, a LightSquared spokesman blasted the NTIA conclusion and said the company “fully expects the [FCC] to recognize LightSquared’s legal rights to build its $14 billion, privately financed network.”
The decision marks a colossal fall from grace for the wireless startup, which has waged a bitter fight over the network for more than a year. LightSquared wants to build a nationwide wholesale wireless network based on satellites and ground transmitters.
The Washington Post notes that the LSQ venture started out as a poster child for the Obama administration’s desire for broadband expansion, and turned into a potential exhibit for their crony capitalism instead:
It was a model project — a privately funded business that would carry out Genachowski’s plans to create more competition to giants AT&T and Verizon Wireless.
But the satellite venture struggled with financing as regulatory scrutiny of the network grew. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked if the FCC was paying special favors to the company and asked for all correspondence between officials and the firm. Genachowski’s office refused, saying Grassley’s Judiciary Subcommittee doesn’t oversee the FCC.
Meanwhile, government aviation and military officials sounded alarms that LightSquared’s network would interfere with everything from landing gear to weather prediction systems. The FAA predicted multiple deaths could occur if the network was launched.
The only model this demonstrates is how Democratic donors got favorable treatment from the Obama administration. The Post doesn’t mention that Obama was an early investor in a LightSquared predecessor, or how investors had access to the White House, nor how the White House tried to pressure witnesses to Congress to modify testimony favorably toward LightSquared. None of the reports mention that the FCC could have easily bench-tested this a year ago and found out exactly what we know now, which would have saved LightSquared and taxpayers a lot of time and money. Grassley’s investigation wants to get to the bottom of all these questions, and so far Genachowski has been stonewalling to prevent it.
Meanwhile, good riddance to LightSquared and its attempt to use political pressure to get a 4G cell network on the cheap at the expense of GPS consumers, commercial aviation, and national security. It should never have taken this long to come to this conclusion.
- Bombshell: General accused WH of pressuring him to change testimony for Democratic donor
- Did Obama’s former investment play role in pressuring 4-star general to change testimony?
- White House offered “guidance” to second witness in LightSquared inquiry
- LightSquared disrupts 75% of GPS receivers in gov’t testing
- SEC warns LightSquared figure of potential fraud probe
- Why is the FCC stonewalling Grassley on LightSquared?
- LightSquared lobbyists pushing MN legislators to demand action from Klobuchar, Franken
- LightSquared flunks again
- Grassley: I’m not backing down on FCC holds until I get the LightSquared documents
- LightSquared “running out of cash”
- LightSquared to FCC: Quit screwing around and give us the approval
- LightSquared’s political efforts doomed to failure?
- Sprint to LightSquared: You’ve got 30 days to get FCC approval or we walk
- Advisory board: LightSquared can’t be fixed
- Grassley: LightSquared offered me a political “win” in exchange for backing down on FCC probe









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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
And now everyone is happy, except for Falcone and his hedge fund investors who bought Lightsquared.
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM
And except for people that favor fairness.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Agreed.
woodNfish on February 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Heck Yeah!! Because if all you got is reps from Nokia et al showing up, maybe no biggie. Garmin, and aerospace reps, another story.
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Well, I haven’t heard anyone contradict LightSquared’s claims that they thoroughly involved GPS industry groups since prior to 2004.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM
And except for people that favor fairness.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Wow. You have the tech knowledge of an engineer working for them, but this is the best you can do here? Kinda matters. doesn’t it?
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM
If by “thoroughly involved” you mean ignored their urgent complaints, then yes I agree with you. For example, just scan the previous HotAir headlines the follow Ed’s post.
Blick, if you are a Falcone sock puppet, then good luck. If you honestly are deluded about how radio engineers protect the spectrum, then you need to do some serious reading. The fact that the FCC was strong-armed into making a bad decision in 2004 does not mean the only fair thing to do is to make even worse decisions going forward.
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Thank you.
Not really. ALL manufacturer’s of ALL “incidental radiators” – which a GPS system is – need to be able to make this claim.
And by “interference” they mean electromagnetic energy received from frequencies that were allocated and published in the the FCC spectrum tables located in FCC TITLE 47 §2.106.
So, GPS manufactures had the responsibility to comply REGARDLESS of their industry group participation.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Lame. You did that backwards.
It’s obvious that you don’t understand this situation very well.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Blink, you are a liar. You are poisoning this thread with your blatent lies. The waver was not granted until 2009. This was nothing but a bunch of hucksters who wanted to make $20 billion worth of spectrum out of thin air and political corruption. LightSquared brings nothing new to the table.
There is no “GPS industry” as you put it. Aircraft Manufacturers, Airlines, All the cell phone segments and dozens of other business sectors all derive value from the GPS system. Who are you and why are you pushing so hard for all these businesses and people to be harmed so that these crony capitalists can enrich themselves?
LakeLevel on February 15, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Ed’s first post was September 2011.
The frequency was applied for in 2001 and allocated in 2004 after a public comment period.
Notice the gap during that time frame.
Ha ha. I’ve been a registered commenter on here for over 5 years.
I started researching this issue because something seemed too strange about it. Sure enough, there is more to the story than usually gets presented.
Oh, I understand spectrum VERY well. Electromagnetic communication systems are one of my biggest interests. I would LOVE to debate the issue if you are interested.
Um, I’M not the one of us that needs to do reading.
How was the Bush FCC strong-armed into making this decision in 2004? And why do you claim that it was a bad decision?
I’m not saying that any bad decisions should be made. In fact, FCC made the only decision they were really capable of making at this point.
But blame needs to be properly allocated for this situation.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Not so fast. I’m pretty sure the Obamassiah will pass an executive order, forbidding LSQ signals from interfering with GPS signals. Never underestimate the awesomeness of the Obamassiah. Especially when LSQ sends some campaign bucks Barry’s way.
GarandFan on February 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Nor the FCC.
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Unlike others on here, I haven’t lied about anything.
I never made any claim about any waiver. I made the truthful claim that the frequency was allocated for “FIXED” terrestrial broadcast to LightSquared’s predecessor entity in 2004.
Are you claiming that the Bush FCC was corrupt in 2004?
OK, such a stupid statement doesn’t require any type of reply.
I’m a commenter on Hot Air that likes it when a story is properly told.
I haven’t pushed for anyone to be harmed. I haven’t called for FCC to rule in favor of LightSquared at all. In fact, I’ve stated the opposite.
I just want the story told right, and for blame to be properly allocated.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Yes, it’s obvious that you don’t understand the FCC either.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM
I have not followed this until recently. But I can see no justification looking back at why a satellite communication company would have had any reasonable justification for expecting its frequency allocation could be used for a ground based data network. If you have other information, I would be pleased to look at it.
Instead what we see is a hedge fund buying a company that had satellite frequencies and trying to bribe their way around carefully designed engineering rules.
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM
And since when is my overly sensitive receiver an incidental radiator? You don’t like the whole system now?
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Blinky, are you still beating this dead horse??? Give up on your LightSquared stock: they tried to cheat the FCC rules and pull a fast one on spectrum usage for a financial gain at the expense of the GPS industry and our military…and they lost. They deserve to die.
As for your silly argument:
Is it OK to put in a hog farm on the property next to your residence?? Note that if you object, they will argue (just like you do) that your nose is too sensitive.
QED.
Give it up.
landlines on February 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM
You mean expect for the fact that FCC granted them permission to do so back in 2004 – after a 3 year application process???
Nope. The purchased entity had already been allocated the spectrum for “FIXED” terrestrial broadcast.
No, the law was on their side. Their problem was that the law wasn’t able to help them.
Now, I’ll agree that they tried to use governmental influence after they realized that the law wouldn’t help them (the past couple years). That is wrong, and those in Obama’s admin that improperly helped them need to be exposed. This is definitely part of the story that Ed gets right.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Since forever. All GPS systems emit “incidental” radiation. I’m sorry if that upsets you.
I think GPS systems are awesome. Why would you think otherwise?
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM
I’m still on here telling the truth.
And I love how you jump on here until I expose the shortcomings of your technical knowledge.
I don’t own any.
No, they tried to follow the rules. Too many GPS manufacturers ignored the rules.
Sure, if the hog farm was approved and planned prior to me building my residence.
That’s not my technical argument, but I’m hardly surprised that you’re unable to understand technical arguments.
Let’s discuss our technical education. You previously made disparaging remarks about mine, but then you disappeared when I asked if you wanted to compare.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 2:36 PM
How many $Billions of tax-payer dollars were wasted on this crony capitalist adventure in corruption to the MAX???
Colatteral Damage on February 15, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Blink,
I’m not an engineer (actually an attorney by trade)so I don’t have the technical expertise in this matter. But do you deny that Lightsquared tried to bribe gov’t officials to get favorable treatment? Right there it tells me they were skating on thin ice.
Ta111 on February 15, 2012 at 3:15 PM
No, but I also never heard this claim being made.
I’ve heard claims of attempting to use their connections to influence admin officials within the last couple years.
They weren’t just on thin ice. They were on ice that was breaking all around them. Now, who’s to blame for the breaking ice?
blink on February 15, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Blink.
Your knowledge of this subject is impressive. But this article doesn’t make it sound like my cell phone carrier was the only concerned party.
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM
That 3rd paragraph is a killer. Literally.
WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 4:02 PM
I’ve been following this story for a while over at my little slice of Intarweb Heaven, and this is the best news I’ve heard in months. To say that this debacle should’ve never gotten this far for this long is an understatement.
There were too many issues brought on by an initially poor design, although the concept itself isn’t a bad one. The mistake on LightSquared’s part was encroaching upon the the GPS bandwidth spectrum, which has a “buffer area” around it, so to speak, to prevent the type of electronic interference that LS stupidly insisted upon. The potential for many needless disasters and deaths didn’t seem to bother LS at all.
I intend to hoist a Guinness in praise of something finally done right in Washington for the first time in a long time. And the poke in Obama’s eye. But, mostly the poke in Obama’s eye. Cheers!
BackwardsBoy on February 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM
I’m pretty sure we’ve already been over this multiple times.
Lightsquared inherited a portion of the spectrum designated for MSS/ATC. The licensing for this service required a dual mode handset to prevent companies granted license for this spectrum from “splitting” the spectrum and selling satellite services separate from terrestrial services. It never caught on because no one wanted the service and there were problems in developing a dual use handset that could be marketed to people who wanted small, lightweight, smartphones.
The Obama administration had made a big push for rural broadband and had handed out loans to companies that couldn’t offer wireless services without purchasing extremely expensive spectrum and building out networks for rural areas. One of those companies, Open Range, had already received millions in loans and was going to fail unless they could partner with a company offering cheap spectrum. Enter LightSquared. 4 months after the FCC had stripped Open Range’s partner Globalstar of their ATC authority on the basis that their dual use handset didn’t meet the FCC’s requirements, the FCC issued a conditional waiver to Light Squared dropping the integrated service rule entirely as long as they could show the service didn’t interfere with GPS. The entire process was designed to favor LightSquared over competitors in the MSS market and allow the administration to trumpet their rural broadband initiative as being a success.
LightSquared predecessor was not granted permission to use the MSS spectrum for terrestrial broadcast in 2002. They were granted a change from MSS to ATC/MSS in 2005. That change was not to facilitate a terrestrial network, it was to allow ancillary terrestrial boosting of satellite signals in areas of poor reception. That spectrum was never designated for terrestrial networks because the power levels are a billion times higher than satellite signals received at ground. It’s simply untrue to state GPS knew there would be 40,000 towers blasting out signals a billion + times stronger in the adjacent band. I imagine no one considered the FCC would even suggest anything that incredibly stupid.
Wendya on February 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Ok blink,
I’ve had enough of this. I am an engineer with 40 years in the industry.
I have seen plenty of FCC shenanigans in my career. I’m thinking of the 2 GHz fiasco of 20 years ago.
There was a reason that spectrum was so cheap. There is no way that much power could be radiated on that band adjacent to other terrestrial receivers and not cause interference.
Spectrum is spaced the way it is to prevent this. Receivers are engineered to be cost-effective and efficient. Not vaults.
LSD was trying to get a jump on its competition by using a much cheaper band. They failed.
It wasn’t a fairness issue. Just plain old engineering and physics.
Somehow,LSD thought they could get around the regulations.
That is something to wonder about.
And no, this is not just an Obama thing. Bush had plenty of cronyism in his administration as well.
The difference is, we heard about it 24 hours a day on every channel and venue.
LSD? Crickets.
Capt Blasto on February 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM
I never claimed they were. That’s why the term etc. was used.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Yes, and I’ve proven myself to be right every time.
According to a report generated by the US Senate, they were allocated the spectrum for terrestrial broadcast in 2004.
That is still a fixed, terrestrial broadcast transmitter.
Yes, it was – in 2004.
1 tower would cause the same interference locally so the number of towers isn’t even a germane issue.
Look, I agree that it’s probably not something that I would have approved in 2004, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t receive an honest technical review by the Bush FCC.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Actually, I think the spectrum was free if they spent the capital to develop the rural network.
Well, you’re wrong about this. Plenty of GPS receivers DON’T experience interference the the network transmissions.
Absolutely, and the GPS industry wanted to lower their costs, shed the antenna, and miniaturize – hence the problem.
Actually, they were partnered with a major carrier.
You’re dead wrong. LS adhered to the technical constraints place on LS. It was the GPS industry that didn’t adhere to the technical constraints placed on GPS systems.
No, it was the GPS industry that ignored regulations.
Well it was Bush’s FCC that allocated the spectrum, and I don’t remember hearing about it 24 hours a day back when it was allocated.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Blink, everything that I’ve read suggests you are wrong and that is why the GPS industry was caught off guard. The change from being an ancillary system to a full blow terrestrial system came with the 2010 waiver and not in 2004, and therein lies the problem.
See the following:
Letter from Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs & Public Policy,
LightSquared, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, SAT-MOD-20101118-00239, at 2 (Nov. 18, 2010)
(the “November 18, 2010 Letter”).
LightSquared Subsidiary, LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component;IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239
ChoppedLiver on February 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Nope. Maybe you haven’t read enough, and what you’ve read is wrong.
How is THAT the problem? Are you claiming that LS’ ancillary system wouldn’t interfere with current GPS systems?
Here’s the example.
A company gets permission to build a factory to build 2,000 widgets per day in an area in 2004. Then, residential developments spring up all around the factory. Then, the factory requests permission to modify their permission to allow them to build 2,500 widgets per day. The neighboring residents all claim that the factory shouldn’t open so close to their homes so the modification (waiver) should be denied. And since it’s cheaper to prevent the opening of the factory than to abandon all the new homes, the government disallows the factory to open.
Now, I’m not claiming that the factory wouldn’t be a problem for the homes. I’m claiming that the developers should never have simply built the vulnerable homes. Additionally, I’m not saying that the factory should have been granted permission for the factory in the first place given how attractive the land was to residential developers. But I still want the story told accurately.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM
And that allocation carried restrictions, namely that it could not interfere with GPS. The ATC portion was designed to boost a weak signal in urban canyons.
That would be few and far between and under FCC regulations, would be required to coexist with existing services.
See above.
ATC transmitters would be limited in numbers, limited in power and designed to augment a very weak signal in urban canyons. The ATC provision wasn’t designed to be a stand alone terrestrial cell phone network.
The Bush adminstration didn’t approve a terrestrial only network. The ATC component was designed to facilitate satellite reception in areas where satellite signals were blocked by natural or man made features under specific circumstances… namely that they could not interfere with existing services in adjacent bands.
Wendya on February 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM
And they constrained their system design according to GPS system specifications such as those that are still used by DoD purchased GPS systems.
The fact that GPS manufacturers changed their design thereby making their new systems susceptible to the band allocated and published in the the FCC spectrum tables located in FCC TITLE 47 §2.106 wasn’t LS’ fault.
1. What current FCC regulations are you talking about?
2. So, you think it’s ok for LS’ system to interfere with GPS as long as it only does so in a few areas?
That doesn’t matter. GPS manufacturers were supposed to ensure that they weren’t susceptible to FIXED, terrestrial transmitters.
The law doesn’t say that it’s ok to be susceptible to FIXED, terrestrial transmitters as long as such transmitters are few and far between.
The Bush admin allocated the spectrum for FIXED, terrestrial transmitters.
Seriously, do you have any other argument?
blink on February 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Lightsquared reports revenue of $34 million and is being used as a mule for a multi-billion dollar investment that depends on converting highly restricted satellite spectrum into prime terrestrial spectrum that other companies have had to pay billions for so that they don’t ruin tens, if not hundreds, of millions of GPS receivers.
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM
By the way, it’s untrue that the 2004 allocation was only for facilitating satellite reception in certain areas. The 2004 allocation was specifically for use in their rural high-speed data mobile phone network.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Except that their 2004 allocation meant that the spectrum wasn’t “highly restricted” to them.
The federal government also affords drug companies special rules when developing orphan drugs. This is done to encourage development of drugs that don’t have a big market. You’re probably the type of guy that criticizes drug companies that get special rules for developing orphan drugs, right? After all, “other companies have had to pay billions” to develop their drugs, and they don’t get the special treatment.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Again, this is like a small, single-drug biotech company that receives quite a bit of investment in order to develop an orphan drug.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Again, this is like a small, single-drug biotech company that receives quite a bit of investment in order to develop an orphan drug.blink on February 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Right, cellular data is an orphan drug. What color is the sky on your planet?
Looks pretty restricted to me:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0126/DA-11-133A1.pdf
From
http://www.lightsquared.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/LightSquared-and-GPS-The-Facts-09-07-11.pdf
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Shoot, I double checked those links to late. I clicked on a link from the Lightsquared discussion of their 2004 waiver to a 2011 document.
pedestrian on February 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM
The analogy is germane, notwithstanding your ridiculous claim that I’m somehow saying that cellular data IS an orphan drug.
What is your definition of sky, or would you rather avoid a scientific discussion about this topic as well?
You quoted a 2011 ruling.
That was silly of you. If you quoted their most recently ruling, then you could show that LS is so restricted that it isn’t even allowed to operate at all.
But none of this has anything to do with the restrictions in place at the time the investment was being made.
blink on February 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM
In all of your posts, you have yet to make a sensible technical argument: you seem to believe that nature tolerates sharp edges, which is contrary to field and wave theory. In addition, you show a remarkable lack of understanding of the governing law. I didn’t want to embarrass you…just get you pointed down the path to truth…but if you pursue that line, you’re going to lose: my communications experience spans 5 decades.
I suggest you find another windmill to charge.
landlines on February 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Well, looks like Zerobama likes cell phone operators money more than hedgefundies, good to know.
anikol on February 15, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Yet another one of those “if it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened” moments.
How do we convince others how big an arm of the DNC the mainstream media has become? It’s not even subtle anymore. The only difference between Pravda, Izvestia, and the US MSM is the fact that it is privately held MSM companies that are spouting the DNC propaganda.
AZfederalist on February 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Sure I have. It’s not my fault that you’re not technically competent enough to understand them.
First, nature most certainly tolerates sharp edges. Plenty of rocks and ice fragments have sharp edges just to name two.
Second, I’ve never implied anything about any sharp edge. I know all about the power drop-off of sidebands, filters, etc. I’ve made that quite clear in all of these threads.
It’s not contrary to field and wave theory at all. A perfect sine wave (a basic carry wave) has an very sharp Fourier transform. In fact, it’s simply a spike in the frequency domain. Notice the spike at 5k Hz in this chart for the the pure 5k Hz sine wave.
However, again, I also understand how power is distributed within the frequency domain for modulated signals. This has been discussed within these threads in detail multiple times. You never offer anything to the discussion. You simply disappear when the conservations get technical.
You’re a joke. I’ve quoted Title and Section of the law for all the relevant points I’ve made. You’ve offered nothing. It’s obvious to everyone which of us knows the law.
Ha ha ha ha. Well, by all means – feel free to try embarrassing me.
BRING IT.
Experience is good, but it’s not a substitute for education with respect to RF comms. Your name and vocabulary suggests that you’re a telephone (landline) technician. You might not even have an wireless communications experience. I’m certainly not someone to disparage anyone’s profession, but you initiated the attacks on my education and expertise. I’m ok leaving it at that, unless you want to keep trying to play your little charade game with me.
blink on February 16, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Blink, I gotta ask. Are you on L2′s payroll or are you an investor?
FCC 05-30:
33. We clarify that “integrated service” as used in this proceeding and required by 47 C.F.R. §25.149(b)(4) forbids MSS/ATC operators from offering ATC-only subscriptions.
“ We reiterate our intention not to allow ATC to become a stand-alone system. The purpose of ATC is to enhance MSS coverage, enabling MSS operators to extend service into areas that they were previously unable to serve, such as the interiors of buildings and high-traffic density urban areas. We will not permit MSS/ATC operators to offer ATC-only subscriptions, because ATC systems would then be terrestrial mobile systems separate from their MSS systems. We therefore clarify that “integrated service” as used in this proceeding and required by 47 C.F.R. § 25.l47(b)(4) forbids MSS/ATC operators from offering ATC-only subscriptions
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-30A1.pdf
Wendya on February 16, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Within all the kerfluffle, I hope we’re not the year 1900 and a federal agency just shot down the automobile because it makes horses skittish.
shuzilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM
Nope. I became interested in this story when I was attacked for questioning a few of Ed’s claims. He turned out to be wrong and a dozen people claimed that I didn’t know what I was talking about. This was funny since I’m very familiar with the engineering of such systems.
Ha ha. There are buildings everywhere – even in rural areas. Anyone building such a network would need transmission towers everywhere there are buildings.
Also, are you claiming that GPS systems wouldn’t be susceptible to interference if LightSquared were to build fewer transmission towers?? Because that doesn’t make any sense.
What other arguments to you have?
blink on February 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM
This is a good question, but I don’t think this is the case.
At the end of the day, I think the advancements to GPS technology were more important than the rural service that LightSquared wanted to offer. So, I think the right outcome occurred. FCC now needs to designate that spectrum to GPS since the manufacturers have essentially usurped it.
I just don’t like the fact that this story isn’t being told completely accurately.
blink on February 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Hooray!!! At last a government agency under Obama comes to its senses.
Bitter Clinger on February 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM
I guess you feel you were attacked because you keep parroting the same misinformation we’re seeing from L2. Seriously, an amateur radio operator has the knowledge required to understand the problems inherent in the FCC’s ill intentioned actions.
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. I live in a rural area. And yes, we have buildings!!! They are not of sufficient density, tall enough or covering a large enough area (city) to block out satellite signals. The only type of canyon you’re going to encounter in a rural environment is a natural canyon.
The areas where they would be allowed to place transmitters are already problematic for GPS. (urban canyons… you know, cities with skyscrapers?) Seriously, for someone who claims to know so much, you seem to understand little.
Wendya on February 17, 2012 at 2:17 AM
No, they don’t need to designate that spectrum to GPS. They just need to keep it ATC/MSS instead of trying to build out a ground based LTE network. GPS can coexist with another satellite service.
Wendya on February 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM
They most certainly are – if you’re inside the building.
Wow, you really aren’t very bright.
Ha ha. I’m not the one that forgot about the whole being INSIDE a building.
blink on February 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM
No, it can’t. GPS receivers have effectively usurped frequencies not assigned to them.
blink on February 27, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Seriously, no, they don’t.
blink on February 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2