Ligado Networks has sued the U.S. federal government for $39 billion, alleging officials at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) misappropriated Ligado’s exclusively licensed L-band spectrum to support secret DoD systems without permission or compensation.
“The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the United States, the Defense Department, the Commerce Department and NTIA, seeks just compensation for the government’s physical, categorical, regulatory and legislative takings of Ligado’s property,” the company said in a press release.
According to the company’s lawsuit, the DoD embarked on a “misinformation and disparagement campaign” against Ligado starting shortly after the company received its FCC approvals in 2020. That campaign, according to the lawsuit, sought to revive concerns that Ligado’s 5G plans would interfere with GPS services.
Ligado alleges the DoD’s claims about spectrum interference “are a pretext” to conceal secret Pentagon systems that depend on Ligado’s spectrum.
The company claims multiple former and current senior government officials have acknowledged the DoD wants Ligado’s spectrum for its own, undisclosed purposes, and that the DoD’s activities cannot co-exist with Ligado’s authorized use of its spectrum.
“High ranking U.S. government officials have acted deliberately to deprive an American company of its rightfully licensed property,” said Ivan Seidenberg, chairman of Ligado’s board of managers.
Its complaint states the DoD, U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have deprived Ligado of all the economic benefits it could have expected from using and developing its exclusively allocated and licensed spectrum for terrestrial services.
Ligado is asking the court for “just compensation in an amount to be determined at trial for its past, present, and future taking of Ligado’s rights.”
In May the President’s PNT Advisory Board heard a presentation about a National Guard project called NITRO. RNT Foundation President, Dana Goward, recently spoke with the project’s leader, Maj. Gen. Richard R. Neely, Adjutant General, Illinois National Guard, to find out more.
Mr. Goward: Thanks for speaking with us, General. Could you start by telling us what NITRO is and why it’s important?
Maj. Gen. Neely: Of course. NITRO is a project to ensure that the National Guard and our state’s first-responder partners can maintain communications and other critical functions even if we lose GPS timing signals.
NITRO is an acronym for Nationwide Integration of Timing Resiliency for Operations. ]You know how we in the military love our acronyms.
Telecoms and most of the rest of America’s critical infrastructure are dependent on timing from GPS. However, GPS signals are weak, highly vulnerable and under threat.
In addition to bad actors who can and do jam and spoof signals, accidental interference happens all the time. Operations at the Dallas and Denver airports were each interrupted by accident for more than a day last year, for example. A couple of years ago, a passenger airliner almost hit a mountain because of interference with GPS.
Q: It sounds like this is a safety of life issue.
A: It is. Right now, if we lost GPS signals and had to respond to a domestic attack, natural disaster, or other contingency, I am confident there would be additional unnecessary casualties. We are building NITRO so that we can save those lives and keep America safe.
Q: So how does NITRO work?
A: In addition to GPS, it gets multiple sources of space-based and terrestrial time from government and commercial providers. NITRO can use any trusted source. It is not provider- or vendor-specific.
Inputs are combined and compared, matched to the nation’s atomic clocks keeping Coordinated Universal Time, and users are sent the best accurate time multiple ways including over fiber, terrestrial broadcast, and resilient wireless networks.
Another great way in which I think it will be useful: NITRO gives us a common operating picture that can help detect and terminate GPS disruptions and anomalies around the country.
Q: Is the National Guard the only user?
A: Absolutely not! This is a state/federal partnership. The states’ Adjutant Generals are working with their Homeland Security Advisors to make it available to state, local, and tribal first responders. In some instances, also to critical infrastructure.
Even though we are in the early stages of implementation, NITRO is being used by seven states and 256 organizations and it is protecting more than 33 million people, including citizens here in Illinois.
Q: Is NITRO a tasking from the President or Congress? Who told you to do this?
A: NITRO helps execute long standing presidential policy and orders, as well as the recently released National Cybersecurity Implementation Plan. It also meets congressional mandates for backups and alternatives to GPS timing.
However, we created NITRO because we identified a serious threat to the National Guard’s mission execution. It closes 11 operational gaps for us, all without changes to end-user equipment.
Q: With what groups are the NITRO team working?
A: All the states are involved through their adjutant generals, homeland security advisors, and emergency managers. The NITRO board I chair is made up of the adjutant generals from six states.
We are also coordinating across the federal government, especially with the Departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, Commerce, and Energy.
As part of this we are partnering with the Department of Transportation to establish a NITRO engineering and operational site at Joint Base Cape Cod. This will allow engineers from different organizations to see more easily what we are doing and contribute their expertise.
Q: NITRO is going to provide timing signals in places and at times when GPS is not available. Won’t the National Guard also need navigation information?
A: Positioning and navigation are very important, but not quite as critical as timing. So, we are addressing that problem first. And since wireless location and navigation are often based on timing signals, NITRO will provide a good foundation for services and systems that can augment GPS-based navigation.
Q: So, how is the project going?
A: From a technical and operational standpoint, it’s going great. We have very high satisfaction ratings from NITRO users, and states are eager to be connected as soon as possible.
The technologies used are all mature, reasonably low cost, and most components are commercially available. So, engineering-wise it is low risk.
And our team is doing a great job helping folks move from full dependency on GPS to resilient positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) operations.
Q: Do you have any concerns going forward to full deployment?
A: The only thing I worry about is continued funding. Over the next five years we need something less than the cost of one GPS satellite. You would think that would be easy to find for an important effort like this, but it is a state/federal partnership, not a Department of Defense project. So, it falls into a kind of bureaucratic and budgetary no man’s land.
Q: What’s the solution for funding?
A: That’s not our call. The folks at the White House are exploring several alternatives, and I know several members of Congress are also concerned. We see a possibility of this fitting nicely with the recent infrastructure funding bill.
Q: It sounds like NITRO is something America really needs. Let’s hope they find a solution to the funding challenge, and quickly, to keep you on track. Thank you very much for your time!
When the U.S. Air Force shot down a Chinese balloon flying at 60,000 ft (11.4 miles) on Feb. 4, the incident raised many questions about international security, international law, U.S.-China relations and technology. Among them, where is the end of a nation’s airspace — the portion of atmosphere it controls above its territory? Its horizontal boundary corresponds to that of its land border and territorial waters, which extend 12 miles out from its coastline. However, there is no international agreement on the vertical boundary.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty — to which the United States is a party and which bans “appropriation” of outer space by any nation — omits a definition of “outer space” because none of the major powers wanted to limit their own freedom of action in space. At a United Nations meeting in Vienna in 2001, the U.S. delegation said, “Our position continues to be that defining or delimiting outer space is not necessary.”
The United Nations has historically accepted as the boundary of space the Kármán line, at an altitude of 62 miles above mean sea level. It roughly marks the altitude where traditional aircraft cannot effectively fly using lift generated by Earth’s atmosphere, because the air there is just too thin. The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale agrees with this definition.
Some countries have adopted a definition for their own legal purposes, usually based on either the Kármán line or on the altitude at which orbital flight is possible without utilizing atmospheric lift. As a courtesy, a state launching a space vehicle that will traverse another state’s territory during its sub-orbital flight will notify the overflight state.
The U.S. military and NASA on the other hand, define space to begin at 50 miles above Earth’s surface. “Pilots, mission specialists, and civilians who cross this boundary are officially deemed astronauts,” according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service.
Escaping Earth’s atmosphere entirely is another story. It requires traveling at least 600 miles, to its outermost layer, where violent solar winds have greater sway than air. If that were the definition of space, however, the Space Shuttle (which orbited up to 200 miles up), the International Space Station (205 miles to 270 miles), active Earth observation satellites (280 miles to 500 miles), some of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’ s polar-orbiting satellites (540 miles) and most scientific satellites, including nearly all of NASA’s Earth Observing System fleet, would not be considered spacecraft! Lower orbits have significant air-drag, which requires frequent orbit re-boost maneuvers.
There’s no question that GPS satellites, orbiting at an altitude of about 12,550 miles, are in space. That is why they are acquired, sustained, and operated by the U.S. Space Force (USSF), established in December 2019 as the newest branch of the U.S. armed forces. Its mission is to organize, train and equip space forces to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and provide space capabilities to the joint force. As the USSF grows, we’ll hear more about it.
Nearly 50 years ago, in December 1973, the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council approved the Navstar Global Positioning System for entry into Phase I of development. Since then, through its development, deployment and continuing modernization, GPS has grown into a complex program. It is operated by the Department of Defense based on legislation from Congress, executive orders from the White House, and policies established jointly with the Department of Transportation. It supports U.S. military missions as well as myriad scientific, commercial and consumer applications around the planet. Of course, the last category, with its billions of users, now dwarfs all the other ones combined.
The GPS program, with an annual budget of nearly $2 billion and no user fees, is a gift from U.S. taxpayers to the world. It has staff in Washington, D.C.; at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia; at Schriever Space Force Base, Colorado; at the Space Systems Command at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California; at Cape Canaveral, Florida; at the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center in Alexandria, Virginia; and at GPS ground antennas in additional locations around the world. From the White House to Congress to aerospace companies, from military officers to civilian civil servants, from policy makers to engineers, from the East Coast to the West Coast to remote islands in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, GPS is a vast enterprise — most of which is little known even to people in the industry and virtually unknown to the public.
The Global Positioning System is a vast and mostly unknown enterprise. This section — the first in an occasional series of authoritative reference pieces in this magazine — aims to clarify who does what to maintain GPS as a fantastic global utility. The relevant missions of agencies or units are in italics.
After I researched and drafted the piece, I asked the experts listed below to review it and provide corrections and additions. While grateful for their substantial feedback, I take sole responsibility for any remaining errors or omissions.
Thank you to the following experts:
Harold W. Martin III, Director, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation & Timing, National Coordination Office
Michael J. Dunn, Capability Area Integrator for PNT, Space Systems Command, United States Space Force
Lt. Col. Robert O. Wray, Commander, 2nd Space Operations Squadron, United States Space Force
Scott R. Calhoun, Commanding Officer, Navigation Center, United States Coast Guard
Paul Benshoof, Technical Director, 746th Test Squadron (AFMC), Central Inertial and GPS Test Facility
Bernard Gruber, Senior Director, Northrop Grumman
Please return to this page periodically to read corrections and updates to this special section. If you spot any significant inaccuracies or omissions, please bring them to my attention by writing to me at [email protected].
On Feb. 12, the White House released an “Executive Order on Strengthening National Resilience through Responsible Use of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Services.”
It is gratifying to see White House attention to this issue. The increase in public awareness it brings will benefit individual users and the nation as a whole.
The order also hints at market driven solutions that could quickly improve America’s PNT resilience.
Needless delays
Unfortunately, the order fails to direct immediate action on this critical national and economic security issue. Instead it needlessly pushes most action and responsibility off for a year or more to do “more study.”
This is hard to understand as most of the “more study” has already been completed. For example, the order tells the Department of Commerce to take up to a year to examine PNT use in various sectors, and identify vulnerabilities and user needs. The Department of Homeland Security has already completed a National Risk Assessment and, according to congressional staff, has recently completed a report on user requirements mandated in 2017’s National Defense Authorization Act.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is given a year to develop a plan to test robust and resilient non-GNSS PNT services (but is not required to actually do any testing). Congress mandated such a test program in 2017 and funded it with $10 million in 2018. After much delay, the Department of Transportation will complete the testing in May of this year.
The order gives the Department of Commerce six months to make available a time source to support critical infrastructure. For more than 60 years, the nation’s master clock has been available to users at the department’s NIST Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.
Note the challenge has not been the clock, but that the nation has no way — other than vulnerable GPS signals — to distribute time at the needed level of accuracy to millions of critical infrastructure nodes. Government studies in 2007 and 2014 determined that the best way to do this was with a ground-based system. The Department of Transportation’s ongoing testing program is examining this issue again.
Market-driven solutions
Aside from increasing public awareness, the best thing the Executive Order does is to point a way forward for market-driven resilient PNT solutions.
The order calls for federal contracts to (in 21 months, if everyone does their jobs on time) require that vendors use existing and new resilient PNT sources.
If this eventually happens, the government could leverage its enormous influence in the market and stimulate creation of one or more commercial distribution systems for resilient, non-GNSS PNT. This is a great concept, and very much in keeping with America’s tradition of letting market forces solve some of its biggest problems.
But this solution will not spring into life on its own.
No commercial entity will invest tens of millions of dollars, or more, in a PNT system without assurance in advance of an income stream. Especially since federal contracting officers can and will waive the requirement if offerors cannot reasonably meet it.
If stimulating a market solution is the administration’s intent, it must stay actively involved and encourage the process for some time to come.
This includes complying with the 2018 law that requires establishment of at least one wireless, terrestrial, difficult-to-disrupt source to back up the timing signals provided by GPS.
Fortunately, this can be done by leveraging the free market at minimal cost and with little administrative effort.
By contracting to subscribe to a commercial service that will provide resilient PNT signals, the government need only invest a relatively small yearly sum using a fairly simple contract vehicle. Such a contracting technique has been used before with great success.
In 2007 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did this as a way to establish its ADS-B aviation tracking and safety network. Once the subscription contract was let, the commercial provider was able to get financing and quickly build out the system.
Today, the FAA gets the information it needs, doesn’t have the headache of owning and maintaining a large network, and even shares in the revenue the system owner earns from selling data to other companies.
Additional leadership needed
It is important to remember that, regardless of the issue, presidential pronouncements are not enough.
In 2004, President G.W. Bush directed a number of actions to protect the nation’s critical PNT, including establishment of a GPS backup capability. While 16 years later his directive is still official executive branch policy, that mandate and many others from his order are still unexecuted.
Real improvements to PNT resilience and our nation’s security depend not on one-time pronouncements, but continued leadership focus and engagement.
This is always a challenge for initiatives driven by the White House. It will be doubly so in this case as there is no clear department leader for civil PNT issues the administration can rely on while it attends to the next issue of the day.
Ligado Networks has sued the U.S. federal government for $39 billion, alleging officials at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) misappropriated Ligado’s exclusively licensed L-band spectrum to support secret DoD systems without permission or compensation. 
