GPS World

Author: Eric Gakstatter

  • Google Changes Privacy Policy and Terms of Service

    Google announced it is revising its privacy policy and terms of service as of March 1, 2012. According to the announcement, Google will be streamlining over 60 privacy policies into one.

    Google’s new privacy policy can be viewed by clicking here. Google’s new terms of services can be viewed by clicking here.

    According to Google’s Blog, its “new policy reflects our desire to create a simple product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether you’re reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease. When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.”

    Understand how Google uses your data

    According to Google, “knowing a little bit about you can help make Google products better, both for you and for others. By understanding your preferences we can ensure that we give you the search results that you’re looking for, and by analyzing the search logs of millions of users in aggregate, we can continually improve our search algorithm, develop new features, keep our systems secure and even predict the next flu outbreak.”

    Learn more about Google users your data by clicking here.

    Finally, Google has provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about its new privacy policy and terms of service. View the FAQ by clicking here.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • More Mobile Devices, More Geospatial Trends

    Granted, I’m a mobile device geek. I see tremendous growth for geospatial apps on mobile devices. Obviously, insane numbers of mobile devices are shipping. This past Christmas, Amazon shipped 4+ million of its Kindle tablet computers.

    As I’ve written before, the future (and present) of our geospatial mobile devices largely depends on developments in the consumer electronics market. Since Apple introduced the iPad precisely two years ago and has sold upwards of 100 million units since then, the Kindle Fire is the first real threat to the iPad. It’s been successful largely because of its price, $199, about 1/3 the price of a comparable iPad. Yet, it’s functionality is quite striking. Since I bought my wife a Kindle Fire this past Christmas, she’s used her notebook computer noticeably less. Since the Kindle Fire runs Google’s Android 2.3 operating system, she can browse the web (Facebook, et al), check email, read ebooks, play Words with Friends. What else is there? The only reasons I see her using her notebook computer is to use office apps (Word, spreadsheet, PowerPoint) and to print documents.

    In a similar fashion, the computer gaming industry is going to push geospatial apps to an entirely new level. Look, for example, at augmented reality technology. I’ve written, with great anticipation, about augmented reality (AR) for quite some time. As witnessed at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this month, augmented reality is a hot topic in the world of consumer electronics.

    In some cases, AR is combined with other emerging geospatial technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

    Clearly, the hardware technology is developing quickly in the gaming world, and just like consumer mobile devices are transforming geospatial data collection, augmented reality hardware/software will migrate to the professional geospatial user community. Imagine the Call Before You Dig technician being able to “see” the underground infrastructure on his/her table computer without having to break out a shovel. Imagine the groundskeeper being able to “see” the underground irrigation system on a table computer to know where to look for a faulty valve. Imagine the first responder, in a building filled with smoke, being able to clearly “see” doorways, hallways, stairwells, exit signs, etc.

    The hardware to accomplish the above is developing fast. The data? Not so much. I wrote a piece about this a few months ago. If you’re in the geospatial industry, the opportunities are endless.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Should GPS Users Accept New ‘Fees’?

    This week, I’m pleased to present to you an essay written by Gavin Schrock, a licensed land surveyor (Washington), technology writer and administrator of the Washington State Reference Network (WSRN), which operates 103 GNSS reference stations that comprise the statewide RTK Network. He has written about surveying, mapping, GNSS, civil engineering, GIS, and data management for industry and association publications. He is usually not as cynical as he is when facing potential forced upgrades/replacements/production losses for his profession and the GNSS community.

    With plenty of announcements, posturing and news, expect another newsletter shortly from me recapping the LightSquared events of December and January.

    Eric Gakstatter

    Should GPS Users Accept New “Fees”?

    “Eat your spinach, you no good’ infink [infant]’. Eat it. EAT IT. Eat it.!” – Poopdeck Pappy [from Popeye]

    By Gavin Schrock, LS

    GPS is free of charge; period. Apart from any costs you incur in securing your own equipment to utilize the signals from the GPS constellation, or to subscribe to some augmentation service, there are no direct user fees. This is codified in our nation’s laws; GPS is free of user fees and this policy has remained consistent throughout the history of the U.S. Global Positioning System. End users, industry, public safety, and some international agreements, are based on or rely upon this fundamental, ubiquitous, irrefutable, concept of free!

    Not that a fee would not be a great revenue generator; it has often humorously commented on within the Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) circles of the government that if one penny could be charged every time a GPS-based position is generated that there would be no debt. But this is not a serious consideration, and for the very reason we have GPS in the first place: we’ve already paid for it. GPS is essentially a military program, a weapons system “friend with benefits”. Taxpayers own this system. It was funded for and is operated (in an exemplary manner) by the military for specific purposes, but is almost exclusively unique as a military program in that it provides almost unprecedented direct economic and public safety benefits to the civilian world as well. In other words; we really get our money’s worth out of this investment.

    The military can keep it free because they reap enough internal benefits to justify the expenditures; like valuable encrypted services for their own national security purposes. Many fear that the military might lose a substantial portion of this justification if such things as P-Code encryption were turned off, as some have suggest (without the newer “M-Code” being fully deployed first) and that bean counters might start looking at fees. Fees are universally so unpopular for dual-use GNSS systems that no other constellation provider does, nor plans to do so, with the possible exception of the European Galileo system; and there is still great internal debate and dysfunction within the EU and the Galileo program on the design of a franchise model for user fees. Some have also tried to characterize expenditures for developing, deploying, operating and modernizing the GPS constellation as “subsidies” for GPS manufacturers and users. Many more view it as: we paid for it, we own it, and it ain’t a subsidy. Are lighthouses and highways considered subsidies?

    You can freely look for and receive GPS signals anywhere they may roam, worldwide and in any band they may wander, not just the GPS Band. There are absolutely no restrictions on receiving GPS signals. The FCC regulates transmissions, not reception. You are not breaking any laws or “squatting” if you look for GPS signals in the next band or the one beyond that. You can try to look into an FM band with your VHF radio if you want. It may not make any sense, but there are no restrictions. What one does with received signals can run afoul of the law though (like eavesdropping on private conversations or decoding encrypted national security transmissions), but when it comes to GPS, there are no current restrictions on what you listen to.

    That the FCC only regulates transmissions and not reception discounts calls by some (guess who), for the FCC to develop and enforce standards for GPS receivers. The FCC is generally only concerned with what things emit or transmit. A receiver does neither as it is transmissions and emissions that harm other users. There may be no legal standing for the FCC to regulate receivers. The same kind of selective indignation is heard the characterization of GPS units as being “unlicensed” (got a license for your FM car radio?). This is another attempt to deflect from the immediate issue at hand by implying that your GPS gear is somehow breaking some rules, is deficient, or that the manufacturers have been negligent. More storms in teacups?

    No Steps Backward, Only Steps Forward

    To this date, the gracious hosts of the GPS constellation (USAF) has not implemented any fundamental design changes that would force you to have to change your GPS uses, or incur any additional costs in doing so. Quite the opposite, there have been many improvements along the way which would make one consider a voluntary upgrade. An example of changes for the better include Selective Availability (deliberate degradation of GPS signal) being turned off in 2000. That action was made permanent in 2007 and such actions acknowledge the tremendous lateral benefits of civilian uses. It will not be until December of 2020 (at the earliest) that there will be any major change in the GPS signal (or spectrum) that will render any method or solution for utilizing the GPS solutions unusable or substantially compromised. The planned change is an option that the constellation provider may exercise at that time to no longer support selected elements of the GPS L1 P(Y) and L2 P(Y) signal characteristics. The U.S. Government acknowledges global use of GPS codeless and semi-codeless techniques is committed to maintaining as such for a whole decade for transition. That is an important distinction; a whole decade… there are no “gotchas” (nor should there be) when it comes to such a valuable amenity. This decade for transition primarily provides time for other constellation upgrades to reach fruition, providing alternatives and mitigating for the possible loss of codeless and semi-codeless functionality. That is another important distinction and concept; do no harm to one capability until there are alternatives completely in place to mitigate for the harm/loss.

    Don’t Fee on Me…

    If the U.S. government was to try to start charging some end users fees directly or via some other means like a surcharge on GPS gear, that would be met with such opposition as to drag the debate out in process and possibly the courts for far more than a decade. Such an action would also be breaching some hard wrought international agreements. Implementation of direct fees would be as improbable as being struck by a falling GPS satellite.

    Now, if the constellation host (USAF, or if forced by another agency) were to make a design change that enabled a specific private entity or group of entities to be able to charge for use of the system (i.e. like an encryption, or spectral change that might cause you to have to buy some proprietary gear) then that would be a fee and that scenario would surely cause an even bigger storm!

    But what if a U.S. government regulatory action rendered your current gear to become obsolete in some way? That you would have to incur expenditures to continue to use the very system you paid for, and through no fault or action of your own – would this in affect be a “fee”? (You probably know where I’m going with this). Some say this is moot, because (in their eyes and marketing dreams) your gear is already “obsolete”, and you should buy their gear right away.

    Obsolete?

    One would not expect the definition of a word like “obsolete” to be highly debatable, but one would have never expected a word like “ancillary”, or Ancillary Terrestrial Component to be up for debate either.

    From the FCC:  (“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. . . . 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.”).

    Sorry, got sidetracked there. Obsolete. Now look at your high precision GPS gear, the gear that you maybe even purchased within the past year. If you were to use that gear today, you would have a reasonable expectation of a certain level of precision and reliability from that gear. There are no planned constellation/signal changes before the end of 2020 that would otherwise negatively impact the expected precision and reliability of your gear. Barring events or conditions completely out of your control, or that of the constellation hosts (natural or manmade disasters, invasions of GPS eating zombies, etc) your gear will not be in any way “obsolete” (with regards to current functionality) before 2020 at the earliest (and may still function long after that).

    Your smart phone might be deemed “obsolete” by some of your technophile buddies because a new one came out, but yours still works. On the other hand some have opined “just because a company builds an electric car does not mean we should shut down all gas stations”. Comparing consumer level devices to expensive and sophisticated high precision GNSS gear is like comparing grapes and watermelons. Folks do not take too kindly to others telling them their gear is obsolete, or poorly designed – quibble about the details, but they don’t take too kindly just the same.

    But what could make your gear obsolete? Apart from the previous scenarios (and no insult to folks who believe in GPS eating zombies) there are things out there that could potentially compromise your ability to use your current gear, but none, other than things like space weather and malicious jammers (that deliberately set out to mess with current GPS capabilities), are not within your realm of control, or for the most part the control of the constellation providers. However, there is that controversial broadband plan under review that sets out to introduce a new source of interference (that does not currently exist in the specific form, strength, and coverage) being so heavily debated during this past year.

    If this perpetually-revised broadband plan is to be given the go ahead, then a new source of interference will require an upgrade or replacement of many high precision and general navigation and aviation GPS units, and if the costs of upgrades and production interruptions fall on the end users, this will, in effect, be a “fee” (or at least smell like one). Likening these costs to a fee is not any crazier or out of line than the barrage of claims and counter-claims brought about by this recent GPS-Broadband “mad as a box of frogs” debate. There are all kinds of arguments, or rationalizations of unpopular positions, that run the gamut from specific technical considerations, politics, deflection, projection, test result rejection, lobbyist injection,  to “we already have full rights to do this, GPS must accept the interference.” If that were the case, then why did there have to be a waiver? – and a waiver with strict conditions attached at that?

    The broadband applicant and the GPS industry have sparred mightily. Have the conditions of the waiver been met? Who’s fault was it? Bad receiver designs or flawed and rushed broadband plan? [Insert your own favorite rhetoric or talking point here]. Leaving all that aside for a moment, a big overlooked question is, what about the innocent bystanders that will take the heat if it is approved? The end users subject to a new “fee” of sorts. While there is fleeting mention of the “who pays?” in the deliberations (that only seems to go as deep as “the other guys should pay”), no party has set forward a practical plan to cover those costs other than the end user eating them. The highest probability is that the end user will have to eat this “fee” and that will be quite a blow to many people.

    Is the fix in, for the fix that is in?

    There has been a lot of alchemy going on over the past year with regards to this matter; attempts to turn straw into gold; like the effort to turn low-cost satellite spectrum into golden terrestrial spectrum, and more recent efforts to try to spin what will amount involuntary upgrades (“fees”) as some kind of “gift”.  Involuntary expenditures end users will have to incur, to continue to use their perfectly fine GPS gear and perfectly fine spectrum and perfectly fine constellation, as they were designed for and as they are accustomed to, are a defacto fee! To try to spin something so unsavory into a gift, gem, or blessing in disguise, is being viewed widely viewed as self serving and somewhat disingenuous. There is a reason why alchemy went out of style centuries ago by the way.

    One way to help someone swallow something unsavory is to sugar coat it, convince someone that it does not taste too bad and won’t make them sick, or wrap it in something that appeals to them. It is very likely that all manufacturers will see fit (if the plan is indeed forced on us) to sweeten the deal to soften the blow, offer incentives, and throw in cool features. No matter how cool the deal is, and what amazing features “you’d be a fool to pass up” are, there is still an element of being forced to pay to be able to continue to use GPS as you are accustomed.

    Setting aside this controversy for a moment, there are several schools of thought about upgrades. Like any product, developers (even sometimes with the purest of intentions) work very hard to develop new features and hope we see those as valuable enough to spark an upgrade or replacement purchase. This can be wonderful and with healthy competition we benefit from options for both “nice to have” new features to groundbreaking “must have” features. High precision GPS gear is not consumer GPS gear, and most folks do not buy every new unit that comes out. Do you buy a new car every year? Most need to get several years of use out of the gear to realize cost-benefit, but for others a constant upgrade can pencil out. The growing popularity among heavy users (especially construction) of leasing gear ensures all of newest features, configuration, and firmware (remember that every support call starts with “what firmware version are you on?”). This does not work for everyone and so far as there has not been a forced upgrade or other planned obsolescence, users have reasonably expected many years of reliable use out of their current gear.

    Selling (and opposing) the controversial broadband plan that sparked this flurry of debate, has been a well-funded and ongoing effort. No one disagrees that more wireless would benefit a lot of people and even laterally the very end users that will have to pay the “fees” to make it a success. We’ve been told that this plan heralds a new chapter/era/breakthrough in wireless. But it is not like there is some amazing new technology in play that could not be served by other plans, existing or in the works, that do not hurt GPS, and then we find out that the plan might not be as ubiquitous as we might think.

    We’ve been told that this is an epic battle between and “obstructionist GPS community and the very future of broadband!” Not quite; LTE is already here, growing, and there are quite a few other initiatives under way, including several hybrid satellite-terrestrial proposals that do not pose immediate threats to GPS. Opposition to this plan does not impact the entire future of all broadband. Plus there is a substantial amount of spectrum being “sat on”, and numerous tests show seriously underutilized spectrum. This has more to do with operational, marketing, and poorly functioning systems that just needs good management and policies. Of course more spectrum needs be sought over time, but why are some of the more recent (and vocal) advocates (even from within the GPS community) for this specific plan so hung up on the supposed “criticality” of this one specific plan. Wouldn’t it be better for both the expansion of broadband and the GPS community to advocate for better management of existing spectrum? Or is it better to zero in on one piece of spectrum that represents a hazard to current GNSS? How about working on underutilized spectrum and give sufficient time to work out solutions for the MSS/GPS bands? This haste and laser focus on this GPS-unfriendly option raises a lot of questions and hackles as we have seen.

    We’ve been told variations over time how the interference can “all be fixed with a ten cent filter” to “some components only cost $6″, to $300, to $800, to $5,000, to a thousand bucks a year, to… (lets drop that for a moment). We’ve also been pitched that the plan will bring forth a new cut-rate nationwide RTK network (which may not be as practical or nationwide as some might think). Though there would be benefits of more wireless choices, and a great many investors would benefit as well; does one segment of the population have to take the bullet for this success?

    New features added to sweeten the deal might be well worth the cost when separately considered as a voluntary purchase (or not), but if someone wants to eschew the sweeteners, can they get upgraded for free?

    A spoon, or shovel full of sugar helps the medicine go down…

    Manufacturers have always admirably striven to create new and amazing features, and then the sales and marketing folks have to turn those into “must have” features. This latest move with the “GPS upgrade fee sweeteners” is not an exception. Some sweeteners that will likely be added to the “GPS upgrade fee” might be “must have” to some, but might include features that are not quite ready for prime time in the view of some, or do not solve “make or break” issues for other end users. End users are savvy enough to decide what to buy and when, and if not forced to do so will buy based on business needs and cost benefits. Folks do not take too kindly to salesmen implying that they are “fools for not taking advantage of this deal”.

    For example, a forced upgrade might be offered with modifications to get access to more constellations and signals (for the limited numbers of receivers that can take that kind of upgrade). A lot of folks already have with their current gear, L5, Galileo, and other signals capability (or at least placeholders and will be waiting years before those come to fruition). Others wait until a constellation or signal is fully deployed before making a big purchase or commitment. It was announced December 27th, 2011 that the Beidou/Compass constellation has been declared operational, but how many years before that will make any difference to you in the field? Trying to sell something that is not yet ready for prime time can have mixed results. Do you remember the dark times of the old Glonass constellation? Unlike today when it has been successfully modernized and is at full deployment, there were past precision issues reported when using Glonass.  I asked a few manufacturers why a decade ago they did not heavily market their early Glonass capable gear, one response was “we did not want a customer to go out there and get [poor] results and then blame us for pushing Glonass on [them]”. Many users may be wise wait until these new constellations and signals have matured.

    A noble ambition/feature is to solve the filtering for not only this pending issue but for all forms of interference, and this has been tacitly offered as up another sweetener. With the timeline too short to pull this off before approval of this broadband plan hanging over our heads aside, are end users currently really being crippled by existing sources of interference? Not to deny the potential harm of various types of interference, but is the timing of this “awareness heightening” by some supporters of the broadband plan a case of (to paraphrase L. Frank “Oz” Baum) “pay no attention to the [broadband plan] behind the curtain”?

    The U.S. GPS Interference Detection and Mitigation Program (IDM) is a serious undertaking. There are reporting elements like the Patriot Watch portal (closed to the general public) and support/notification services (for not only interference but constellation updates and other alerts) from a “GPS Triad” formed by the USAF (military issues), the FAA (airspace issues), and U.S. Coast Guard (surface issues) already in place. I’ve queried these entities, as well as a number of RTK network operators and have not come up with a huge number of verified examples of interference that would significantly affect high precision users. I’m not saying that “the Orc we fear is worse than the Orc we hear”, but like any other element of risk assessment there should be serious analysis of incident data and testing before we rush off on a potentially costly course of action based in part on anecdotes and compound assumptions about interference.

    There have been several (but few) well publicized cases of interference that do present cause for concern, in particular the accidental military source disruption in San Diego in 2007, and the cheap “trucker jammer” that affected an airport in New Jersey. But for non-jamming or military sources (that are not typically turned on in populated areas) the other more commonly suspected sources of interference are often recognized and avoided (e.g. certain types of power lines, some sat-phone handsets, and some high power distribution substations). There are also users successfully working in areas one would highly suspect for interference, but are not necessarily a hazard; like in and around airports, military installations, and even on hilltop antenna farms, without loss of precision.

    That is not to say that interference is not a threat nor that jamming might not harm operations. Jammers are highly illegal and of course some folks will use them. You put the idea in a users head, and then the otherwise systematic debugging of field operations issues can take on a whole new element of paranoia. We’ve even fielded support calls this past year with frustrated field users asking “could this be interference from LightSquared?”, a system that has not even been turned on yet. Efforts to build affordable detection devices is a noble cause. There have been some great strides in analyzing this issue and developing new tools. The problem with serving up these things as a sweetener added to a forced upgrade, or as a tool to deflect attention away from the immediate broadband-plan issue, is that many view this in some way disingenuous.  Right or wrong, the timing and nature of how this has been spun may serve to taint the otherwise worthy issue of a broader interference.

    More at stake than your GPS unit

    Sweetening the deal and softening the blow for one limited segment of GPS users, like the surveying profession, or other specific type of GPS equipment, completely ignores other issues that can be viewed as much more compelling than that of the individual.

    Aviation: Can the same model of cheap, quickie upgrades (and sweeteners) be applied to aviation? Some of the most compelling concerns have come from the aviation community and FAA Advisory report. To assert that one could go up to a plane on the tarmac, crack open the GPS unit, put in a few cheap components and then send a hurtling can of people into the sky sounds more than reckless or insulting. Developing, acquiring, testing, certifying, installing and then testing again of aviation components is time consuming and expensive, and cannot be taken lightly.

    Public safety rightly seems to trump all in this debate, it was no surprise that the December 2011 report of recent limited FCC ordered testing was met with such shock, and that mainly over the aviation element risks.

    The same solutions for limiting interference in cell phones may not be applicable to other types of gear, and may be completely ludicrous for others. In the case of cell phones, these are narrow band (only using about 6%, or 2MHz of the 32MHz of GPS signal) as they are not concerned with precision, and many utilize Assisted GPS (AGPS); an augmentation to improve the slim pickings from such a narrow band view. High precision units, and most general navigation GPS, plus aviation, and most military are “wide band”. There is a huge difference between a cell phone being tested in a purely pass/fail mode; more for “conformance”, than for “performance” and a high precision unit that uses (perfectly legitimately) as much signal as possible to achieve such high precisions as many rely upon.

    No one would disagree that there are engineers that have been rolling up their sleeves and working on new and improved filtering options, but at this point in time, there is a sort of “spectral gun” being aimed at the end users. The view is quite a bit different from down here at the business end of said gun than from the point of view of those who are so cavalier about this subject on the trigger end. In this charged atmosphere of the current controversy, we may really need a “hype filter”. Is it too much to ask that such grand filtering ideas be backed up with solutions that have been developed and tested for every type of GPS unit well in advance of anyone monkeying with the spectrum? Sure one can assume that anything can be fixed with enough time and money; seems to be no shortage of money, but how about time? Back down the throttle a little and let this plane come in for a safe landing.

    Hold the Cheeseburger

    Wrap up something unsavory in a double-patty-pickles-onions-cheese-on-a-sesame-seed-bun and we are still being forced to consume something unsavory or disgusting– and don’t expect us to think folks are heroes for selling us a toothbrush.

    Opposition to the plan has not been limited to the GPS manufacturers or satellite communications providers who would stand to lose something in this matter. The U.S. military, aviation, agriculture, and public safety are among the others who have arguably had more say in the matter. There have been some accusations that all opposition is contrived, or based solely on conflicted interests – don’t insult us. Yes, the end user may be only looking at the costs of upgrade/replacement/production interruption but what of those who stand to gain either financially or in stature from this if approved?

    Why would parties from even within the GPS industry and community (some call “turncoats”) advocate for introduction of this new specific form of interference and inflicted forced upgrades/replacements on their own industry and end user community, and then try to spin that as some kind of gift, or path to a “better world”? Some would suspect profit, or there may be pure intentions involved, though the latter might make one think about those old spy/action movies where some group is planning to disrupt the world so that they can rebuild a more perfect world according to their plans or beliefs. Good intentions, but…

    If this broadband plan is given the green light (and even if it looks like it might not fly), or not, it may serve as a harbinger of things to come. If it fails, it is not the end of broadband or the world as we know it, and perhaps a good long term plan to manage spectrum and constellation could come of this. It would be a fantastic goal/role for joint PNT/FCC cooperation, but these things cannot and should not be rushed. Wow, managing something effectively, am I dreaming?

    If approved though, all of the manufacturers will have to offer some kind of deals to soften the blow. The end user may have no choice but to upgrade or replace, but they will have a choice in how they do this and who they patronize. Some sweetener peddlers have jumped the gun and have touted cost-benefit computations of the upgrades (based in part on some aforementioned arguable assumptions) that (they say) may only cost you the price of a burger a day; couple of bucks a day (or 50 Rubles, or whatever currency equivalent as many might turn to cheap GPS gear from overseas if forced into this). Many have expressed how insulted they feel about this attempt to minimize their concerns.

    People will not easily forget those who blatantly advocated for what many consider to be a rushed-reckless spectral disruption. Many end users have indicated that they will seek to pay (if forced to) these “fees” to other companies who did not support the potential harmful broadband plan, exercising what little choice or influence they have in this matter. Or at least if the GPS eating zombies do attack, they might be tempted to trip some of those turncoats.

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

     

  • Rules, Decisions, and Consequences

    This week, I’m pleased to present to you the third essay in a series by Earl F. Burkholder: educator, professional land surveyor, and professional engineer. Earl and I have been sharing thoughts since we had a chance to sit down and talk at the 2010 ACSM/GITA annual meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.

    By way of background, Earl is a surveying engineering educator who retired in July 2010. Licensed both as a professional engineer and as a professional surveyor, his career includes five years working for an international engineering firm, 13 years teaching at Oregon’s Institute of Technology, 12 years at New Mexico State University, and being self-employed for five years during which time he incorporated Global COGO, Inc., to promote use of 3D digital spatial data via the global spatial data model (GSDM). He wrote a book, “The 3D Global Spatial Data Model: Foundation of the Spatial Data Infrastructure,” which was published by CRC Press in April 2008.

    His education includes a BSCE from the University of Michigan, a MSCE from Purdue University, and sabbatical study at the University of Maine, Orono. He served two four-year (non-consecutive) terms as editor of the ASCE Journal of Surveying Engineering and has been involved in the ABET accreditation process since the early 1990s. He was chair of the ABET Related Accreditation Commission (now known as the Applied Science Accreditation Commission) in 2000-2001. As of October 1, 2011, he is chair of the ASCE Geomatics Division (GMD) Executive Committee.

     

    Rules, Decisions, and Consequences

    (Is there really more than one set of rules?)

    The first essay in this series asked the question, “Does the ability/authority to do something justify doing it?”  The second essay looked at “Elements of the decision-making process” and asks “Is it necessary or possible to legislate morality?”  This essay looks at rules, decisions, and consequences and asks, “Is there is one set of rules for individuals and another set of rules for businesses, corporations, and governmental entities?” Looking back at the previous article, the apparent answer is ‘yes’ – one set of rules governs personal decisions based upon values while non-personal decisions are made in the context of laws/authority.  But that raises more questions.  Since all decisions – personal, business, governmental, or corporate – are made by individuals (personally and/or collectively), in what way can accountability for a given decision be established? The path to personal accountability based on values is quite straightforward – “the buck stops here.”  In the non-personal arena the criteria are different. Here an individual is responsible directly to the organizational hierarchy but is otherwise largely isolated from personal accountability1. Within an organization and depending upon circumstances, a person is accountable to the foreman who is accountable to the project manager and on up the line to the Vice President, to the CEO, to the Board of Directors, and ultimately to the stockholders. Isolation of personal accountability is much the same in the governmental arena same except that ultimate responsibility rests with the voter – individuals speaking with a collective voice. And that brings us back full circle to the legislating morality question. Admittedly the scenario just described is a gross over-simplification but it serves to help clarify the context of choices made by humans.

    1Choices here may not be easy.  In the movie, “A Few Good Men” starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson (1992), two soldiers were on trial for the death of a third.  As it turns out, the two were following orders of their Commanding Officer who had ordered a “code red.”  They were not convicted of murder but sentenced to a dishonorable discharge.  Upon hearing the verdict, one soldier turned to the other and asked, “What did we do wrong?  We did nothing wrong.”  His buddy replied, “Yeah we did.  We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves.  We were supposed to fight for Willie.”

    The more I’ve looked at various issues, the more I realize that honest open discussion is an essential part of finding appropriate answers.  I quite agree that, in many cases, answers are not singularly “right” or “wrong” but, of necessity, solutions must include elements from conflicting positions – compromise.  Therefore, I will continue asking questions with the expectation that others will also ponder the issues and that subsequent discussion of various perspectives will contribute to a broader understanding of the issues.  The unproven presumption here is that an improved understanding of the issues is a prerequisite to finding acceptable solutions.  Recent Congressional, legislative, and bureaucratic stalemates could probably be used to dis-prove that presumption.

    The on-going LightSquared debate provides the context for my comments. I recently listened to the webinar moderated by Alan Cameron of GPS World in which Javad Ashjaee and Eric Gakstatter discussed current LightSquared issues. Javad summarized various technical issues while Eric raised questions primarily of concern to users in the GPS precise surveying user community. And, reading a recent (December 2011) press release from the Coalition to Save Our GPS, I am lead to believe that LightSquared is unequivocally committed to having their way in the establishment of the ground-based transmitter 4G network. A press release by LightSquared dated December 14, 2011, quotes LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja as saying “LightSquared has had the legal and regulatory right to use its spectrum for eight years over two administrations.”

    As I became aware of the LightSquared debate last spring and the learned about the possibility of detrimental impact on precise GPS surveying operations, my first reaction was quite simple – spectrum rights should be re-allocated to avoid conflicting uses. However, as I learned more about the issues, I realized that simple answers are not that simple. I am reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell (1959), “It is one of the rarest gifts to be able to hold a view with conviction and detachment at the same time.” Therefore, I feel obligated to look at both sides of an issue before committing to a position. I was under the weather the first weekend in July 2011 and spent most of two days in bed.  It was during that time of forced rest that I tried to sort out and understand the underlying LightSquared issues. It did not take long to realize that I needed more information and that the ideas I wanted to share could not be conveyed in a single article. That is when and how I settled on this series of six essays. Although the LightSquared debate continues to evolve and a reasoned position may be somewhat fluid, I press on in my attempts to “flush out” the underlying questions formulated last July.

    This third essay considers the impact of two different sets of rules used in guiding decisions. I find it instructive to look at consequences of not following the rules, both personal and non-personal. In the first essay I stated that I naïvely believe each person should and will act responsibly.  We all know that simply is not true. Yes, it would be grand indeed if everyone acted responsibly and was held accountable for their decisions and actions. With exceptions, this falls under the values category and most people are decent, moral, upright and caring. But, sometimes we rationalize to our own detriment2.

    The following statements are offered for contemplation.  Answer only to yourself.
    1. The rules were made for others.  I don’t need to follow posted speed limits because I am a good driver and I know how to handle my car.  Or, I can talk on my cell phone while driving because I am careful and I would never cause an accident.
    2. Many of us often consider ourselves innocent if we break the law and don’t get caught – speeding, cheating on taxes, purposefully deceiving an opponent, and the like.  A moralizing statement is, “We are what we do when no one else is watching.”
    3. In cases of civil disobedience, the end justifies the means – or not.
    4. If I am willing to accept the consequences, I can do whatever I want.
    5. Consideration of Ethics is meaningless to someone who has nothing to lose.

    2 Dear Abby, Las Cruces Sun News, December 18, 2011.  “The Cold Within,” by James Patrick Kinney

    Six humans trapped in happenstance in dark and bitter cold,
    Each one possesses a stick of wood, or so the story is told.
    Their dying fire in need of logs.  The first woman held hers back.
    For of the faces around the fire, she noticed one was black.
    The next man looking across the way saw not one of his church
    and couldn’t bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.
    The third sat in tattered clothes – he gave his coat a hitch.
    Why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?
    The rich man just sat back and thought of the wealth he had in store
    and how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.
    The black man’s face bespoke revenge as the fire passed from sight,
    For all he saw in his stick of wood was a chance to spite the white.
    The last man of this forlorn group did naught except for gain –
    Giving only to those who gave was how he played the game.
    The logs held tight in death’s still hands was proof of human sin.
    They didn’t die from cold without, they died from cold within.

    The second essay made the point that choosing to live a moral life is an arbitrary choice but, in the long run, most people conclude that it is a smart choice. Of course, if we were more consistent in learning and applying values there would be many fewer fines, lawsuits, and court cases.  Rationalizing and justifying our own actions is a process that deserves careful thought and consideration.

    What about non-personal decisions? This is not to suggest that persons are excused from consequences of values based decisions in life or in an organizational context. But, the immediate focus is to look at the impact and consequences of organizational policies and actions.  Note – it is not my intent to disparage the capitalistic system – arguably, there is none better in the world. But, I do believe a critical examination is legitimate.

    Is it said that a corporation is a legal entity without a conscience. Does that excuse a corporations from including morality as a criteria in the decision making process?  On the surface, the answer is “yes.” Although many criteria can be applied, the primary motivation for a business or corporation is to earn money for the owners/stockholders. And corporations have free reign so long as their activities are legal.  Secondary motivations include building/marketing products and/or providing services to society. The decision to be a good corporate citizen, to provide meaningful employment for others, or to operate “green” may rank high as priorities, but these secondary motivations often boil down to being a “means to an end.”

    What about the consequences of bad corporate decisions? That topic is really too huge to tackle but within, the context of the LightSquared debate, I offer several examples and raise a red flag. What about Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? The first two examples have already played out with devastating impact for many persons. Why should the consequence of those bad corporate decisions affect so many (innocent) persons?  Do the fines and prison terms for corporate officers involved balance the harm done?  Hardly! The impact of the next two examples and the subprime mortgage debacle, caused in large part by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, is well documented. Many people, some culpable and some not, have had their lives turned upside down during the mortgage crisis. But the consequences have not all been realized. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2011) has, only recently, sued the former Chiefs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for misleading investors.  A recent book, Reckles$ Endangerment, by Morgenson and Rosner (2011) chronicles the history and events leading to the mortgage crisis of 2008.  It is not a difficult read and well worth the time. And, here is the RED FLAG. With the aggressive lobbying actions taken recently by LightSquared, the parallels with events described by Morgenson and Rosner are uncanny indeed.  Every civic-minded GPS professional needs to read that book and react to unfolding events.

    Conclusion. Although two set of rules may be a fact in modern society, the quality of life for many is enhanced to the extent our decisions (both personal and non-personal) do not cause detrimental consequences for those affected by same. Let’s agree that the golden rule does not say, “Those with the gold make the rules.”

    The fourth essay in this series will look at the influence of lobbyists, some motivations for decisions, and the need for checks and balances. At this point, the challenge of extracting coherent arguments from the deluge of unfolding events appears rather formidable – stay tuned.

    Reader input and suggestions are always welcome.

    Earl F. Burkholder, PS, PE, F.ASCE 
    Global COGO, Inc.
    Las Cruces, NM 88003

    References

    Morgenson, Gretchen and Joshua Rosner, 2011; Reckles$ Endangerment, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, NY.
    Russell, Bertrand, 1959; Wisdom of the West, Crescent Books, Inc., Rathbone Books Limited, London.
    Ahmed, Azam and Ben Protess, 2011, S.E.C. Accuses Former Chiefs of Freddie and Fannie of Deception, DealB%k, New York Times, NY
    Thanks, and see you next week.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Three Geospatial Trends/Technologies for 2012

    A friend of mine is in the bathroom fixture business. When I talk to him, it really makes me appreciate the geospatial industry. While there isn’t much uncharted territory and innovation in bathroom fixtures business, the geospatial industry is ripe for opportunity and innovation. Yes, two out of three of my geospatial technology trends are mobile devices. As I wrote last month, I think the geospatial bottleneck is data. Mobile devices help ease the bottleneck by providing a widely deployed data-collecton platform. How many people do you know who own a smartphone or tablet computer that didn’t own one three years ago? They are proliferating like crazy, and geospatial apps can turn them into geospatial data-collection devices allowing more fuel (data) to flow into the GIS engine.

    Following are my three geospatial trends/technologies for 2012.

     

    1. Building Information Modeling (BIM)

    Over the past 40 years, fed/state/local government and commercial entities have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy developing outdoor GISs for applications ranging from land parcel management to utility pole management. I guess it was the case of tackling the “low-hanging fruit” since we had GPS, aerial photography, and other sensors that allowed us to collect outdoor geographic data relatively efficiently. Also, the ROI (return on investment) case for many outdoor GIS can be clearly visualized and stated. The ROI for BIM hasn’t always been easy to visualize, and the cost of populating a geodatabase with BIM information can be a challenge. But, I think we’ve turned the corner and realized the potential for BIM is astounding. Take a look at some of the following articles weve written on the subject over the past few years.

    Is the Geospatial Bottleneck Software or Data?

    Visualization in Transportation Symposium

    INTERGEO 2011: The World’s Largest Geospatial Conference

    As Data Collection Technology Advances, So Does BIM

    BIM, Son of CAD and GIS

     

    2. Smartphone Adoption

    Who can ignore the rapid adoption of smartphones around the world?

    “Crackberries” (Blackberry) have been around for many years and are largely thought of as the defacto standard for smartphones. However, the Blackberry is giving way (but still growing) and being overtaken by Apple and Android-based smartphones.

    Today’s software developers have the challenge of deciding which operating system platform to support. Should it be iOS (Apple), Android (Google), RIM (Blackberry), or Windows Mobile (Microsoft)? Although some companies with the software development resources choose to support all four, more than likely a company will select two. Which two? With RIM fading a bit, I’d say they can be dismissed first. Google and Microsoft make software development a lot easier for developers than Apple does, but who can ignore the huge iPhone market?

    Nonetheless, a huge number of geospatial apps are being built and deployed for smartphones. Take a look at some of these articles.

    Android Beating iPhone and Blackberry in Smartphone Operating System Market Share, says Nielsen Research

    RIM Nose Dives After Another Disaster Of An Earnings Report

    2011 Showed Better LBS Market Gains, But Was It All About Google?

    On the Edge: Driving Reality Home

    CSR, Navizon Debut Indoor Location and Navigation Systems

    Location Apps Popular in Japan Quake’s Wake

     

    3. Tablet Computer Adoption

    Given the tremendous consumer acceptance of the Apple iPad, the geospatial industry really hasn’t adopted the Apple iPad as much as one would think. I’m even surprised by its lackluster adoption by geospatial professionals, but I understand. The iPad isn’t exactly a computing powerhouse. It’s a sleek, attractive sports car with an engine built for efficiency and beauty, not for brute-force computing.

    However, what Apple has done is attract a number of manufacturers to pay attention to the tablet computing market.

    Also, it has brought the prices of tablet computers down to consumer price levels. The days of $4,000-$5,000 tablet computers are numbered, even the “ruggedized” ones.

    How can an organization justify $4,000 for a “ruggedized” tablet computer when they can purchase a consumer tablet computer, running Windows, for well under $1,000? Yes, in some cases you can justify the data is worth the capital expense, but in an era of severe budget cuts, it’s inceasingly more difficult to justify the expense.

    The Apple iPad Factor

    The Apple iPad Factor – Continued

    Dry Corp, LLC Introduces Waterproof Case for Smartphones and Tablet Computers

    GammaTech Introduces Rugged, Convertible Notebook Computer

    A Look at the Rugged Handheld Algiz 7

    Juniper Launches Mesa Rugged Notepad

    Take a look here for a list of consumer tablet computers from NewEgg.com. Consumer tablet computers for well under $500.

    Thanks, and see you next week.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • A Nationwide RTK Network: A Great Idea, But…

    Gavin Schrock, LS, is a licensed surveyor, technology writer, and administrator of the Washington State Reference Network, a regional cooperative GPS network (RTN) in the Pacific Northwest. He has worked in surveying, mapping, data management, and GIS for over three decades in the civil, utility, and mapping disciplines. He has published in these fields and has taught these subjects at local, state, national, and international conferences.

    Some folks are proposing that a nationwide RTK Network (RTN) be piggy-backed on the controversial LightSquared communications network. That could be cool, if it can be done. No one is saying that it can’t be done, but there are reservations on whether it would be worth the massive investments needed to pull it off, and that there might be little gain at all over the existing presence of RTN in the U.S.

    RTN are arrays of continuously operating GNSS reference stations that can provide correctors for high precision positioning. Centimeter positions instantaneously; imagine what could be done with a capability like that. People have not only imagined such things, but have implemented over 100 of these in the U.S. and over 350 worldwide serving industries such as surveying, mapping, construction, precision agriculture, science, machine control, public safety, precise navigation. If you feel you have heard all of this before, you probably have, and chances are you might have heard this from an RTN junkie like me.

    I am a strong supporter, even a rabid supporter and promoter of the expansion of RTN and the many benefits that can be realized where RTN exist. I have bored many people to tears with my idealistic ramblings about RTN, and have seized opportunities to jump on any bandwagon that promotes more widespread or even nationwide RTN (e.g. On-Grid Goal, GPS World 2006). There are many countries that already have nationwide RTN like Japan, Germany, Denmark, Greece, and many others; but under completely different circumstances, and none piggybacked on communication network towers. So why haven’t we seen a nationwide RTN in the U.S.? There are a lot of good practical reasons why this has not happened, and likely won’t. It is not a matter of a single design or business model issue standing in the way, and likewise the solving of a single issue will not bring the entire dream to reality. There are far too many moving parts to an RTN; hurdles that would have to be overcome to realize a nationwide RTN. Examining those hurdles might bring us closer to visualizing the dream, but perhaps instead we should focus on what is realistically possible and provide the best possible amalgam of many well run RTN to provide the same utility.

    The Nationwide RTN Carrot. In the course of the past year, and the LightSquared broadband plan interference controversy, RTN have been mentioned in the context of both a reason to oppose the broadband plan in question, and by others as a reason to support the broadband plan. Some have suggested that the LightSquared plan in question would be the catalyst for a nationwide RTN, as it could possible fulfill the crucial communications element of an RTN, and have touted this as a carrot for approval of the entire broadband plan. The idea of piggybacking an RTN on a communications network towers is not a new idea, and it has been studied seriously by many folks, including myself. There have been GNSS manufacturers and mobile phone service providers who have looked at this idea; but none that have acted on the idea; for good reasons.

    I would really like to see a nationwide RTN, but this particular carrot is not backed up yet by a credible plan that has been formally proposed and presented for scrutiny, it does look mighty tasty at first glance. Are there too many compound assumptions being made with regards to this particular carrot? Or is there real potential for a grand RTN? The controversial broadband plan asks a lot of people to sacrifice a lot in direct costs and lost productivity during transition; so the various carrots being touted should be scrutinized very carefully. The first glance look at the assertion that a nationwide RTN could be piggybacked on the proposed LightSquared LTE build-out does appear to provide two key RTN elements: secure station sites (perhaps as many as 40,000 to choose from) with power and low-latency communications for both stations and rovers. But are tower sites really suitable? And can it be done with the tower sites alone? Can it be done in a manner that would greatly improve the coverage of RTN and at a dramatically lower cost? Let’s takes a closer look at what it would take to stake a nationwide RTN on an array of wireless communication towers before we jump to any conclusions.

    Secure sites with power. Yes, the proposed tower sites are essentially cellular tower sites with fences and reliable AC power. But the assumption that one can simply rely on tower sites only applies to the limited area of the country that will be covered by the terrestrial component, the rest would need new stand-alone CORS sites to be presumably served by the satellite component of the plan (not a good idea and adds more infrastructure costs).

    Tower mounts. A communications tower is subject to movement, and therefore not a good candidate for mounting a high-precision GNSS CORS antenna. Even as little as one centimeter of incidental movement (and much more in high winds) is not only not a good practice for an RTN station, it would compromise the relative integrity between RTN stations and the resultant real-time solutions. If you expect your rovers to achieve centimeter positions, the RTN stations must be stable to a few millimeters. But don’t cell towers already have GPS antennas on them? Yes, but these are typically tiny little single frequency units used to time the communications systems where positional precision is not a consideration.

    Co-Location at Tower Sites. You will not find very many RTN stations co-located at wireless communications tower sites, and those that are have been placed on stable ground mount far from tower (south side preferred for maximum constellation) to mitigate as much multipath from the tower as possible. Most tower sites are not big enough to accommodate this. It may take a separate lease of a fenced area far away from the tower. This greatly reduces the number of potential sites.

    Leases. Wireless communications  tower sites are mostly leased from local land owners, and the towers themselves are often owned by third parties from whom communications companies lease space on the towers. The LightSquared plan is not calling for wholly-owned and leased sites; other parties and leases will be required. For instance, Sprint has been proposed as a LightSquared partner for providing tower infrastructure. Site and tower owners want to make money from their property. Towers = more ongoing costs.

    Site Geology. Potential RTN station sites are carefully vetted for sources of incidental geological movement. For example, alluvial fans or slumping slopes are not good candidate sites. An RTN serves as the active control component of a geodetic reference framework; and strict criteria are followed. Tower sites are not necessarily vetted on the same criteria. The potential site list becomes even more narrow.

    Interference. While sources of interference from other radio frequency appurtenances on the towers might not be an issue, then there is the question (ironically) of the possible LightSquared interference as these stations would be at ground zero. Assuming that there are solutions for what is referred to as the lower 10MHz plan interference, what of the upper 10Mhz plan? Recent lower 10MHz filtering tests aside, the upper 10 MHz band plan has still not been taken off the table. No one has demonstrated any credible filtering plan (even LightSquared admits this is still theoretical or at least years away) for the upper 10MHz. Would the RTN stations be immune to such interference? Depending on how the upper band issue plays out, this idea (and viability of every other every other RTN, not to mention all high precision GPS in the U.S.) might be dead in the water.

    Geometry and Coverage. RTN stations are spaced as close as 30km or as far apart as 100km depending on what type of solution is being sought, terrain and elevation differences, tropospheric trends, redundancy considerations, and site suitability/availability as outlined above. With the LightSquared plan proposing as many as 40,000 possible tower sites it would otherwise  be possible to find enough in densely populated areas of the country to have decent geometry and coverage, but only if all of the other design criteria can be met. The point may be moot as tower sites overall are not good candidate sites and won’t cover the majority of the country without adding satellite communication-served sites.

    Geodesy. If the relative positional integrity of an RTN is not maintained, and elements like plate tectonics and ocean tide loading are not taken into account, the resultant solutions suffer. Poor geodesy renders an RTN useless for high precision positioning. There are amazing tools for monitoring, maintaining, and updating the geodesy of an RTN available in some of the commercial RTN operations software suites, but this proposal would be taking on an unprecedented huge and expensive geodetic burden – even if a fraction of the 40,000 sites are included. The National Geodetic Survey maintains system of 1,800 CORS maintained by over 200 different partnering organizations. Even with the most advanced tools and some of the finest geodetic minds in the world, maintaining the geodesy of these sites is straining the NGS resources. The threshold for update on NGS CORS is when its network integrity exceeds two centimeter horizontal by for centimeter vertical; completely unacceptable for the relative integrity that RTN requires. RTN operators maintain registration to the National Spatial Reference System via constraining to a minimum number of CORS, but then have to maintain a further level of relative integrity locally for the RTN to run. A nationwide RTN would need to be run as an array of sub-networks for independent geodetic regions; some RTN have to do this even within a single state to accommodate regions of varied tectonic velocity. A small army of geodesists would be needed to oversee a nationwide RTN resulting in another significant cost.

    Ubiquitous Communications. The term “ubiquitous” gets thrown around a lot with regards to the current plan. Go online and look at a population density map and then look at any of your favorite cellular coverage maps. Now look at a terrestrial component deployment map (Source: TMF Associates) for the proposed network from October 2010. It does not cover huge areas of the country; instead the satellite component of the proposed plan would need to be used. RTN CORS do not need a lot of bandwidth, but they do need low latency communications. Satellite communications links are rarely used for RTN. An RTN might get away with a few isolated high-latency satcomm served sites, but too many clustered together in a network solution do not work. Also notice the population map and the coverage map of some common cell/broadband providers look very similar; the profitable areas are targeted. Many companies are steadily deploying LTE broadband (LTE was not invented in the past year). While the plan calls for providing services to an admirable goal of 260 million potential subscribers, the remaining 50 million plus in rural areas will be left out as they have been by other carriers, or simply served by slower satellite communications.

    Nationwide does not really mean nationwide in the commercial communications business, and that would be the same for RTN. Communications networks get built where the potential subscriber base can support the investments. The same can be said for RTN. You will find RTN covering the same densely populated areas, or over areas where precision agriculture is being implemented. There are actually RTN and arrays of single-base RTK stations in places that are not covered well by broadband and would not likely be covered by this plan or the others. In these areas radio and satellite-based augmentation systems are the cost effective alternative. Even though the communications component of the plan (that might arguably be more bandwidth and possibly faster or cheaper) will not be much more ubiquitous in terms of RTN functionality than what is available now, there would still be big holes in a “nationwide” RTN.

    Wholesale. LightSquared plans to offer wholesale bandwidth. This might equate to any number of retail providers offering the bandwidth through proprietary or open source communications devices. LightSquared is promoting this as “the dumbest of pipes”; essentially a great big pipe of bandwidth, which is a cool idea and prime for a wholesale model. More options for communications through these retailers might arguably be a good thing for RTN users, but not necessarily for any entity trying to put together a nationwide RTN unless there was some kind of exclusive deal attached. Competition can lead to lower costs overall, but subscriptions are typically what the market can bear and that might not be stupendously lower than what we pay now because everyone in between needs to take a cut. One strong point of the model was supposed to be unified communications for RTN, but instead we may be looking at a fractured element. The potential RTN operator would have to deal with as many, if not more, wireless communications providers than currently exist.

    But in another potential model, if the RTN provider were also a LightSquared broadband retail “reseller”, that might be a key to streamlining the model. However, if every end user was to buy the same units or brand with built in broadband receivers from one of the preferred retailers (wishful thinking), that would streamline the model even more. There are too many existing RTN (some free or at nominal cost), and too much legacy equipment out there to expect users to accept and rapidly execute dramatic upgrades, replacements, or carrier changes unless the full LightSquared plan is approved and they are forced to upgrade.

    The Elastic and the Brittle. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but RTN are not the dramatic cash cow one might imagine. The worldwide experience of RTN is very similar in that there is a limited market for network corrections. Even if one was to count on signing up all of the current RTN users in the U.S., plus all of the precision agriculture market (and a mighty hard sell that would be as they have made some huge investments in their own systems), it is still unlikely that there would be enough revenue to fund the initial and ongoing infrastructure investments, and to sustain the ongoing costs of operations, geodesy, leasing, maintenance contracts, and account management. If anyone is entertaining thoughts of consumers paying extra for higher precision on their cell phones and car navigation devices they might be greatly mistaken. The consumer seems quite happy with accuracy on the order of a few meters, and multiple constellations and  modernization will be providing higher fidelity to them soon enough. One wireless service provider even experimented with delivering corrections to mobile phone users from the national RTN where they are based and found consumers in their test group to be indifferent and even thinking it was a silly idea.

    Private RTN have spread across areas of the U.S., somewhat organically as opportunities arise, partners are secured, and where the market can support them. Public and cooperative RTN have spread in areas where the sponsoring entities can realize cost-benefits from their investments like a state department of transportation for their own projects. Public RTN have often filled regions where a private network may not have otherwise been cost effective. Together public and private RTN have covered a substantial area of the U.S. The nature of RTN in the U.S. is a healthy elasticity which fits the market and needs. With RTN being narrow-margin enterprises, this is a good thing. Developing a huge single entity RTN on narrow margins leaves the entire enterprise quite brittle. Investors might view areas that have a low or negative return as not worth retaining or even building out in the first place. The cards are really stacked against a ubiquitous nationwide RTN, unless as some assert there were elements of overriding public interest to justify some level of public investment or partnering.

    RTN Coverage of the U.S. as a percentage of Total Area

    Infrastructure Investment. Typical RTN stations have cost between $10,000 and $50,000 each to establish and sites requiring satellite communications start at a minimum of $20,000. Let’s say for arguments sake that only 10,000 of the tower sites were utilized, with perhaps just as many in satellite communications-served sites also needed. That might not even exceed the coverage of existing RTN. Even so, at $10,000 each, that is $100,000,000 up front; not to mention the satellite communications-served sites on top of that. Some may question those costs, so let’s break them down. A RTN receiver has to be dual-frequency, multi-constellation, geodetic-grade, enable remote operations, and be paired with a geodetic-grade antenna. Sure, used receiver/antenna pairs can be had for as little as $2,000-$6,000. Let’s say for arguments sake a manufacturer was able to build and sell (or essentially give away) a new unit for the unlikely price of $2,000, there is still the cost of a stable ground mount, conduit, enclosures, labor, site selection, engineering, fuel, logistics, and contract management. These would very likely add up to $10,000. But let’s say for arguments sake this could be done for $8,000. It would still cost $80,000,000 up front, and maybe triple that to add enough satellite communications-served sites. One would have to question the robustness and viability of an RTN built so cheaply. Realistically, it would be more like $100,000,000 to $360,000,000 to build out.

    Ongoing Costs. Break even operations costs for an RTN average around $1,000-$4,000 per station annually. This includes hardware replacement, software contracts, operations staff, geodesy, training, support, billing, leases, power, communications, data processing, and more. Again, for arguments sake let’s say on a grand scale that cost could be brought down to $1,000 per station per year, that sill represents $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 per year, but more realistically like $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 annually with double or triple to that cost for satellite communications-served sites.

    Pricing Model. The carrot has been touted with assertions that the services would be provided at dramatically reduced costs for both communications and corrections. No one involved would be expected to give anything away. A fair price for all elements would be exacted like it would for any other enterprise. For existing RTN, price is not typically what holds back potential customers. The RTN’s in the U.S. charge very reasonable prices, and much lower than some RTN in other countries. The limitation is the existing and potential pool of users as a function of geographic area. To operate an RTN at greatly reduced prices does not work because many public RTN that initially offered free services are exploring at least nominal fees for the future. It does cost money to run an RTN. Even if a new cut-rate nationwide RTN were to assume it could assimilate all current RTN users, plus a substantial segment of agriculture users, it is likely that the revenues would not be able to justify covering more area of the country than existing RTN already do.

    What do we make of this carrot?

    I completely welcome this idea for consideration, but it needs to be examined seriously before any speculative cost benefits can be added to the value equations folks are presenting as rationale for approving the LightSquared plan. There are a lot of unknowns about what folks have in mind when they tout this piggyback-on-LightSquared-nationwide-RTN carrot.

    Too many unknowns encircle this carrot. If a credible plan were offered up for scrutiny and proposed coverage were shown, all of the design and business model issues I’ve outlined were addressed, the FCC approves the LightSquared LTE plan and there were investors who were willing to see modest returns at best, then I would be among the first to jump on the bandwagon, sing praises, and actively promote the idea.

    However, in light of the tremendous uncertainty we face not only in considering this carrot, but the fate of the broadband proposal it serves to sweeten, touting of this particular nationwide RTN proposal must be viewed at best with a not insignificant amount of skepticism and perhaps at worst be viewed as somewhat disingenuous. The seed for this carrot has not yet even been sown.

  • Directions 2012: A Look Ahead

    At the end of every year, I title this column Directions, in which I discuss significant developments, trends, technologies, companies, etc. in the GNSS industry. This year, two entities have captured my attention and I think have the potential to significantly transform the GNSS industry.

    The two entities I’m referring to are the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (LightSquared) and Europe’s GNSS Agency (Galileo).

    What conversation about GNSS today can we have without LightSquared being at its center? LightSquared, or rather the FCC’s looming decision about LightSquared’s proposal, has the potential to bring significant changes to the high-precision GNSS industry in 2012 and beyond.

    An FCC decision in favor of LightSquared can cause a paradigm shift in the GNSS competitive landscape in the North American market. By that, I mean significant market-share changes. The high-precision GNSS market is currently dominated by three key players: Trimble, Leica, Topcon. What if the FCC approves LightSquared’s plan, and thousands upon thousands of users need to upgrade their equipment? Will they purchase the same brand they currently own?

    The answer, in my opinion, really depends on how much of an upgrade is required. Since each GPS receiver model is designed differently, the extent of the upgrade can vary greatly among GPS receiver models. Some receivers may not require anything; some may require a new antenna design; and still others may require a new antenna design and new GPS receiver circuitry design.

    Since LightSquared’s plan has changed considerably over the past few months, and testing based on its latest plan isn’t complete (or even started in some cases) yet, it’s too early to say how particular receivers are going to be affected.  I’m sure each manufacturer has a good idea about each of their receiver models, but they aren’t talking yet.

    The current focus of testing is on the effects of the 10L (low) spectrum (10Mhz of spectrum at 1526-1536MHz), which is furthest from GPS L1 (centered at 1575.42MHz). If you recall, LightSquared’s initial plan was to roll out their service using the 10H (high) spectrum (1545-1555MHz), but that idea was abandoned in June 2011 when the Technical Working Group (TWG) testing clearly showed that GPS receivers, of all kinds, were jammed due to the 10H frequency being so close to GPS L1 and the signal being so strong compared to GPS, more than a billion times stronger.

    Since the original TWG testing was focused on 10H (with some 10L testing), the affect of rolling out LightSquared’s system on 10L is not fully known. Therefore, in September 2011 the FCC (via NTIA) ordered new testing focused solely on 10L. The testing for consumer-grade GPS (mobile phones, general navigation) was to be completed and analyzed by November 30, 2011. The NTIA has not released any information regarding the test results. My guess is that the testing will show that mobile phones and general navigation devices will be free of interference since those GPS receivers don’t need to use the entire GPS band (only 2MHz) like high-precision GPS receivers do (20+MHz), and aren’t designed to use GPS correction services broadcast in the MSS spectrum (such as OmniSTAR and Starfire).

    Separately, the DoD (Department of Defense) is conducting their own classified tests to understand the affect of 10L on military GPS receivers. We may hear bits and pieces of the results, but I’m guessing the DoD test results will largely remain classified and therefore not be made known to the general public. Interestingly enough, the DoD holds the most powerful LightSquared trump card, although we’ll likely never know if it was played.

    Besides the national security trump card the DoD could play, the Federal Aviation Adminstration (FAA) holds the slightly less powerful safety-of-life card that could trump LightSquared. The FAA is super-conservative (no one wants to be responsible for crashing an airliner) and their processes/procedures can take forever. A few weeks ago, I saw an FAA presentation with the following information:

    Next Steps:

    Preparing of NPEF Test report for NCO, EXCOM and NTIA/FCC

    Scope Next LightSquared Test Phase(s)

    – High Precision and Timing Receivers (different timelines)

    • Awaiting LSQ-provided High Precision and Timing Filters (November and March 2012 respectively), antennas and handsets.

    -Schedule

    • Tentatively, Spring of 2012
    • Test Test Types – Lab; Chamber; Live Sky; Aggregate Effects
    • Test Agency/Location – TBD

    -Funding – Cost Estimate; Source TBD

    LightSquared is fighting the time clock.

    Industry analyst Tim Farrar projects that LightSquared could run out of cash as early as April 2012. Wall Street isn’t helping, as the value of LightSquared’s debt has declined as much as 50 percent or more. Obviously, the company is scrambling. Last month, it told the FCC that the agency should ignore the opinions of other Federal agencies when evaluating their GPS-jamming problem.

    Another time crunch problem it has is its deal with Sprint. LightSquared isn’t “building towers,” at least for the bulk of their infrastructure. It is relying on an agreement with Sprint in which it will pay Sprint $9 billion over an 11-year period to use Sprint’s infrastructure, paying some $290 million up front.

    Sprint CFO Joseph Euteneuer, during Sprint’s 2Q 2011 Earnings Call, said “we’ve gotten the $290 million.” Furthermore, Euteneuer stated “…we will be getting pre-funding of any work that we would be doing for LightSquared.”

    Regarding the GPS-jamming problem, Euteneuer said “…we need clear GPS spectrum before we go forward. So we can get started with a lot of the planning and those things, but we need to get clearance on the spectrum before we start any heavy construction.”

    Sprint has the right to terminate the deal with LightSquared if LightSquared doesn’t receive FCC approval on the 20MHz (10L and 10H) of MSS spectrum by the end of this month. Clearly, that isn’t going to happen. Maybe Sprint will grant an extension to LightSquared, but it has to know the only thing LightSquared might bring to the table at this point is 10L sometime next year, and even that is a crap shoot given the huge cost that the Fed/state/local government agencies would incur in addition to private corporations, not to mention the DoD and FAA discussion above. Finally, Sprint has to know that there’s no chance for the 10H spectrum to be approved in the foreseeable future. The June 2011 Technical Working Group (TWG) test report clearly showed that 10H jams virtually all GPS receivers.

    That leaves LightSquared in a really tough spot, and is the reason its public relations campaign machine has really cranked up these past few months.

    Today (Wednesday, Dec. 7), LightSquared announced that “testing conducted by an independent laboratory has confirmed that several major high-precision receivers, including those developed by GPS pioneer, Javad GNSS, are 100 percent compatible with LightSquared’s network. These results show that LightSquared is well on its way to demonstrating that GPS interference issues have been resolved.” The message lacks specifics, and there has as yet been no verification of the unnamed independent lab’s results.

    LightSquared is taking the message this week to Capitol Hill trying to convince uninformed legislators and other public officials that the end is in sight. The problem is…it’s not true.

    Here’s why:
    1. LightSquared’s preliminary “independent testing” indicates that some receivers are tested to be 50 percent compatible with LightSquared’s network. Remember, we are only talking about 10L at this point, which is only half of LightSquared’s spectrum. Since LightSquared has not abandoned the 10H spectrum, it’s not true to say “100 percent compatible with LightSquared’s network.”
    2. These are newly-developed receivers, which means hundreds of thousands of high-precision receivers would be obsolete. Who will pay for replacing/upgrading them?
    3. LightSquared’s “independent testing” doesn’t include FAA (aviation) or DoD (military) testing.
    4. LightSquared’s “independent testing” doesn’t include LightSquared mobile devices (they don’t exist yet). As I’ve written before, they are potential portable GPS jammers.
    5. LightSquared’s “independent testing” announcement provides no details on GPS performance. A performance hit of 2 or 3 db of signal strength can make a significant difference when tracking in marginal GPS conditions.
    If you’d like to read a further (and more detailed) list of concerns, you might want to read Richard Keegan’s December 1, 2011 GPS World article.
    At the end of the day, LightSquared’s “independent testing” doesn’t address any of the outstanding issues. It’s just more public relations noise.

     

    Galileo – Europe’s satellite navigation system

    Unfortunately, the ongoing LightSquared debate has overshadowed one of the most important events in the history of GNSS, the launch of the first two operational Galileo satellites in October 2011.

    For more than a decade, Galileo has been discussed and debated, to the point that few believed it would ever come to fruition. Even today, some folks still don’t believe Galileo is real. Given the history and the current state of the European economy, I don’t blame them.

    However, the chips are down, and the stack is high. Europe is “all in.” As the Galileo folks head further down the road, it becomes much more difficult to pull back. The next launch of two Galileo sats is slated for next summer. The four are dedicated for In-Orbit Validation (IOV), but unlike the two Galileo test satellites that have been in orbit for several years (GIOVE-A, GIOVE-B), the latest IOV satellites will become part of the operational Galileo constellation of 30.

    Whereas I’m bullish on Galileo, the schedule is a bit more unpredictable. The European GNSS Agency (GSA) estimates that the first 18 Galileo satellites will be in orbit in the 2014/2015 timeframe. If they stick to it, it would have a profound effect on the GNSS industry fairly soon. As I’ve written before, Galileo supports the new L5 signal along with GPS; this means that L1/L5 dual-frequency, dual-constellation GNSS receivers will be low-cost and very accurate. Regardless if Galileo sticks to its schedule or not (not to mention  GPS sticking to its own schedule), when Galileo does finally have 18 satellites operating in orbit, it will change GNSS positioning forever.

     

    Webinar  – December 8, 2011

    I’m pleased to participate in a webinar  featuring Dr. Javad Ashjaee who is presenting his solution for the LightSquared interference problem. If you’re unable to attend, please register anyway and you will be emailed instructions on how to view the webinar at your convenience. It will be available for download within a few days of the live presentation.

     

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • You Say You Want A Revolution?

    After last week’s column, “Technology: Friend or Foe?”, I received a bit of mail. Usually when I write about technology wiggling its way into our lives, the mail I receive is from readers who are apprehensive, concerned, and even frightened of the paradigm shift we are experiencing and going to experience in our lives at the hands of the digital revolution.

    If you think about it, the past 30+ years (1980-2011) really dwarfs the previous 30 year period (1950-1980) in terms of lifestyle changes. With the exception of transportation (automobile/air travel) and some medical advancement, the 1950-1980 period was relatively static and stable. It was commonplace for people to work for the same company for 30 years and retire. In fact, you could even wind the clock back another 10 years to 1940 and not see a drastic change, although World War II was a major focus in the 1940s and did challenge the stability of day-to-day family lifestyles.

    However, the lifestyle changes we have gone through in the past 30 years (even the past 15 years) have been radical. Thanks to the Internet, I haven’t had to commute to an office in more than 10 years. I’m constantly connected to my family, friends and work colleagues with my mobile phone via talk, text, or email. Sometimes, I will go months without writing a physical check to pay a bill.

    The upside is that we are spending less time on mindless “busy work.” Growing up, I recall watching my parents spend a full evening going through canceled checks and bank statements in order to balance their checkbooks. I recall my father making a trip to the bank on Friday afternoon to withdraw cash for the weekend activities (no ATMs). I recall trading a $10 bill for a roll of quarters at the bank in order to make a long distance telephone call back home during my military service days. Back then, there were telephone booths at nearly every street corner. When’s the last time you remember seeing a telephone booth?

    These lifestyle changes are the result of the digital revolution…and it’s just beginning.

    Following is a great blog post from marketing guru Seth Godin called Pre Digital:

    A brief visit to the emergency room last month reminded me of what an organization that’s pre-digital is like. Six people doing bureaucratic tasks and screening that are artifacts of a paper universe, all in the service of one doctor (and the need to get paid and not get sued). A 90-minute experience so we could see a doctor for ninety seconds.

    Wasteful and even dangerous.

    Imagine what this is like in a fully digital environment instead. Of course, they’d know everything about your medical history and payment ability from a quick ID scan at the entrance. And you’d know the doctor’s availability before you even walked in, and you would have been shuttled to the urgent care center down the street if there was an uneven load this early in the morning. No questions to guess at the answer (last tetanus shot? Allergies to medications?) because the answers would be known. The drive to the pharmacy might be eliminated, or perhaps the waiting time would be shortened. If this accident or illness is trending, effecting more of the population, we’d know that right away and be able to prevent more of it… Triage would be more efficient as well. The entire process might take ten minutes, with a far better outcome.

    School is pre-digital. Elections. Most of what you do in your job. Even shopping. The vestiges of a reliance on geography, lack of information, poor interpersonal connections and group connection (all hallmarks of the pre-digital age) are everywhere.

    Perhaps the most critical thing you can say of a typical institution: “That place is pre-digital.”

    All a way of saying that this is just the beginning, the very beginning, of the transformation of our lives.

    Geospatial technology is in the same place. We are being teased with digital geography (GIS), but this is only the initial adoption wave. There is a geography component in nearly every part of our day-to-day lives. The following image captures the adoption of geospatial technology. We are clearly still in the “GIS Professional” part of the curve, and arguably entering the “Application Users” era and clearly on our way to mainstream “Society” adoption.

    Esri International User Conference

    I wrote a column late last year, “Will We Be a Billion Times More Geospatially Intelligent in Thirty Years?” The premise behind it is that geospatial technology will grow exponentially instead of linearly.

    Red = Linear Growth, Blue = Cubic Growth, Green = Exponential Growth (Source: Wikipedia)

    In essence, if you follow the linear model (red line), technology will progress only 30 steps in the next 30 years. With exponential growth (green line), technology will progress a billion times in the next 30 years.

    How much paper are you pushing (pre-digital)? How much inefficiency is in your organization because of a lack of information or geographic (location) awareness? Location awareness isn’t necessarily the location of an outdoor asset (utility pole, manhole, parcel). It could be the location of a document (paper or digital), the location your lymph nodes (medical GIS), or even your key ring.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Technology: Friend or Foe?

    More than 20 years ago, I was tasked with training a group of foresters to use new field data collection technology that would require them to change their field procedures. Needless to say, most of them vehemently opposed the change. Even with pressure from the organization to adopt the technology, some continued to rebel to the point that they would use their legacy methods (pencil/paper) in the woods, only to return to their truck and enter the data from the paper to the handheld data recorder.

    I admit it, I hate to change too.

    In fact, my notebook computer is way past its retirement age (four years old). The sound doesn’t work any more, some screen pixels don’t work, the battery lasts abut 45 minutes, and it’s running Windows Vista. I’ve actually bought another notebook computer, but haven’t made the transition. The pain of trying to find all of the software installation CDs, etc. of all the software I have on this computer is still greater than the pain of no sound, a so-so screen, and a lousy battery. So, I carry two notebook computers with me when I travel. It’s pretty sad.

    Sometimes we don’t have the luxury of choice and we are forced to change. Today’s world is not what it was when I was growing up. It’s changing, and it keeps changing. My father worked for the same organization for 30+ years. We had dinner every evening at 5:30 p.m. when we all sat around the dinner table. That’s the life I knew. Set it on cruise control and enjoy the ride.

    However, that way of life is over. It was great while it lasted, but I doubt it will ever exist again.

    At 24, after my four-year stint in the U.S. Air Force and picking up my college degree, my first job out of college was at a high-technology start-up company. At the time, I had no clue how that experience would help prepare me for today’s economy.

    As many of you know, at a small company (especially a start-up in the high-technology industry) it’s all about getting the job done. Pulling all-nighters, working through lunch, and working 12-hour days is a regular part of life. “Whatever it takes” is a common phrase. The concept of comp time, sick days, and even vacation days (at times), are luxuries only enjoyed by others. On more than one occasion, I watched my vacation days evaporate on December 31. It’s not a particularly healthy lifestyle if you don’t pay attention to work/family balance.

    However, it did prepare me for the harsh reality of the new economy, one in which job security is minimal and one in which you need to prove your worth on a weekly basis, making it tough to avoid pulling your weight, and some extra. In short, one needs to bring their “A” game every week.

    I’ve spoken with many, many people who dream about “the way things used to be.” They say it was an easier and less stressful time, and they generally hold a negative view of technology because they feel it has cost jobs. They say that computers have replaced people.

    I agree, it was an easier and less stressful time. However, I submit that pressure and stress forces us to find more creative and innovative solutions. Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs is the #1 non-fiction best seller, according to the New York Times. It’s clear that Jobs produced some of the most innovative and successful products and services of our time. Yet, he created a highly stressful and uncomfortable work environment. Emotional outbursts and “on-the-spot” firings were not unusual and directed at those who weren’t producing at the level Jobs deemed essential. Obviously, it wasn’ t the healthiest environment, but is there a better way to squeeze the highest performance from people?

    It reminds me of a quote from Tom Landry, who for many years was the coach of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team. He said “Leadership is getting someone to do what they don’t want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve.”

    Reading that statement makes me think back to the group of foresters I mentioned above. None of them wanted to change. They really didn’t see the benefit of the electronic devices over their proven pencil/paper technology. They thought it was great for the data processing folks who didn’t have to transcribe the paper notes any longer, but thought the field foresters were the ones who were paying the price by hauling around the handheld devices. Eventually, they succumbed to the technology and it became the “new normal.” Years later, many of them told me that they eventually tossed out their pencil/paper and couldn’t imagine going into the woods without their handheld computer. I’m sure there were a few die-hards who bought enough time until their retirement to avoid the pain of change, but the others had no choice to transition to the electronic age.

    One of the major changes the world is facing today is geography. With respect to our profession, digital geography (GIS) has a tremendous amount of upside. It’s not just a tool for scientists any longer. Digital geography in everyone’s lives is becoming more ubiquitous, from GPS navigation systems in your car to different location-based services (LBS) apps on your mobile phone.

    On the other hand, physical geography is working against some industries. It used to be that having a “local office” allowed companies to charge a premium for their service. Before the Internet revolution, how did you buy an airline ticket? When’s the last time you visited a travel agent? What happened to travel agencies? Whereas they had a valuable geographic advantage that linked the services providers (airlines, cruise lines, hotels, rental cars, etc.) to the consumer, that advantage disappeared almost overnight with the Internet revolution. At the end of the day, 90 percent of the travel agencies didn’t offer enough value beyond the geographic advantage to justify their existence.

    Think about other industries that rely on physical geography to justify their existence. Realtors, insurance agents, etc. I just recently dumped Allstate as my automobile insurance provider and signed up with GEICO. Allstate has a local agent, or three. GEICO doesn’t, as far as I know. Do I care? No. In the five or so years I was with Allstate, I don’t remember ever meeting the agent. He’s doing a disservice to Allstate and to himself. He’s made himself insignificant.

    That’s really what it boils down to in this economy. How much value do you bring to your organization? If you call in sick tomorrow, does anyone care? Have you made yourself valuable enough to your organization that they can’t afford to let you go?

    Recently, one of my Facebook friends posted a quote from George Monbiot. I don’t know if it is an original quote of his or not, but here goes.

    “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.”

    It’s really not about how hard you work. Most of us probably couldn’t keep up with the woman in Africa Monbiot is referring to with respect to hard work. It is about what you bring to the table. If your best skill is possessed commonly by others, then you’re relatively insignificant. That translates into poor job security and low pay. If you are indespensable to your organization, it will go out of its way to keep you employed and likely pay you what you are worth.

    Like it or not, the world economy is not going to return to what it used to be. We had one heck of a run starting with the industrial revolution. The 30+-year career like my father had is a rarity instead of the norm. Careers will be dynamic, moving from project to project. The more unique your skillset is, the better choice of projects you’ll have.

    Last week, I was traveling  and stopped by one of the golf course projects I’m involved in. The club hired a new assistant superintendent (greenskeeper). He is a very recent college graduate. Most golf course superintendents like to be outdoors instead of driving a desk. As a result, many of them aren’t technology savvy, especially when it comes to GIS and GPS technology. After spending a couple of hours with him, he picked up the concept and operation of the tree mapping system quite well. Then his mind started working and he started asking me about other things he could do with the system (mapping irrigation, drainage, greens, etc.). I suggested that if he could master this technology, he’d be a step ahead of the crowd in his chosen profession.

    “Yep,” he said, “one more thing to add to my resume.”

    He probably didn’t understand how profound that statement was.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • LightSquared: Five Questions of My Own

    In true Wall Street lawyer fashion, LightSquared Executive VP Jeff Carlisle thinks he’s entitled to receive answers with regards to LightSquared’s GPS-jamming problem instead of providing answers. He seems to forget that LightSquared is the one applying for approval to proceed, and needs to provide the answers and solutions.

    Interestingly enough, LightSquared’s questions really point out how ignorant the company continues to be about the GPS industry, which is surprising since it’s been about a year since it submitted its application to the FCC. By now, you’d think that the company would have performed enough due diligence to become familiar with the GPS industry. From the questions for which it demands answers, apparently not.

    First of all — I’ve written before and I’ll write it again — the GPS user community is in its own corner on this issue. No one is looking out for your interest unless you are able to persuade your congressperson to act on your behalf.

    Incidentally, I spoke to a state legislator last week who reached out to me about the LightSquared GPS-jamming issue. He was one of those legislators who had submitted a letter of support for LightSquared to the FCC during the public comment period. He said that LightSquared lobbyists were reaching out again last week to state legislators looking for letters of support. He said he didn’t know anything about the technology but believed LightSquared’s claims of 15,000 jobs being created. What he didn’t understand was the chaos it would cause to the economy with respect to small business (agriculture, engineering, construction), fed/state/local government, aviation, and military. Of course, once he understood the full impact, he made it clear that he would not approve of a system that would have a negative impact on GPS. When I informed him that there’s a solution being floated by LightSquared (the “fix”), but that it is yet to be vetted and that the upgrade cost would run into the billions, he concluded “we can’t afford it.”

    I think this is a typical situation among legislators and other public officials who have voiced their support for LightSquared. They just don’t understand the issue and take what LightSquared lobbyists say at face value. Once it’s explained to them, they quickly understand that America can’t afford LightSquared’s current proposal.

    Speaking of lobbyists, if you didn’t watch “60 Minutes” on November 6, take a look the following video on the corruption taking place in the U.S. Congress. It’s disgusting.

    Now, back to the subject at hand.

    Yes, Trimble, Deere/Navcom, Garmin, and other GPS manufacturers are putting up a good fight via the Coalition to Save Our GPS. They’ve invested tens of millions, if not more than $100 million, in this debate over the last year, largely on behalf of and in support of the GPS user community. But make no bones about it, if LightSquared is granted approval to proceed, and that action requires your equipment to be upgraded (if an upgrade is even possible), this will be a huge windfall for the GPS manufacturers. They will make a ton of money. Salespeople will sit back and take orders. There’s no easier business than a forced upgrade (do you remember the Y2K problem?).

    That brings us to LightSquared’s first question to which it demands an answer.

    LightSquared Question #1: Isn’t it true that the so-called “non-biased” PNT Advisory Board, which advises the Pentagon, is represented by board members of GPS companies who have a financial stake in LightSquared not getting approval to proceed?

    They are referring primarily to Dr. Brad Parkinson, who has been a Trimble board member for many years, and who even acted as Trimble CEO for a period of time, more than a decade ago, after Charlie Trimble’s departure.

    Dr. Parkinson is an aeronautical engineer. He’s retired from the U.S. Air Force (at the rank of colonel) and is a professor emeritus at Stanford University. He was the first GPS Program Manager for the U.S. Air Force, and is largely responsible for the GPS getting on the road to being what it is today.

    LightSquared’s question implies that Dr. Parkinson, a Trimble shareholder and board member who has voiced his opposition to the LightSquared initiative, will somehow profit if LightSquared’s application is rejected by the FCC.

    If LightSquared personnel put some thought into it, they’d understand that Trimble (and its shareholders) stand to make a lot more money if LightSquared is allowed to proceed than if it isn’t. In other words, if LightSquared is allowed to proceed, Trimble makes a ton of money in forced upgrades from GPS users who hadn’t planned on it.  If LightSquared isn’t allowed to proceed, Trimble has just spent a year and ~$25 million (my estimate) in direct and indirect costs participating in this fire drill, not to mention the opportunity cost of the distraction of high-level engineers and executives.

    For example, the company/entity/individual who just bought the latest and greatest Belchfire XYZ GNSS receiver six months ago would face   an upgrade charge of thousands because it needs a new circuit board and a new antenna or antenna element. This would be gravy for Trimble because it’s revenue they thought they’d never see for a long time from a customer who just bought the receiver six months ago.

    Again, this assumes a technical fix is possible. That hasn’t been proven yet.  Far from it.

    LightSquared Question #2: Numerous annual reports and SEC filings from GPS manufacturers going back to 2001 acknowledge material harm to their business due to interference with neighboring spectrum. Why did you not prepare your devices with filters if you’ve known for ten years there would be interference problems caused by your devices looking into adjacent spectrum?

    Ok, for how long does LightSquared want to continue ignoring the fact that LightSquared and its predecessors (Skyterra, MSV) encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design GPS receivers that “look” into the MSS spectrum?

    Why would LightSquared and its predecessors encourage this?

    The answer? Because LightSquared and its predecessors sell satellite data communications services to the GPS industry using the MSS spectrum (via OmniSTAR), generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue from LightSquared and its predecessors.

    Now, if LightSquared chooses not to sell those satellite data communication services to the GPS industry any longer, that’s the company’s choice, but don’t blame the receiver because it was designed to receive LightSquared’s satellite data communication service it was promoting. That sort of logic is, well, illogical.

    LightSquared Question #3: True or false? Did the GPS industry manufacture devices knowing there would be interference with neighboring spectrum because this enhanced their performance?

    False. LightSquared promoted GPS receivers be designed to access the MSS spectrum in order to access its satellite data communication services that it sells to the GPS industry. Furthermore, LightSquared profited from it.

    LightSquared Question #4: Who funds the Coalition to Save Our GPS?

    I don’t know. Who cares? Certainly not Friends of LightSquared. Can you really not figure that out?

    LightSquared Question #5: Did the GPS industry falsely claim that it would take billions of dollars and more than a decade to find a solution to this problem?

    I don’t know who made this statement, but it wasn’t me.

    I do believe that LightSquared has no clue as to the extent of the negative economic impact its proposed system will cause — and it doesn’t care. The $50 million the company has pledged to repair damage it creates to federal government GPS users constitutes a sliver of what it will actually take.

    But all of this is moot until any sort of proposed “fix” is fully understood and vetted across all product lines and markets. Clearly, LightSquared does not understand the extent of the problem its system causes; otherwise it would have never predicted an FCC decision by the end of this year.

    My Questions

    I was offered the opportunity to interview LightSquared a few months ago. I declined. It’s senseless to speak to a lawyer or marketing guy about this technology. They don’t know what they are talking about. They just regurgitate the same senseless spin.

    But, given that they keep ignoring the fact that they sell satellite data communications services to the GPS industry utilizing the MSS spectrum, I’d pose these questions:

    Question #1 to LightSquared: True or false, does LightSquared sell satellite data communication data services to the GPS industry via frequencies in the MSS spectrum (1525-1559MHz)?

    Question #2 to LightSquared: True or false, did LightSquared’s predecessors, Skyterra and MSV, sell satellite data communications services to the GPS industry via frequencies in the MSS spectrum (1525-1559MHz)?

    Question #3 to LightSquared: When did LightSquared and its predecessors (Skyterra/MSV) first begin selling satellite data communication services to the GPS industry via frequencies in the MSS spectrum (1525-1559MHz)?

    Question #4 to LightSquared: How much gross revenue, in total, has LightSquared and its predecessors (Skyterra and MSV) generated from the GPS industry since they began selling said services to the GPS industry via frequencies in the MSS spectrum (1525-1559MHz)?

    Question #5 to LightSquared: List all of the frequencies in the MSS spectrum that LightSquared and its predecessors (Skyterra and MSV) have utilized in delivering satellite data communication services to the GPS industry since LightSquared/Skyterra/MSV began selling said services?

    Let’s see if LightSquared is as bold in answering questions as they are in asking.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

     

  • What Every GIS Manager Should Know, But Likely Doesn’t

    They are always moving, faster in some geographic regions than in others. It seems someone is always coming up with a different method to interpret them. Once you start using a certain method, it’s very difficult to change. Updating them in a large-scale GIS can be a nightmare. What is it?

    Of course, I’m talking about coordinates: the G is GIS.

    It’s the G in GIS that makes your GPS navigation unit work. It’s the G in GIS that powers Google Earth, Bing Maps, the local parcel database in your community, and the 911 routing for the emergency services in your community.

    Generally speaking, the accuracy of G is pretty sloppy in most of these apps, several meters in many cases. But, the general public doesn’t see that because the GPS unit gets Mom to the right soccer field and the GPS unit gets the emergency crews to the right house, at least close enough for common sense to take over, like GPS guiding an airplane close enough to the airport for the pilot to take over and land the aircraft.

    This raises an interesting question, and one that I get a lot from people. How accurate is…(insert noun here)? How accurate is GPS? How accurate is Google Earth? How accurate is my community parcel database? How accurate are the USGS (or your federal map agency) topographical maps? How accurate is the digital nautical chart I’m using?

    Usually, folks think their system is “pretty accurate.” I’ve heard boaters swear that their consumer GPS unit takes them back to the “exactly” same spot, not within 10 feet, but “exactly.” I’ve seen architects use Google Earth to lay out their master plans, expecting that the construction people can accurately lay out the design from their plans.

    The bottom line is that much of the digital geography in the world is not very accurate, largely because it doesn’t need to be. Well, at least it didn’t need to be at the time.

    Now, that’s not to say that many GIS parcel databases don’t fit together very tightly. Most of the ones I’ve seen do have a tight fit, but a tight fit doesn’t mean it’s accurate. We should briefly revisit the difference between accuracy and precision. If you want to read more about accuracy  vs. precision, I wrote an article about a year ago on the subject. Otherwise, here’s a couple of graphics to illustrate:

    File:High precision Low accuracy.svg

    Figure 1. Very precise, but not accurate.

    File:High accuracy Low precision.svg

    Figure 2. Not very precise, but more accurate than Figure 1.

    I use a phrase that one of my Dad’s friends used to tell me. He worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. He would say, “I’d rather be generally right than precisely wrong.” That sort of sums it up. Of course, ideally you’d want the dots in Figure 2 to be tightly centered in the bulls-eye so then the data would be very accurate and very precise, but I think the point is clear.

    How do we define what is accurate?

    Coordinate accuracy is actually an arbitrary thing with respect to geography. Who is to say how accurate a coordinate pair is? One person may say the coordinates for a point on the ground is x, y while the other may say the same point on the ground is x1, y1. The two pairs of coordinates may differ by decimeter, a meter, tens of meters, or more.

    Who is correct?

    Essentially, everyone within the region (country, countries, etc.) needs to agree on what the accuracy reference is.

    Typically, there is a federal government agency within each country that is tasked with defined a coordinate reference frame. It just so happens in the United States the organization that defines and maintains the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is a government agency called the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). Each country roughly has its own version of the NGS.

    So, in the United States, when someone asks what the “true” coordinates are for a point on the ground, the answer is the coordinate pair for that point as referenced to the NSRS. There are several ways to determine the coordinates for said point, with one of the more common and efficient methods being an accurate GPS receiver (survey quality) that references another GPS receiver (survey quality) that is already tied into the NSRS. The NGS OPUS service is a neat way to accomplish this because the NGS already provides access to GPS receivers that are tied to the NSRS.

    Allow me to use another example that I’m commonly asked about.

    Many times, I’m asked by GPS users how accurate their GPS receiver is. Usually, the easiest and quickest way to determine this is to visit one of the tens of thousands of survey marks located throughout the United States (other countries have the equivalent). The NGS publishes coordinates for each one of the survey marks. Now, be forewarned that there are some caveats. The coordinates of some survey marks are not that accurate. You’ll want to use one that has been surveyed using GPS. You can find the closest survey marks by visiting this website, selecting Radial Search, selecting GPS Sites Only, and entering your latitude/longitude. It will display the closest survey marks to the latitude/longitude you entered. You’ll be surprised how many there are and how close they are.

    There are some cool, free software tools available that allow you to easily find an NGS survey mark near you. One that I became aware of recently (a la Brent Jones/Esri via Twitter) is an Android app created by Critigen. It’s pretty slick. I didn’t find the app by using the “Market” app on my phone so I just downloaded the FindAControl.apk file from Critigen’s website and tapped on it to install the app.

              

    View NGS survey control stations                     Toggle on/off station types or
    for various station types and networks.             switch between basemaps.

    View NGS Data Sheets summarizing
    key geodetic information.

    If you’re really itching to find out how accurate your GPS receiver is, this is a great place to start. Yes, you probably won’t do something right the first time and probably want to do it again (and maybe again), but it’s a valuable learning experience. Actually, to get a good statistical sample, you’d need to collect a lot of data at different times and on different days to get an idea of the accuracy consistency of your GPS receiver. Because, as I’ve heard many times, and maybe you, too, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But that’s a subject for another time :-)

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • Is the Geospatial Bottleneck Software or Data?

    I’ve been on a roll the past two weeks regarding intelligent transportation after my visit at the 2011 ITS World Conference in Orlando. Please allow me to touch on it once more and then morph into a highly related topic, sensor fusion.

    The 2011 European Satellite Navigation Competition announced the winners this week. The Special Topic Prize, the USA Regional Award, and the overall Galileo Master were awarded to MVS, LLC, from San Francisco, California, with its True-3D technology for its augmented reality and new navigation guidance system.

    Watch this 30-second Youtube video that shows how the the Virtual Cable application of the True-3D technology is implemented in a car navigation system.

    MVS, LLC’s Virtual Cable technology

    Courtesy of MVS, LLC. Components not drawn to scale

    Following is an eight-second demonstration of how the Virtual Cable technology could be used to assist navigating in the dark.

     

    True-3D and Virtual Cable are creative examples of new software/hardware being developed to take advantage of existing geospatial data to provide an innovative solution. There is a lot of upside to augmented reality over the next few years that will allow people to visualize geospatial data in ways you’ve never seen. I’ve used the example before of being able to visualize underground infrastructure such as utilities (gas, water, electric). Imagine being able to carry a tablet computer in the field, being able to hold the table flush to the ground and see underground infrastructure on the tablet screen.

    Given the above, do you think that geospatial software tools or data are the bottleneck in geospatial apps of the future?

    I think the bottleneck is data. Tools have always seemed to outpace data because, generally speaking, acquiring data has always been an ongoing labor-intensive activity moreso than software development. For example, think about GPS navigators in automobiles. There are hundreds of manufacturers of GPS navigator devices in the world and hundreds of GPS navigator software product makers in the world (the software that directs you where to turn, etc.), but there are only two major map database suppliers in the world (TomTom/TeleAtlas and Nokia/Navteq). Yes, there other very small competitors in the map database market, but these two dominate the market. Why is that? It’s just a tough task to create, manage and update the massive database of road detail and points of interest that change on an annual, if not monthly, basis.

    The geospatial bottleneck is further exposed when one considers indoor navigation (malls, office buildings, universities, etc.). Even though Building Information Management (BIM) has lagged in GIS, the bottleneck hasn’t been the lack of BIM geospatial data but rather the lack of a positioning sensors that allow reasonably accurate positioning indoors. With GPS, we have fairly good positioning with our planes, trains and automobiles (and mobile phones), and that’s driven the development of extensive map databases of outdoor features. That is going to change. There is a serious effort by many companies, and they seem to be making progress.

    Just this week, CSR (SiRF) introduced the SiRFusion Platform that is designed to fuse “multiple location technologies to make accurate indoor location and navigation a reality.”

    “The SiRFusion platform and SiRFstarV location architecture are the latest development to promote our vision of enhancing the mainstream consumer experience with a variety of location-enabled services and applications indoors and outdoors, seamlessly,” said Kanwar Chadha, Chief Marketing Officer for CSR and founder of SiRF. “With today’s announcements, CSR is demonstrating its leadership in taking location to the next level with our SiRFusion platform and SiRFstarV architecture for mobile devices, as well as with our SiRFprimaII SoC for in-dash and on-dash automotive infotainment products.”

    The CSR announcement reads “Instead of relying solely on GPS to determine position, the SiRFstarV architecture gathers real-time information from GPS, Galileo, Glonass and Compass satellites, multiple radio systems, such as Wi-Fi and cellular, and multiple MEMS sensors, like accelerometers, gyros and compasses. It then combines this real-time information with ephemeris data, mapping, cellular base station and Wi-Fi access point location data and other cloud-based aiding information using the SiRFusion platform.”

    Another promising technology is one being promoted by Locata Corp from Australia. Touting its technology as “GPS 2.0” in recent advertisements, the Locata technology doesn’t require line of sight to GPS satellites. In fact, it doesn’t require GPS satellites at all. It uses a ground-based constellation of transceivers so users can set up their own constellation of “satellites” in their office building, warehouse, university, or other GPS-unfriendly environment and enjoy centimeter-level accuracy.

    Locata Technology is used by Leica Geosystems in GPS unfriendly environments.

     

    Thanks, and see you next week.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric