Following my column last week about technology changing the future of automobile travel, resulting in safer travel, I received an e-mail from a software safety engineer. I’m sure some of you, or maybe many, share his view.
Pardon my cynicism, Erik:
But as a software safety engineer and one who has experienced the “tunnel vision” that arises when driving a car containing all the high-tech gadgetry modern autos have to offer, and…… having a boss that experienced a “runaway” Mercedes due to a computer failure (fortunately nobody was hurt), and…. having followed the Air France Airbus 340 that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean due to a confused computer, pardon me if I don’t share your enthusiasm. Yes, we all love high-tech gadgets but, personally, most people I know don’t want to have to read a 200-page book to figure out how to operate them and can never remember how to operate the lesser used features after a short hiatus. What you are talking about is probably going to be operating in background with little operator intervention, but I get weary [sic] of safety features controlled by software that cannot be disabled by the operator, and we are moving more in that direction. The other thing that bugs me is this Trans Core Gadget for infrastructure-less tolling. I’m all for easier toll paying but, these folks who invent things that ultimately allow big brother (state, local, federal governments) to poke their noses into my business (to see how fast I go and where I go and, ultimately, use that information to conjure up more “safety” laws telling me how, when, where to drive and, confiscating my money when I don’t drive the way the control freaks and politicians want) REALLY IRRITATE ME! Please thank Trans Core for developing yet another Orwellian black box, and ask them if they could possibly develop something useful that does NOT promote more government intrusion into our lives next time!
True, I do ooze a bit of enthusiasm when seeing how technology can make our lives more efficient. That’s how I roll. But, I do see the points that he makes. I think it’s important to note that on the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications demonstration that I took part in, it was all about situational awareness without taking any control from the driver. For example. if there is a vehicle in your blind spot, an indicator will illuminate if you activate your turn signal to change lanes in that direction. In another example, if you’re approaching an intersection and the V2V communications senses a vehicle approaching the intersection at such a speed that it’s unable to stop safely, an alarm will sound that gives you a warning. In still another example, one vehicle had an LCD panel on the dashboard that showed potential accidents. Take a look at the Youtube video I shot from the back seat of a car equipped with V2V communications at the ITS World 2011 conference in Orlando, Florida. It’s all about warning the driver of a potential collision, not taking control of the vehicle.
~8:13 minute video I shot from the back seat of a test car (outfitted with V2V communications) driven by a professional driver. You can see the indicator on the side mirrior when there’s a vehicle in the blind spot. You can also make out (sort of) the graphic LCD on the center-top of the dashboard showing the location of vehicles around ours.
Regarding the smart car I wrote about last week that automatically comes to you when you press a button on the remote, that’s more futuristic. Of course, when you start talking about unmanned vehicles moving around, it better be a fool-proof system with back-ups upon back-ups. But with high-speed laser range-finders and other sensors, it’s possible to have multiple back-ups. I agree, however, that this technology must mature a lot before it is implemented.
Some other photos of the intelligent vehicle demonstration at the Disney World Speedway.
The demonstrations were conducted using professional drivers
Big Brother
Ah, yes, I guess I’m a bit more of an optimist. I’m willing to give a little to big brother to reap the benefits of spending less time at the toll booth. That’s just me. I’m of the same opinion when it comes to consumer LBS (location-based services) applications on my smart phone. There’s definitely a risk to using them, but for me there’s enough significant upside that it’s worth the risk. I’m not giving away access to my bank account, but I’m willing to risk giving up my location to my “personal network” in order to benefit from it.
I wrote quite a bit about location privacy quite a few months ago. You may want to take a look at the one I wrote entitled Location Privacy is Heating Up.
During various presentations over the years, I’ve mentioned how precision GPS is going to change the future of automobile transportation and that collisions will eventually be a something of the past. The ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) World Congress, held in Orlando, Florida, October 16-20, gives one a glimpse of the future.
BMW, Toyota, Honda on one side; Garmin and TomTom on the other.
The goal?
Making automobile travel safer and more efficient. The following photos I shot in the BMW booth begin to describe what I mean.
Following is a 30-second Youtube video showing a demonstration of BMW’s lateral collision avoidance technology.
On the in-dash navigation systems, Garmin and TomTom are trying to hold their own by forming relationships with carmakers.
Garmin “in-dash” Connected Nav Unit Suzuki Trip
TomTom “in-dash” Connected Nav Unit Renault
“Connected” is the name of the game and where the research effort is being spent. I don’t mean connected as in internet-connected, but connection between vehicles with a Wi-Fi-like wireless technology called Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DRSC). In 1999, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band specifically for this purpose, intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Europe allocated 30 MHz of spectrum in the same band for ITS.
I attended the connected vehicle demonstration that was conducted at the Walt Disney World Speedway. It was a fantastic demonstration of connected vehicle technology that really demonstrated how much more safe driving is going to be in the future. The situational awareness was amazing. We could “see” when a car was in our blind spot. We got a warning if a car was stopped in the distance in front of us that was ahead of the car directly in front of us. The system would warn you if you try to pass and it detected an oncoming car. At an intersection, it warned us of a car approaching the intersection at a rate of speed where it couldn’t stop. It’s called Intersection Movement Assist (IMA) technology.
I shot several videos during the demonstration. Following is one of a demonstration of the IMA technology.
Another hot topic at ITS that was unrelated to vehicle safety, in a way, was infrastructureless tolling. Where I’m from, we don’t have any road toll booths. My wife is from Chicago. I HATE the toll booths in Chicago. Orlando and Houston, two other places I traveled during this trip, also have road tolls. Let me be clear, I’m not against user fees for roads. I think users should pay to use roads. However, toll booths are a hazard and a waste of money because of their high overhead. There are many infrastructure-less tolling systems in use today, especially in Europe. During the conference, TransCore introduced a small device that you plug into the OBD port on your car (the “check engine” plug underneath your dashboard). This device supports automatic tolling based on GPS/GNSS technology. It has lower infrastructure costs than even SunPass or iPass or whatever radio device you buy for the system you use. Since it uses GPS/GNSS technology, it doesn’t need an RF-ID reader on the tollway. It needs nothing that you would see on the road unless the transportation department wanted to post signage to make you aware. Cool stuff.
There’s been a tremendous push in the past three decades to map what is outdoors. While there is still a long way to go, the path to a complete, accuracy outdoor GIS seems clear. On the other hand, mapping the unseen and indoors is in its infancy, and the path to a complete and accurate GIS of unseen infrastructure (eg. underground) and indoors (eg. building infrastructure) is not clear.
Cost-effective and efficient methods of data collection are the primary reasons for the proliferation of outdoor GIS. Remote sensing (satellite/aerial imagery, lidar, etc.), GPS, and other sensors have become common technologies for populating an outdoor GIS. If one studies the data sources in a typical GIS, they can be sourced to one of the technologies mentioned above.
The challenge of populating a GIS with spatial details of hidden infrastructure and indoor features is purely a function of efficient and cost-effective sensors. Satellite/aerial imagery doesn’t help and GPS doesn’t help in either case. Therefore, new sensor technologies must be adopted that make data collection efficient and affordable. The good news is that there are many
INTERGEO, held in Germany every year, is the best all-around geospatial conference that allows vendors to showcase their technologies. With ~17,500 attendees, it’s certainly the largest geospatial conference in the world. From my experience, it’s also the best.
Simply, INTERGEO attracts vendors who offer a collection of technologies from GPS/GNSS to remote sensing, 3D scanners, and mapping software that would satisfy the curiosity and needs of any geospatial professional. As I wrote last year, don’t expect to be tied up in sessions, this is a trade show where people come to visit the vendor booths, and the foot traffic is non-stop.The display booths are fantastic. Check out Topcon’s booth below. The seating looks like the airliner I flew in to Germany on.
Topcon introducing Magnet, their Cloud-Based Precise Positioning Solution
Lidar data processing and management software, such as Terrasolid’s solution, was common at INTERGEO. As the cost of high-precision data becomes much cheaper to collect, the bottle-neck becomes data processing and management.
Lidar data management
3D mobile mapping was a hot topic. This 3D Laser Mapping vehicle was used to help assess damage in Japan after the March 11, 2011 earthquake.
3D scanning autos were abound on the trade show floor
The world’s leading GNSS receiver manufacturers attend in full force. You’ll see every major vendor.
Javad GNSS displaying their receivers as well as their new iPad app
As expected and reported over the past few years, the market for machine control products is developing and expanding. There were a number of interesting displays, including this one from Moba AG.
Demonstration of Moba’s excavator machine control system
UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) also continue to be a hot topic. The benefits of UAV for remote sensing geospatial activities are clear. What’s not clear is the commercial adoption of UAVs for mapping. Europe and other countries have been much more progressive than the U.S., which still severely limits the use of UAVs for non-government and non-university activities.
Of course, BIM (Building Information Modeling) is another significant trend and there were no lack of vendors at INTERGEO on that topic. The GIS world has just started to get a handle on mapping outdoors while indoor mapping is vastly untouched. OrthoGraph displays their indoor mapping app for the iPad.
OrthoGraph Architect for iPad
I heard some good things about OpenStreetMap. I’ve written about OSM before. Take a look at their website when you have a chance. Also exhibiting was OpenSeaMap.
Open Street Map stand
At the Nuremberg Messe, there was plenty of space to accommodate the ~17,500 attendees as well as an outdoor demonstration area.
INTERGEO 2011 outdoor demonstration area
On the second day of the INTERGEO conference, the Forum for Satellite Navigation (SatNav-Forum) held its one-day meeting. This was the first time it was co-located with INTERGEO. You can view the agenda here, though it’s in German so you’ll need to use an online translator. Note that yours truly gave a short presentation in the afternoon. Some Galileo literature I read tried to make the point that Galileo is superior to GPS and GLONASS. I tried to make the point that GPS and Galileo (Europe’s GPS) are complimentary systems, not competitive systems. By using both GPS and Galileo, high-precision horizontal and vertical data will be very easy and inexpensive to collect in the future. I hope I made my point.
SatNav-Forum display at INTERGEO
Back to the INTERGEO conference. If your company manufacturers something related to geospatial hardware or software, you’re making a big mistake if you are not attending INTERGEO. This is, by far, the single best conference in the world to attend in order to understand the latest trends and developments in GIS, surveying, engineering, and all other geospatial-related disciplines.
Like a bad week on the stock exchange, LightSquared hit speed bump after speed bump this week. After Monday when the company boldly claimed there would “be a resolution within a month” to the GPS interference problem, the FCC spanked them Tuesday by ordering more testing. The rest of the week turned even more sour.
The issue really isn’t about blame, which is how LightSquared is trying to frame it with the “the GPS industry knew about it” argument. The fact is that hundreds of thousands (LightSquared estimates 750,000 to 1 million) of high-precision GPS receivers would be affected. These are high-end receivers valued at thousands and tens of thousands of dollars each.
This week (September 12-16), things turned sour for LightSquared. Most alarming is that it really demonstrated how flakey LightSquared’s thought process is, thus substantially reducing the company’s credibility.
Monday
On Monday, it was reported that LightSquared said it was confident the FCC would make a decision in the next month. LightSquared Executive VP Martin Harriman said Monday at the Mobile Future Conference “We are at the end of the process and we expect the FCC to make a decision. We have made some big concessions… Sprint wouldn’t sign this big deal if it didn’t expect it to be resolved. I expect there to be a resolution in the next month.”
Does he really think people are that stupid? Obviously, Sprint would love to have $9 billion of LightSquared’s money, but I guarantee the contract is contingent upon LightSquared gaining approval from the FCC. If I was Sprint, I’d sign it, too. There’s no downside for Sprint to sign the deal!
After LightSquared’s statement on Monday, the week started going downhill in a hurry for the company.
Tuesday
On Tuesday, a day after LightSquared applied pressure and said it “expects the FCC to make a decision,” the FCC threw LightSquared a right jab by issuing a Public Notice stating that further testing is needed to understand the impact of LightSquared’s latest proposal. Following is from the FCC’s Public Notice:
“This Public Notice is issued pursuant to the provision of LightSquared Subsidiary LLC’s (LightSquared) conditional Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) authorization that LightSquared may not commence ATC operations until the Commission, in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), finds that Global Positioning System (GPS) interference concerns have been satisfactorily resolved. Following extensive comments received as a result of the technical working group process required by the International Bureau’s Order and Authorization dated January 26, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with NTIA, has determined that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential commercial terrestrial services offered by LightSquared will not cause harmful interference to GPS operations.”
Furthermore, the FCC Public Notice stated:
“LightSquared submitted proposed mitigation techniques to remedy the interference to GPS simultaneously with the technical working group final report. Notably, LightSquared proposed to revise its planned deployment to operate terrestrial transmitters only in the lower 10 MHz of its spectrum. The results thus far from the testing using the lower 10 MHz showed significant improvement compared to tests of the upper 10 MHz, although there continue to be interference concerns, e.g., with certain types of high precision GPS receivers, including devices used in national security and aviation applications.Additional tests are therefore necessary.”
It was a no-brainer that the FCC would take this route. It really makes one wonder what these LightSquared guys are thinking. Maybe they think if they behave arrogantly enough, they can “will it” to happen?
Wednesday
This story got even better on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, LightSquared representatives announced that they miraculously “found the solution” to the GPS interference problem with Jeff Carlisle stating, “We have a proof of concept that uses current technology and equipment that is available today and is affordable.” Riiiiight. Obviously, this guy never ran a product development project. He has nothing but a conceptual idea of how the problem might be solved. He further stated that LightSquared’s solution can be placed into production within several months.
Implementing in the field is a lot different than proving a concept in a lab. Several months? Are you kidding me? Dude, you can’t even get your testing done on all the different GPS makes/models in “several months.” You can’t responsibly test your design concept in “several months,” and you’re already talking about going into mass production in “several months”? Honestly, I’ve lost a lot of respect for LightSquared this week.
The Technical Working Group (TWG) didn’t test all makes/models of receivers that would be affected, only a sample set. In fact, just like LightSquared’s lack of due diligence in researching the GPS markets to begin with, the company’s doing enough now just to slide by, taking the shortest cut possible. I guarantee you it will be a disaster for the high-precision GPS markets if the LightSquared guys are granted permission to move forward, given their attitude and behavior. Responsible design engineers don’t behave this way. In fact, I’m guessing the design engineer(s) behind the scenes at LightSquared cringe whenever LightSquared executives (e.g., lawyers) make these kinds of flakey statements.
OK, let’s think about LightSquared’s “fix” for a minute. For sure, it’s going to be a hardware accessory and/or a new antenna, or both. Think about all the high-performance GPS handhelds on the market (Trimble GeoXT/XH, Ashtech ProMark, Mobile Mapper, etc.). Are they really going to suggest a LightSquared “clip-on” accessory for those handheld units? Seriously? How about replacing antennas on CORS? New antennas would need to be characterized by NGS. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. All of this in “several months”?
I’ve been pretty open-minded about LightSquared proposing a solution, but this really insults our intelligence. But as we’ve seen previously with LightSquared, it’s not about finding a practical solution for the GPS user community; it’s all about selling an idea to the FCC. The problem is that the FCC doesn’t have to live with LightSquared’s half-baked “solution,” we do.
Ok, that’s about enough news on LightSquared for the week, right?
Not a chance.
Thursday
On Thursday, The Daily Beast reported that General William Shelton, commander of the U.S. Space Command, said in a classified briefing that the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to LightSquared.
The Daily Beast reported that Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to LightSquared. Reports the website, “The White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points
: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, the officials said.”
The White House confirmed Wednesday that its Office of Management and Budget suggested changes to the general’s testimony but insisted such reviews are routine and not influenced by politics. And it said Shelton will be permitted to give the testimony he wants, without any pressure.
Kudos to General Shelton for speaking out. His career will likely take a hit for this, especially if this turns into a major political scandal.
“In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa [Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.] and Ranking Member Towns [Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.] to promptly investigate this matter.”
Also on Thursday, Congressman Tom Petri (R-WI) spanked LightSquared for its advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. In response to LightSquared’s claim that the GPS industry is to blame, Petri wrote:
“This ignores the fact that GPS was located on this part of the spectrum long before LightSquared devised its plan to employ a terrestrial network within the Satellite band of radio spectrum.
“In fact, your spectrum was purchased at bargain prices because it was not intended for terrestrial operations,” Petri continued. “If it were always intended for such use, it would have been of much higher value. It became high-value spectrum when it became clear that LightSquared’s business plan was to abuse the ancillary terrestrial authorization and use the spectrum for terrestrial based operations — a radical change to the intended use of spectrum.
“I would suggest that it is LightSquared using a part of the spectrum for inappropriate purposes that has led to this dilemma,” Petri wrote. “Don’t blame GPS, a service that is vital to our national security, aviation safety and efficiency, serves billions of users and the overall public good.”
Friday
Rounding out the week, on Friday one of Fox News’ lead stories was titled “General Reported He Was Pressured on Testimony About White House-backed Project, Sources Say.” This is a good thing. There’s no way LightSquared is going to fly under the radar at this point.
Rally Organized to Protest Potential GPS Band Interference by LightSquared
Gavin Schrock, administrator of the Washington State RTK Network (WSRN) consisting of nearly 100 GNSS reference stations, is helping organize a rally to be held on September 22 at 8:30 a.m. in front of the Jackson Federal Building in Seattle. The rally is intended to support GPS and express concerns over a controversial application by LightSquared being considered by the FCC that would cause substantial interference for GPS users.
He says similar rallies for the same day are being organized in other cities. “These rallies are in support of GPS as a critical public resource, and to voice end user concerns over the proposal being considered by the FCC that could cause damaging interference for high-precision GPS for end users like surveyors, aviation, construction, science, industry, and public safety (a.k.a. the “LightSquared” issue),” Schrock said.
“The rallies are being spearheaded by surveyors and surveying associations, but other end-user segments are pitching in, like precision agriculture, academia, aviation, and public safety. This is purely grassroots about this specific issue with no other agenda,” he said.
When I mentioned to him the rally is taking place during the week of the Institute of Navigation (ION) GNSS technical conference in Portland, OR, he said it was planned that way. Good idea. In fact, on Wednesday evening during the ION conference, there’s a LightSquared Discussion Panel taking place (see below).
LightSquared Discussion Panel Next Week at the Institute of Navigation (ION) GNSS Conference
The discussion panel will be held during the ION-GNSS conference at the Oregon Convention Center, 5:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m. Titled “Can LightSquared and GPS Coexist?”, the session will be moderated by GPS industry veteran Tom Stansell with the panel including:
Michael Swiek – U.S. GPS Industry Council
Bruce Peetz – Vice President Advanced Technology and Systems, Trimble Navigation Ltd
Scott Burgett – Software Engineering Manger – Garmin Ltd
Patrick Fenton – Chief Technology Officer – NovAtel Inc
Dr. Paul Galyean – Director of Precise Positioning Systems – Deere & Co./NavCom
Doug Smith – Chief Network Officer – LightSquared
Greg Turetzky – Marketing Director for New Technology and IP – CSR/SiRF
According to Tom, “this ION meeting will be fairly technical in nature, with panelists talking about the test results and their implications”.
I will be present at the event and possibly assisting Tom in facilitating the discussions (e.g., microphone runner). Follow my Twitter account if you want to follow the event closely.
It’s a good mix of very knowledgeable people who can intimately discuss many applications of GPS/GNSS technology, from agriculture and surveying/mapping to consumer applications.
Each panel member will be allotted ten minutes or less, followed by a Q&A session.
Getting the latest GPS/GNSS (not just LightSquared) news
If you haven’t signed up for Twitter, please consider it. It’s become a very popular method of getting relevant news quickly. I’ve been using it a lot to blog about conferences and events I’ve been attending. I’m able to attached photos to my Twitter messages to bring you closer to what I’m experiencing. Earlier this week, I was at the Field Technology Conference which I helped organize and sent quite a few Twitter messages with photos about the technical presentations. If your travel budget has been hit hard and you can’t attend conferences you’d like, this is a great way to stay connected to leading edge subjects being discussed at conferences.
U.S House Committee Committee on Science, Space, Technology “Full Committee Hearing – Impacts of the LightSquared Network” – September 8, 2011
If you have a chance, listen to all or parts of this hearing:
Testimony is given by:
Mr. Anthony Russo, Director, The National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
Ms. Mary Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary, National Oceanic and Atmosph
eric Administration
Dr. Victor Sparrow, Director, Spectrum Policy, Space Communications and Navigation, Space Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Department of Transportation
Dr. David Applegate, Associate Director, Natural Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey
Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, LightSquared
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University
U.S. House Armed Services Committee Hearing on “Sustaining GPS for National Security – September 15, 2011
If you have a chance, listen to all or parts of this hearing:
Testimony is given by:
General William L. Shelton, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command
Ms. Teresa M. Takai, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Anthony J. Russo, National Coordination Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief of the Office of Engineering Technology, Federal Communications Commission
The FCC’s public comment period regarding the LightSquared/GPS interference issue has ended and the reply comment period is over as well. To date, more than 3,300 comments (not including the 15,000+ that were submitted by the Boat Owners Association of the United States) were entered that the FCC must sift through and arrive at some sort of conclusion. Following are my last comments filed with the FCC as well as my best guess at where this is heading.
I decided to file a “reply comment” submission on August 15 to the FCC based on an August 11 filing by LightSquared where LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeffrey Carlisle stated “had the GPS industry complied with the DoD’s recommended filtering standards for GPS receivers, there would be no issue with LightSquared’s operations in the lower portion of its downlink band.” It’s a blatantly false statement, so I couldn’t let it pass without a rebuttal. Following is what I submitted to the FCC:
August 15, 2011
Eric Gakstatter
Editor – GPS World magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
Again, by way of background, as a Contributing Editor to GPS World magazine, my specialty is high-precision GPS receivers of which I’ve been involved with for more than 20 years as a product developer, power user and consultant. I’m in touch with tens of thousands of high-precision GPS users from around the world through my newsletter articles (bi-weekly), webinars and my attendance at technical conferences. I consider myself and I’m considered by others to be an advocate for the high-precision GPS community.
In Jeffrey Carlisle’s (LightSquared Executive Vice President) comments to the FCC dated August 11, 2011, he stated that “had the GPS industry complied with the DoD’s recommended filtering standards for GPS receivers, there would be no issue with LightSquared’s operations in the lower portion of its downlink band.”
This is a false statement, and to make matters worse, he knows it’s a false statement. Here’s why…
LightSquared sells high-precision satellite data communications services to the GPS industry. Before LightSquared was formed in 2010, its predecessors (Skyterra, MSV) sold the same services to the GPS industry for many, many years. In the course of business over many, many years, LightSquared and its predecessors have encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers that look into the MSS band (1525-1559MHz) in order to access LightSquared’s satellite data communication services. This service has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for LightSquared and its predecessors over many years and continues to be a revenue source for LightSquared today.
If LightSquared chooses to stop supplying satellite data communications services to the GPS industry, that’s their choice, but they should not fabricate a statement claiming that only the reason for interference in the “lower portion of its downlink band” is due to filtering technology. It’s just not true. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of expensive high-precision GPS receivers were specifically designed to access LightSquared’s and Inmarsat’s satellite data communications services that they sell to the GPS industry.
LightSquared may state they will continue to offer these services to the GPS industry in the upper portion of its downlink band (1545-1559MHz) to create separation from the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz). It’s too late for that. Billions of dollars of expensive, high-precision GPS receivers are already in the market that were designed to look in the entire MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) for services provided by LightSquared and Inmarsat. Had the GPS user community been given sufficient notice, tens of thousands of high-precision GPS equipment owners could have planned for transitioning their GPS receivers over many years with a manageable financial impact. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The GPS user community was blindsided by LightSquared’s application in November 2010 and the FCC’s waiver granted to LightSquared in January 2011.
LightSquared and the FCC failed to adequately notify the GPS user community of their intentions. As I’ve submitted before, the precedent has already been set on how to effectively notify the GPS user community about an action that would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force proposed to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian L1/L2 high-precision GPS receiver in existence. It was the first time in history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the impact of the LightSquared system.
There was no industry coalition formed to engage the Air Force. There was no industry outcry. A public/private technical working group was not formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported. Why is that?
The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating directly with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on high-precision GPS receivers.
The U.S. Air Force did its homework. At the end of the day, it set a sunset date of December 31, 2020 to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the high-precision GPS user community.
Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community resulting in billions of dollars in losses and widespread small business closure. Fortunately, they did their homework, understood the impact, and made the correct decision.
LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening. In either case, the GPS user community shouldn’t be held accountable in paying for the FCC’s and LightSquared’s lack of communication/notification.
LightSquared and the FCC incorrectly assumed that communicating/negotiating with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) was the equivalent of communicating/negotiating with the GPS user community. That is a false assumption. The USGIC does not communicate directly with the GPS user community and never has. That’s not their role. I’ve been perso
nally involved in the high-precision GPS industry for 20+ years and writing a monthly newsletter on high-precision GPS technology for GPS World magazine for more than five years. I attend almost every major GPS conference and high-precision GPS market segment conference in the U.S. and some abroad. The first I’d heard about the LightSquared interference issue was November 2010.
Even if LightSquared only uses the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz) as they’ve proposed, the number of high-precision receivers affected would be at least 200,000 at an estimated replacement cost of $10,000 per unit which equates to a total equipment replacement cost of $2 billion dollars. That does not include the cost of removal/installation, lost productivity, required software upgrades, and training. Do LightSquared and the FCC expect the GPS user community to bear that cost? Hopefully, you can see by the overwhelming number of public comments from small businesses and local government agencies, such an action would be devastating to the U.S. economy.
Lastly, please do not forget about the potential devastating impact of LightSquared mobile devices (uplink band 1626.5-1660.5MHz) on GPS and GNSS receivers. I’m afraid this is being lost in all the discussion about the downlink band. The uplink band could have a worse affect on GPS and GNSS receivers than the downlink band.
LightSquared mobile devices are potentially portable GPS/GNSS jammers. The FCC needs to seriously investigate the interference impact of LightSquared mobile devices (1626.5-1660.5Mhz) on GPS receivers. It is already known that Inmarsat (1626.5-1660.5MHz) devices and Iridium (1616-1626.5MHz) devices interfere with each other, but Iridium devices are only used in remote areas so it’s not a widespread problem. It is also known that these devices interfere with the GLONASS L1 signal (1597-1605MHz). We don’t know the extent of the effect that LightSquared mobile devices will have on GLONASS L1, GPS L1, Galileo L1, or Compass L1 signals. The problem is that no LightSquared mobile devices are available to test. Yes, lab simulations can be performed, but LightSquared devices will be made in Asia, among other places, where the designers won’t care one bit about GPS/GLONASS interference. There is not an acceptable design margin, if any, to allow for sloppy LightSquared device designs.
Thank you for your attention. If you feel that further testimony is needed, I’m more than happy to oblige.
Sincerely,
/S/ Eric Gakstatter
Eric Gakstatter
Principal – Discovery Management Group LLC
Editor – GPS World Magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
Editor – Geospatial Solutions
PO Box 663
West Linn, OR 97068
I think that three things are batting against LightSquared at this point:
1. As much as they say they gave fair warning, LightSquared and the FCC didn’t communicate with the GPS user community at all on this issue. The U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) doesn’t count. They don’t represent the GPS user community nor communicate with the GPS user community at all. So, the GPS user community was blindsided by this in Nov 2010.
This was either intentional or sloppy, but it doesn’t matter either way. The bottom line is that you can’t give nine months notice on obsoleting 200,000+ very expensive GPS receivers that are installed and used in critical infrastructure applications. It would take many years to transition to new equipment. The U.S. Air Force and Dept of Commerce have already been through this drill already and they determined that 12 years was about the right timeframe needed to transition high-precision civilian GPS equipment to new technology. If LightSquared and the FCC really understood this market, they would know it’s not a four-year exercise.
2. Even with LightSquared using only the lower spectrum (1526-1536Mhz), it still interferes with $2+ billion dollars worth of high-precision GPS receivers. Who’s going to pay that bill? The GPS user community that was given no advanced notice?
They can argue all they want about who’s fault it is, new filter technology, DoD standards, etc., but at the end of the day, obsoleting 200,000+ expensive high-precision GPS receivers valued at $2+ billion dollars would be devastating to American small businesses and Fed/State/Local gov’t.
3. LightSquared sells high-precision satellite data communications services to the high-precision GPS industry. Before LightSquared was formed in 2010, its predecessors (Skyterra, MSV) sold the same services to the GPS industry for many, many years. In the course of business over many, many years, LightSquared and its predecessors have encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers that look into the MSS band (1525-1559MHz) in order to access LightSquareds satellite data communication services. This service has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for LightSquared and its predecessors over many years and continues to be a revenue source for LightSquared today.
If LightSquared chooses to stop supplying satellite data communications services to the GPS industry, thats their choice, but they should not fabricate a statement claiming that only the reason for interference in the lower portion of its downlink band is due to filtering technology. Its just not true. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of expensive high-precision GPS receivers were specifically designed to access LightSquareds and Inmarsats satellite data communications services that they sell to the GPS industry.
LightSquared may state they will continue to offer these services to the GPS industry in the upper portion of its downlink band (1545-1559MHz) to create separation from the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz). Its too late for that. Billions of dollars of expensive, high-precision GPS receivers are already in the market that were designed to look in the entire MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) for services provided by LightSquared and Inmarsat. Had the GPS user community been given sufficient notice, tens of thousands of high-precision GPS equipment owners could have planned for transitioning their GPS receivers over many years with a manageable financial impact. Unfortunately, thats not the case. The GPS user community was blindsided by LightSquareds application in November 2010 and the FCCs waiver granted to LightSquared in January 2011.
Of course, I didn’t mention aviation, maritime, military and other safety-of-life applications of GPS. That’s a whole other story…
Does that mean the FCC is going to tell LightSquared to go home?
“It is unclear to what extent the GPS receivers and devices tested are current production models, into what market segments those receivers and devices are most commonly sold, what fraction of a given market segment those devices represent, and their design lifetimes and typical owner-use lifetimes.This information is important in assessing the likely impact, if any, of interference on various use cases over time. We therefore request production and U.S. sales information for each of the devices tested, including (1) the dates of production, (2) the market segment(s) to which the device is targeted or sold, (3) total annual sales volume and annual sales volume by market segment or estimates thereof, (4) the date on which full support of the device by th
e manufacturer ceased (or will cease), (5) estimated time period after which the device owner would likely replace or discontinue use of the device”.
The letter also requests updated information from LightSquared based on their proposal to use only the lower spectrum (1526-1536MHz). The timeframe to provide the requested information is very aggressive, with all information to be supplied on or before August 22, 2011.
I think this is good news in general. It is the FCC’s first solid attempt to understand the GPS receiver markets in which the proposed LightSquared system will cause interference problems, including high-precision.
The bad news is that the FCC is only requesting market information on GPS receivers that were tested. If you recall in one of my earlier articles, I listed the GPS receivers being tested by the high-precision team. Obviously, if the FCC only used market data from these GPS receivers, the numbers will be underestimated by a large double-digit value and maybe orders of magnitude because many receiver models weren’t included in the test. Also, many CORS in operation are legacy GPS receivers that are out of production. Based on their questions, I have a feeling the FCC will discount those to little or no value, when they actually still provide economic benefit. However, the CORS owner can’t or aren’t in a position to replace them, resulting in a net loss.
No matter which way this goes, I’m pretty confident the FCC is going to use this opportunity to rattle the GPS industry’s cage. Spectrum is a finite resource and the FCC is going to look at ways to allocate spectrum as efficiently as possible, as they should. Is the MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) being used in the most efficient manner? Probably not. I bet the FCC orders changes in that area, or at least the FCC sets the wheels in motion towards change. I’m ok with that as long as it doesn’t come at the unreasonable expense of the GPS user community, be it high-precision, aviation, military, etc.
All of this bruha is really about timing. Given enough time, GPS receiver manufacturers and component manufacturers have a chance to develop new technologies that use the MSS spectrum more efficiently, if at all. Actually, if the FCC pushes forward like they seem to want, it really isn’t MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) spectrum any longer, it would become a Mobile Terrestrial Service. But developing new technologies, designing/testing products and then allowing the GPS user community enough time to adopt the new technology with a reasonable financial impact takes years, a lot of years, not four or five. It takes more years than what LightSquared has to give no matter which part of the MSS spectrum (low or high) one is discussing.
I think in the short-term the FCC is going to order more testing in order to understand the impact on GPS receivers of LightSquared using only the lower end of the MSS spectrum (1526-1536MHz). We already know it’s going to hammer most high-precision GPS receivers valued collectively at $2+ billion dollars. I don’t have a good grip on how it will affect aviation, military and other receivers in critical apps. We’ll see.
Actually, I agree with what Jeff Kagan of E-commerce Times writes. LightSquared is playing the public relations game the wrong way and they’re getting their nose punched every time they turn around. They should be spending their energy on talking about how wireless communications will be enhanced by their service instead of scraping up obscure DoD specifications they claim that commercial GPS receivers are supposed to adhere to. I still don’t understand what they bring to the table that Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc. don’t. Yes, I get that they are a wholesaler and can bring 4G LTE to small service providers. I’m talking about technology. What technology do they bring to the table? If they are just a new distributor in the mix, there’s not much to talk about and maybe that’s why they are fighting the public relations game the way they are. Interesting enough, earlier this week LightSquared announced they hired a new Senior Vice President for Public Relations and Communications, presumably to attempt to resolve the GPS interference fiasco.
Dish Network Announces Plan for 4G LTE Network and Applies for FCC Waiver Similar to LightSquared
Dish Network is trying something eerily similar to LightSquared, but it will have no effect on GPS receivers since their spectrum is far away from GPS (2+ GHz). Dish bought two bankrupt companies last year, Terrestar and DBSD, and have 40MHz of spectrum to play with in 4G LTE. It will be interesting to watch how the FCC deals with this, especially if the Dish waiver is pushed through as LightSquared’s was. With no GPS interference concerns, Dish might be able to field a 4G LTE system before LightSquared can.
As Phil Goldstein from GPS World’s sister publication, Fierce Wireless, comments:
“One of they issues that has come to the fore in the wake of the FCC’s decision to grant a similar conditional waiver to LightSquared is that LightSquared’s L-Band spectrum sits adjacent to GPS spectrum, and that terrestrial transmissions from LightSquared’s proposed wholesale LTE network in the upper portion of its spectrum is causing GPS interference. Pointedly, in its filing, Dish said its 2 GHz S-Band spectrum “will not raise the technical issues that have hampered the use of the MSS L-Band, such as the interleaving of the operators’ assignments and the severe interference claimed by systems operating in adjacent spectrum.”
In return for the waiver, Dish said it will commit to a “substantial terrestrial network deployment” of a branded retail service intended to increase wireless broadband competition, including in rural areas, using LTE-Advanced network technology. Dish said it is prepared to work with the FCC “to develop a reasonable, attainable buildout schedule keyed to commercial availability of the LTE-Advanced standard,” and that it is committed to developing a buildout schedule “consistent with FCC precedent and based on the buildout principles established” in Sprint Nextel’s (NYSE:S) combination of its spectrum assets with Clearwire (NASDAQ:CLWR).
Last week, I was a guest on the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping’s (ACSM) weekly, one-hour America’s Web Radio program. Web radio is actually a very creative idea. You can listen to the live program on your internet-connected computer (11am U.S. Eastern time every Monday) or you can download the recorded program in MP3 format and listen to it using your iPod or other MP3 player. Click here if you’d like to listen to last week’s program when I was the guest.
You may not have noticed it, but last Friday we experienced the first serious geomagnetic storm in this solar cycle (Solar Cycle 24), which began in 2009. Not all types of solar activity (sun spots, solar flares, solar burst, and solar radiation) affect GPS receiver operations. Geomagnetic storms are the ones that can cause problems for GPS receivers if those storms are powerful enough.
Last Thursday, I received e-mail from Joe Kunches at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
“The Sun has been erupting and looks like a storm — say G3 level — could be on for Friday, August 5.”
Joe was right, it hit about a day later, on Friday, August 5, as he predicted.
The good news is that Joe says we generally have at least a 24-hour warning before a geomagnetic storm starts disturbing the ionosphere.
That’s what it comes down to, the ionosphere.
GPS signals being delayed as they pass through the ionosphere end up being the largest source of error in GPS positioning. The signals must pass through the ionosphere, which is full of free electrons. The density of these electrons in the ionosphere affects the speed at which GPS signals travel. If the density of the electrons in the ionosphere was consistent, then it would be straight-forward to create a model and largely mitigate its effects. However, that’s not always the case. The ionosphere has been relatively benign since the last solar cycle, and that’s one of the reasons that GPS accuracy has been so good, especially GPS L1 SBAS systems like WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS, which rely on modeling the ionosphere.
The problem is geomagnetic storms. They wreak havoc on the free electrons in the ionosphere, making it difficult to accurately determine how much the GPS signals have been delayed.
The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is one of the foremost agencies that monitors the Total Electron Count (TEC) in the ionosphere. With Joe’s help, I was able to obtain dynamic plots of the TEC from last Friday so I could illustrate to you what happened. I was also able to obtain plots from Gavin Schrock at the Washington State Reference Network (WSRN) showing how it impacted the WSRN. I compiled the plots, added some text, and produced the following Youtube video.
As I wrote in the Youtube video, to get the most updated solar activity information that’s related to high-precision GPS users, you should follow me on Twitter at GPSGIS_Eric.
If you’re looking for a good backgrounder on how the ionosphere affects GPS, you might want to read this April 1991 GPS World column. Although it’s dated in some respects, the fundamental concepts are solid.
Last Push on LightSquared
There’s been some confusion on the FCC comment period regarding the LightSquared/GPS interference issue. The comment period was not extended. The public comment period was July 1 to July 30, 2011. The reply comment period is from August 1 to August 15, 2011. However, it appears the FCC is still logging new comments even after the July 30 cut-off date. Either way, do not hesitate to submit your comments before August 15; just mark it (dropdown menu) as a reply to comments.
This is your last chance to speak out and let your government know how important GPS is to your orgnization.
To date, there have been more than 2,900 individual comments electronically filed as well as more than 15,000 submitted in writing to the FCC (15,000 alone from the Boat Owners Association of the United States). The vast majority of the comments support GPS.
This week, I’m pleased to present to you an essay 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, AZ.
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 3-D digital spatial data via the global spatial data model (GSDM). He wrote a book, “The 3-D 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 4-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. He is currently Secretary of the ASCE Geomatics Division (GMD) Executive Committee and will become Chair of the GMD on October 1, 2011.
Is Education Failing Society?
Earl F. Burkholder
Our lives are enriched to the extent we understand the reasons for and the consequences of our decisions. My assumption has long been that education is the foundation upon which we build that understanding. Listening to the recent ongoing debate of LightSquared’s impact on GPS signals has given me reason to question that assumption.
I agree with those who believe that education is essential for the survival and continued viability of the surveying profession. Nonetheless, challenges remain. In my opinion, two of the most pressing challenges facing the surveying profession are:
Thirty nine (39) of the state boards of licensure for surveyors in the United States do NOT require a college degree as a prerequisite for licensure (Thompson 2011).
The onslaught of technology and the pervasive use of 3-D digital spatial data have out-paced the ability of many practicing surveyors (myself included) to keep up – except by using technology in a rote manner and relying on manuals and vendors for training and/or support.
Wikipedia states, “Education is the process by which society transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, and values from one generation to another.” I remain convinced that education deserves an unconditional commitment and that education is an important part of addressing the challenges facing the surveying profession.
But, in an attempt to look at the bigger picture and to view the challenges from another perspective I offer the some comments and questions. Whether personal, business, governmental, or other – decisions and/or actions are based upon some combination of knowledge, ability, and authority. But the question is, “does the ability/authority to do something justify doing it?” That question could be asked regarding stem cell research or building atomic bombs. I’d rather look at it in terms of the LightSquared debate.
“The Curious Capitalist” (Foroohar 2011) is a column in the April 4, 2011, issue of Time magazine which notes that Wall Street hires more science and engineering graduates than are hired by traditional high-tech industries. One Wall Street mathematician-turned-trader is quoted as asking why he should work on new high-tech products at Bell Lab when he could make five times as much crafting 12-dimensional models of the stock-buying and -selling behavior of the average Joe. Foroohar observes that while expansion of the U.S. economy depends upon innovation, Wall Street would have us believe that they are “the grease on the wheels of the real economy.” This position has been weakened by recent studies showing that “the financial sector is sucking talent and entrepreneurial energy from more socially beneficial sectors of the economy.” Foroohar makes several other relevant points and closes by saying, “Bankers will undoubtedly continue to push the story line that they are funding innovation. The question is whether it’s the kind that’s real or the kind that’s synthetic.” I see the Light Squared-GPS interference debate as a case in point.
According to LightSquared’s website, “LightSquared was established in mid-2010 by an experienced team of global communications executives and investors with the vision of revolutionizing the wireless experience in the United States.” The referenced web site also highlights the background and experience of nine LightSquared executives. The Management Team is truly an impressive collection of talent and they have laid out an ambitious vision for providing extensive wholesale wireless service throughout the United States. Information on the investors in LightSquared is found under the “our investors” tab of the LightSquared web site leading to information on Harbinger Capital Partners. The Wikipedia web page description of Harbinger Capital Partners lists an abundance of additional interesting information. LightSquared certainly has the ambition, knowledge, ability, and, with the FCC license, the authority to construct an impressive wireless network. Is such a project justified? Of course it is. Consumers are convinced that wireless is a good thing and that everyone deserves unlimited wireless access. Not so fast, larger issues need to be identified, debated, and resolved. This is the first of several articles devoted to larger issues.
In addition to others, my suggestion is that there are lessons here for the surveying profession. In addition to the wireless network issue; GPS, laser scanning (both terrestrial and aerial), and cloud computing technologies are or will be available for our use – to what end? In order to remain productive and to stay in business the prudent business professional will invest in the new technologies and will participate in more and more rote processes that will ultimately be as productive as the dog chasing his own tail. The point was made (seriously) at the March 2011 SPAR Conference that the incremental cost per point of spatial data collection is asymptotically approaching zero. An extrapolation of that trend leads to the implication that traditional surveying will die, will be handled by others, or will become economically unviable. In other words, a surveyor will not be able to earn a decent living. I am leading up the point that the “values” part of our educational system needs immediate and careful attention.
How many of the best surveying graduates (typically scholarship recipients) pursue a career with a manufacturer or a large corporation? They are certainly entitled to do so and some who go that route do make significant contributions to our profession. Having taught surveying at the college level for 25 years, I know a number of surveying graduates who took that route and are now leaders in surveying profession. They have established a solid professional reputation and I am proud of their accomplishments. But, like Foroohar, somehow I get the feeling that surveying is one of those more beneficial sectors of our economy th
at is getting shortchanged.
I do not take exception to our democratic form of government where the economy is regulated by the government and ‘run’ by the banking industry. Within this environment, businesses and corporations operate according to capitalistic principles and fidelity to the stockholders is paramount. I fully support the right of businesses to pursue innovation, to develop a competitive edge, and to profit from efficient execution of a well-crafted business plan. Regretfully, I am also naïve enough to believe that each person (and business/organization/government entity) should act responsibly (some do, many don’t). I am also sufficiently tolerant to recognize that legitimate differences of opinion will be the basis of spirited discussions. Although I place much faith in such discussions, I am bothered by the apparent attitude that the ability or authority to do something (as long as it is legal) seemingly takes precedence over accomplishing something within the broader professional scope of what is the “right” or ethical thing to do.
My plan is to discuss the following issues in more detail in subsequent articles.
A summary article in which ethics/morality (value-based decisions) will be compared to legal issues (authority-based decisions). What does it mean to say that morality cannot be legislated?
Are there really two sets of rules for decision making – one for individuals (values and ethics based) and one for business/government (legal and authority based)? Is it desirable or possible to reconcile the two?
Bureaucrats, business, and courts preside over the “legal” decision making process while professional, religious, and civic organizations preside over the “ethical” decision making process. Is it reasonable to expect that the U.S. Congress has the ability to act as an impartial arbitrator in passing legislation? What is the influence of lobbyists and big business in Congress compared with the voice of professional associations and others representing “values” based decision processes? Hopefully the LightSquared debate will provide some insight and answers.
Checks and balances – independent professional boards of licensure exist in most states “to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public against incompetent (unethical) practice.” Is there a comparable system of checks and balances at the national and/or global level to provide safeguards against unwarranted economic exploitation of “the masses”? From the grass-roots perspective, it appears that the current national (even global) economic crisis was brought on, in part, by “the fox guarding the henhouse.” I need to listen to those representing a broader perspective but, so far, I remain convinced that the logic in “too big to fail” is faulty.
Proposal – Professional associations need to sponsor and promote serious discussions involving the basis of ethical decisions at all levels of business, corporate, and governmental. Many such ethics courses exist for individuals but what is the source of ethics enforcement for businesses, corporations, and governments? Why are existing efforts so ineffective?
Reader input and suggestions are always welcome.
Earl F. Burkholder, PS, PE, F.ASCE
Global COGO, Inc.
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[email protected]www.globalcogo.com
Hopefully, you’ve missed my Geospatial Solutions Weekly column which I haven’t written in two months. This past eight weeks, I’ve traveled 20,000 airline miles, driven 5,500 miles, and ridden 300 miles by rail and 300 miles by bus, all through three continents, five countries, and 11 U.S. states. On top of that, I’ve been somewhat consumed by a serious issue you need to know about.
If you or your organization use GPS, you need to know about what is going on with the FCC and a company called LightSquared. There is a very real possibility that your GPS receiver(s) may become obsolete within one year, unless you speak up today. The last day that the FCC will accept comments on this issue is this Saturday, July 30. If you or your organization uses GPS receivers for mobile GIS, you are in the crosshairs of LightSquared and need to speak up to prevent your GPS equipment being rendered obsolete nxt year.
It only takes five minutes of your time to submit your comments to the FCC. You don’t need to write an essay. Here’s what you need to make the FCC aware of:
What you (or the organization you work for) use GPS for.
How much (approximately) your organization has invested in GPS equipment/software.
How much your organization (business or public entity) depends on GPS.
How it would affect your organization (business or public entity) if GPS was interfered with.
If you are worried about not getting approval in time from your department, etc., just keep your comments generic and don’t mention your organization name. The value is the story you tell about how important GPS is to you and your organization, not the specific names.
I suggest composing your comments in a word processor (Word, WordPad, Notepad, etc.) first, then copy/paste to the FCC form so you don’t lose your work in case something goes sideways with the FCC website while you are typing.
Here are simple instructions to submit your comments:
Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here.
Type in the following information:
Proceeding Number: 11-109
Name of Filer: Enter your name
Address Line 1: Enter your street address
City: Enter your city
State: Enter your state
Zip: Enter your zip code
Type in or paste your brief comments: Copy/paste your comments
That’s it. Five minutes and you’re done.
If you’d like to peruse the 2,000+ comments that have already been submitted by your peers, you can click here and type in Proceeding# 11-109.
DO NOT take this lightly. I wouldn’t ask you to spend your time on something trivial. DO NOT assume that others are looking out for your best interest; they aren’t. If the FCC approves LightSquared’s application, the high-precision GPS industry, sub-meter to centimeter accurate GPS receivers, will suffer interference from LightSquared’s system.
If you want to read up on this, I’ve written a series of articles you can read.
While I’m eager to write about the places and conferences I’ve been to over the past eight weeks, we need to tend to this very important issue today before it’s too late. If you’re interested in reading my comments to the FCC, the following is what I submitted to the FCC yesterday. Feel free to copy/paste parts you agree with and incorporate them into your comments if you choose.
July 27, 2011
Eric Gakstatter
Editor – GPS World magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
Editor – Geospatial Solutions
High-precision GPS Consultant
PO Box 663
West Linn, OR 97068
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: IB Docket No. 11-109
Dear Ms. Dortch,
I have serious concerns about LightSquared’s proposal for a nationwide 4G LTE system. I’m afraid that neither LightSquared nor the FCC fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s proposed system on GPS receivers, America’s small businesses, and America’s economy.
As a Contributing Editor to GPS World magazine, my specialty is high-precision GPS receivers, of which I’ve been involved with for more than 20 years as a product developer, power user, and consultant. I’m in touch with tens of thousands of high-precision GPS users from around the world through my newsletter articles (bi-weekly), webinars, and my attendance at technical conferences. I consider myself and I’m considered by others to be an advocate for the high-precision GPS community.
Hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. are used across many market segments including civil/environmental engineering, construction, land surveying, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), agriculture, forestry, road/rail/airport, hydrography, environmental, water/gas/electric/oil/telecom utilities, mining, bridge/dam monitoring, emergency management, defense & intelligence, higher education, and all levels of Fed/State/Local government.
To illustrate, allow me to describe some examples of how high-p
recision GPS is being used.
In road construction, high-precision GPS offers a 5-to-1 efficiency advantage over legacy construction equipment. Can you imagine the delays if road construction projects took five times longer to complete? California’s Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) currently has 846 construction projects ongoing with construction costs of ~$10.5 billion. High-precision GPS receivers are a critical component of these projects. Projects such as the widening project pictured below, are completed way ahead of schedule. For this reason, CALTRANS has invested in 250 high-precision GPS receivers valued at ~$5 million (~$20,000 per receiver).
CALTRANS Highway 101 project widened the route from four to six lanes to extend the carpool lane for two and a half miles and upgrade a congested interchange in Santa Rosa, six months ahead of schedule
It’s not just large, high-precision GPS receiver deployments that matter. GPS also keeps the public safe.
In Florida, the 5.5 mile Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning Tampa Bay has five high-precision GPS receivers permanently mounted on it so engineers can monitor the health of the structure. On an annual basis, more than 18 million vehicles travel over the bridge. High-precision GPS is a core technology that ensures the safety of those 18 million vehicles.
The structural integrity of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge over Tampa Bay is continuously monitored by high-precision GPS receivers, ensuring the safety of more than 18 million vehicles per year
It’s not just thousands of public entities that are invested in high-precision GPS technology. Tens of thousands of U.S. small businesses rely on high-precision GPS technology in their daily operations.
A small land surveying firm owner in Virginia says:
“I have relied on GPS for survey grade data for at least 15 years. We use GPS every day for all projects. If GPS becomes unavailable or unreliable it will just about put us out of business. Our $500,000 investment would become worthless.”
A four-person agricultural drainage firm owner states:
“I am president of a small business that relies solely on high accuracy GPS. We do GPS Ag drainage (I and three other employees) we set a base on site all over the state because close proximity RTK correction is the only way to get the vertical accuracy required to do what we do. Any GPS interference immediately closes my business and puts four people out of work.”
Another small land surveying firm says:
“High-precision GPS allows us to obtain measurements between monuments which are miles apart to control land boundaries … in a couple of hours that 20 years ago would required 20 to 30 hours of field crew time. The change in technology comes with our investment of approximately $100,000 which is very significant for a small firm like ours. If we are to wake up here in the next year and find our equipment useless for high-precision GPS, the effects would be devastating to us and our clients in both private development and public infrastructure.”
Finally, high-precision GPS users rely on a complex infrastructure of 7,000+ high-precision, fixed-mount GPS base stations deployed nationwide. The infrastructure began with a few receivers in the early 1990s and has been built upon over the past 18 years by the GPS user community volunteering time, money, equipment, and expertise. It would be impossible to replace all of these receivers since the ownership is so disparate. Many are publicly owned and the rest are commercially owned by businesses and used by people in all the market segments I listed above. To illustrate, one such network consisting of more than 875 high-precision GPS receivers is located in the western United States managed by UNAVCO, a university-governed consortium which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
UNAVCO uses this massive network of high-precision GPS receivers to, among other things, monitor the earth’s crustal plate movement (think earthquake montoring).
Each dot represents a permanently-mounted high-precision GPS receiver that continuously monitors the Earth’s crustal plate movement
Another type of high-precision GPS network is called an RTK networ
k. It delivers real-time, high-precision corrections to engineers, surveyors, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialists, construction specialists, and others. This particular network, owned by Keystone Precision Instruments, consists of 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers and delivers high-precision GPS corrections to users in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Like the UNAVCO network, the Keystone Precision Instrument RTK Network is a multi-million dollar investment in high-precision GPS infrastructure.
Keystone Precision Instruments’ RTK Network diagram showing 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers that provide high-precision GPS corrections to high-precision GPS users in the northeastern U.S.
Recommendations
I’m grateful for this 30-day public comment period as I think it will give the FCC and LightSquared a new perspective on the impact that disrupting high-precision GPS receivers would have on the GPS user community and America’s economy.
Although I’m in favor of a nationwide 4G LTE system, I’m opposed to LightSquared’s proposed plan for the following reasons:
1. The GPS user community knew this was coming and chose to do nothing. This is false. Contrary to what LightSquared asserts, the GPS user community did not know anything about this potential interference until November 2010. LightSquared and the FCC incorrectly assumed that communicating/negotiating with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) was the equivalent of communicating/negotiating with the GPS user community. That is a false assumption. The USGIC does not communicate directly with the GPS user community and never has. That’s not its role. I’ve been personally involved in the high-precision GPS industry for 20+ years and writing a monthly newsletter on high-precision GPS technology for GPS World magazine for the past five years. I attend almost every major GPS conference and high-precision GPS market segment conference in the U.S. and some abroad. The first I’d heard about the LightSquared interference issue was November 2010.
Furthermore, there is a clear precedent already set that demonstrates how to handle a case very similar to the current LightSquared situation. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force proposed to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian L1/L2 high-precision GPS receiver in existence. It was the first time in history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the impact of the LightSquared system.
There was no industry coalition formed to engage the Air Force. There was no industry outcry. A public/private technical working group was not formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported. Why is that?
The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating directly with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on high-precision GPS receivers.
The U.S. Air Force did its homework. At the end of the day, it set a sunset date of December 31, 2020, to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the high-precision GPS user community.
Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community resulting in billions of dollars in losses and widespread small business closure. Fortunately, they did their homework, understood the impact, and made the correct decision.
LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening. In either case, the GPS user community shouldn’t be held accountable in paying for the FCC’s and LightSquared’s lack of communication/notification.
2. The FCC needs to consider future GPS signals as well as satellite signals from other satellite navigation systems. The FCC needs to investigate the effect of the LightSquared system on the future GPS L1C signal as well as GLONASS L1 (Russia), Galileo L1 (Europe), and Compass L1 (Chinese) to understand the effect on receivers of today and of the future. GPS L1C, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 all use wider bandwidth than today’s GPS L1, which makes them even more susceptible to interference from LightSquared’s system.
L1 and L5 are the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and Compass signals of the future. Those signals will drive hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue because they will bring high-precision accuracy to our everyday lives, which is something only available on very expensive GPS receivers today.
Again, precedence has been set. Look at what happened to GPS navigation after Selective Availability (SA) was turned off in May 2000. Overnight, GPS accuracy improved from 100 meters to 10 meters, and subsequently the multi-billion dollar market f
or GPS automobile navigation devices was launched. Companies like TomTom grew from zero revenue to multi-billion dollar corporations.
The same is expected to happen again when mainstream GPS accuracy improves from 10 meters to well under a meter using the L1 and L5 signals, but that will only occur if the GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 signals are protected. Some say that L2 can be used instead of L1 in the future. While that’s true for GPS, L1 and L5 have become the international standard while L2 is not supported by the international community.
3. LightSquared mobile devices are potentially portable GPS jammers. The FCC needs to seriously investigate the interference impact of LightSquared mobile handsets (1626.5-1660.5 Mhz) on GPS receivers. It is already known that Inmarsat (1626.5-1660.5 MHz) devices and Iridium (1616-1626.5 MHz) devices interfere with each other, but Iridium devices are only used in remote areas so it’s not a widespread problem. It is also known that these devices interfere with the GLONASS L1 signal (1597-1605 MHz). We don’t know the extent of the effect that LightSquared mobile devices will have on GLONASS L1, GPS L1, Galileo L1, or Compass L1 signals. The problem is that no LightSquared mobile phones are available to test. Yes, lab simulations can be performed, but LightSquared devices will be made in Asia, among other places, where the designers won’t care one bit about GPS interference. There is not an acceptable design margin, if any, to allow for sloppy LightSquared device designs.
The consequence of LightSquared mobile devices interfering with GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 is hard to imagine and might be worse than interference from the 40,000 LightSquared towers. Although the LightSquared mobile devices are much lower power (2-3 watts vs. 1,500 watts), LightSquared has announced they intend to deploy more than 250 million mobile devices, which could behave like portable GPS jammers.
Please pay attention this important technical issue that many have chose to ignore.
4. LightSquared needs to permanently abandon using the upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial broadcasting. The idea of LightSquared using its licensed upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial purpose needs to be permanently abandoned. It’s clear from the test results that this causes widespread GPS interference no matter which class of GPS is used.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the GPS user community should bear no cost as a result of any interference from LightSquared’s system. The GPS user community was blindsided in November 2010. While you can debate about the communication between the FCC, MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared, and the U.S. GPS Industry Council, no case can be made that the GPS user community knew of MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared’s intentions earlier than late last year, yet the FCC and LightSquared expect the GPS user community to bear the cost of interference caused by LightSquared’s system?
Furthermore, far too little testing has been completed in order to fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s system on GPS receivers. Yes, we have a rough idea of the scale of interference from the test reports submitted in June 2011, but the devil is in the details.
Even if LightSquared only uses the licensed lower spectrum (1526-1536 MHz), as it has proposed as an alternative, the number of high-precision receivers affected would be at least 200,000 at an estimated replacement cost of $10,000 per unit which equates to a total equipment replacement cost of $2 billion dollars. That does not include the cost of removal/installation, lost productivity, required software upgrades, and training. Does the FCC expect the GPS user community to bear that cost?
For the above reasons, I recommend that the FCC deny LightSquared’s request to proceed and encouraged them to use spectrum outside of the MSS band. The resources expended by federal/state/local governments and private corporations to vet LightSquared’s proposal to use the MSS band has run into the tens of millions of dollars, if not more than a one hundred million dollars. I’m afraid the cost of further vetting will double or triple the expenditure as well as result in tremendous opportunity cost as significant resources are expended by public and commercial entities to continue this debate.
Thank you for your attention. If you feel that further testimony is needed, I’m more than happy to oblige.
Sincerely,
/S/ Eric Gakstatter
Eric Gakstatter
Principal – Discovery Management Group LLC
Editor – GPS World Magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
Okay, folks, this is where the rubber meets the road. The FCC public comment period ends this Saturday (July 30). If you use GPS at all, it would be very wise to submit your comments today. Don’t expect the FCC to make a rational decision. There’s a lot of money and political influence in LightSquared’s camp and those can dwarf engineering/technical arguments even if they are overwhleming. The best weapon the GPS user community has is sheer numbers, but we aren’t showing up!
To date (July 27), only 1,896 comments have been submitted. That’s not even close to being enough to get the FCC’s attention, and many of those are aviation and geocaching. Also, you see the politically connected comments (chiefs of police, mayors, state legislators, etc.) are largely in support of LightSquared. That’s because LightSquared is mobilizing its political influence machine.
Submitting your comments to the FCC only takes five minutes. You don’t need to write an essay. Here’s what you need to make the FCC aware of:
What you (or the organization you work for) use GPS for.
How much (approximately) your organization has invested in GPS equipment/software.
How much your organization (business or public entity) depends on GPS.
How it would affect your organization (business or public entity) if GPS was interfered with.
If you are worried about not getting approval in time from your department, etc, just keep your comments generic and don’t mention your organization name. The value is the story you tell about how important GPS is to you and your organization, not the specific names.
I suggest composing your comments in a word processor (Word, WordPad, Notepad, etc.) first, then copy/paste to the FCC form so you don’t lose your work in case something goes sideways with the FCC website while you are typing.
Here are simple instructions to submit your comments:
Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here.
Type in the following information:
Proceeding Number: 11-109
Name of Filer: Enter your name
Address Line 1: Enter your street address
City: Enter your city
State: Enter your state
Zip: Enter your zip code
Type in or paste your brief comments: Copy/paste your comments
That’s it. Five minutes and you’re done.
DO NOT assume the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NITA) or other organizations that have submitted comments will save the day. They are interested in only protecting their own turf, not yours. I still hear people saying, “The FCC will never let this happen because the Department of Defense or DOT will stop them.” If that was the case, this would have stopped months ago. The further along this goes, the more the following statement rings true (that I wrote back in May):
“The military is going to be accommodated in the name of national security. The aviation industry is going to be accommodated in the name of safety-of-life. The auto navigation industry is going to be accommodated because they are high-profile. The high-precision user is going to be thrown under the bus because we are the most difficult to accommodate (technically) and don’t have a high profile nor are perceived as significant enough to accommodate.”
LightSquared’s latest proposal is to begin using its lower frequency spectrum (1526-1536MHz) first. The departments of Defense, Transportation, and NTIA may bite on this as a compromise for LightSquared’s “good faith effort.” LightSquared says this new plan will accomodate all but 0.5% of GPS receivers. To the FCC, it appears like LightSquared is bending over backwards because they’ve accommodated 99.5% of all GPS receivers. If you didn’t know any better, you’d be impressed, too! The problem for you is that the remaining 0.5% of the GPS receivers are your RTK and high-precision GPS receivers that you’ve spent tens of thousands of your money to purchase! LightSquared’s solution is to have you purchase new equipment.
If you’re interested in reading my comments to the FCC, the following is what I’m submitting to the FCC today. Feel free to copy/paste parts you agree with and incorporate them into your comments if you choose.
July 27, 2011
Eric Gakstatter
Editor – GPS World magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
Editor – Geospatial Solutions
High-precision GPS Consultant
PO Box 663
West Linn, OR 97068
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: IB Docket No. 11-109
Dear Ms. Dortch,
I have serious concerns about LightSquared’s proposal for a nationwide 4G LTE system. I’m afraid that neither LightSquared nor the FCC fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s proposed system on GPS receivers, America’s small businesses, and America’s economy.
As a Contributing Editor to GPS World magazine, my specialty is high-precision GPS receivers, of which I’ve been involved with for more than 20 years as a product developer, power user, and consultant. I’m in touch with tens of thousands of high-precision GPS users from around the world through my newsletter articles (bi-weekly), webinars, and my attendance at technical conferences. I consider myself and I’m considered by others to be an advocate for the high-precision GPS community.
Hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. are used across many market segments including civil/environmental engineering, construction, land surveying, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), agriculture, forestry, road/rail/airport, hydrography, environmental, water/gas/electric/oil/telecom utilities, mining, bridge/dam monitoring, emergency management, defense & intelligence, higher education, and all levels of Fed/State/Local government.
To illustrate, allow me to describe some examples of how high-precision GPS is being used.
In road construction, high-precision GPS offers a 5-to-1 efficiency advantage over legacy construction equipment. Can you imagine the delays if road construction projects took five times longer to complete? California’s Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) currently has 846 construction projects ongoing with construction costs of ~$10.5 billion. High-precision GPS receivers are a critical component of these projects. Projects such as the widening project pictured below, are completed way ahead of schedule. For this reason, CALTRANS has invested in 250 high-precision GPS receivers valued at ~$5 million (~$20,000 per receiver).
CALTRANS Highway 101 project widened the route from four to six lanes to extend the carpool lane for two and a half miles and upgrade a congested interchange in Santa Rosa, six months ahead of schedule
It’s not just large, high-precision GPS receiver deployments that matter. GPS also keeps the public safe.
In Florida, the 5.5 mile Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning Tampa Bay has five high-precision GPS
receivers permanently mounted on it so engineers can monitor the health of the structure. On an annual basis, more than 18 million vehicles travel over the bridge. High-precision GPS is a core technology that ensures the safety of those 18 million vehicles.
The structural integrity of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge over Tampa Bay is continuously monitored by high-precision GPS receivers, ensuring the safety of more than 18 million vehicles per year
It’s not just thousands of public entities that are invested in high-precision GPS technology. Tens of thousands of U.S. small businesses rely on high-precision GPS technology in their daily operations.
A small land surveying firm owner in Virginia says:
“I have relied on GPS for survey grade data for at least 15 years. We use GPS every day for all projects. If GPS becomes unavailable or unreliable it will just about put us out of business. Our $500,000 investment would become worthless.”
A four-person agricultural drainage firm owner states:
“I am president of a small business that relies solely on high accuracy GPS. We do GPS Ag drainage (I and three other employees) we set a base on site all over the state because close proximity RTK correction is the only way to get the vertical accuracy required to do what we do. Any GPS interference immediately closes my business and puts four people out of work.”
Another small land surveying firm says:
“High-precision GPS allows us to obtain measurements between monuments which are miles apart to control land boundaries … in a couple of hours that 20 years ago would required 20 to 30 hours of field crew time. The change in technology comes with our investment of approximately $100,000 which is very significant for a small firm like ours. If we are to wake up here in the next year and find our equipment useless for high-precision GPS, the effects would be devastating to us and our clients in both private development and public infrastructure.”
Finally, high-precision GPS users rely on a complex infrastructure of 7,000+ high-precision, fixed-mount GPS base stations deployed nationwide. The infrastructure began with a few receivers in the early 1990s and has been built upon over the past 18 years by the GPS user community volunteering time, money, equipment, and expertise. It would be impossible to replace all of these receivers since the ownership is so disparate. Many are publicly owned and the rest are commercially owned by businesses and used by people in all the market segments I listed above. To illustrate, one such network consisting of more than 875 high-precision GPS receivers is located in the western United States managed by UNAVCO, a university-governed consortium which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
UNAVCO uses this massive network of high-precision GPS receivers to, among other things, monitor the earth’s crustal plate movement (think earthquake montoring).
Each dot represents a permanently-mounted high-precision GPS receiver that continuously monitors the Earth’s crustal plate movement
Another type of high-precision GPS network is called an RTK network. It delivers real-time, high-precision corrections to engineers, surveyors, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialists, construction specialists, and others. This particular network, owned by Keystone Precision Instruments, consists of 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers and delivers high-precision GPS corrections to users in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.
Like the UNAVCO network, the Keystone Precision Instrument RTK Network is a multi-million dollar investment in high-precision GPS infrastructure.
Keystone Precision Instruments’ RTK Network diagram showing 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers that provide high-precision GPS corrections to high-precision GPS users in the northeastern U.S.
Recommendations
I’m grateful for this 30-day public comment period as I think it will give the FCC and LightSquared a new perspective on the impact that disrupting high-precision GPS receivers would have on the GPS user community and America’s economy.
Although I’m in favor of a nationwide 4G LTE system, I’m opposed to LightSquared’s proposed plan for the following reasons:
1. The GPS user community knew this was coming and chose to do nothing. This is false. Contrary to what LightSquared asserts, the GPS user community did not know anything about this potential interference until November 2010. LightSquared and the FCC incorrectly assumed that communicating/negotiating with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) was the equivalent of communicating/negotiating with the GPS user community. That is a false assumption. The USGIC does not communicate directly with the GPS user community and never has. That’s not its role. I’ve been personally involved in the high-precision GPS industry for 20+ years and writing a monthly newsletter on high-precision GPS technology for GPS World magazine for the past five years. I attend almost every major GPS conference and high-precision GPS market segment conference in the U.S. and some abroad. The first I’d heard about the LightSquared interference issue was November 2010.
Furthermore, there is a clear precedent already set that demonstrates how to handle a case very similar to the current LightSquared situation. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force proposed to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian L1/L2 high-precision GPS receiver in existence. It was the first time in history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the impact of the LightSquared system.
There was no industry coalition formed to engage the Air Force. There was no industry outcry. A public/private technical working group was not formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported. Why is that?
The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating directly with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on high-precision GPS receivers.
The U.S. Air Force did its homework. At the end of the day, it set a sunset date of December 31, 2020, to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the high-precision GPS user community.
Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community resulting in billions of dollars in losses and widespread small business closure
. Fortunately, they did their homework, understood the impact, and made the correct decision.
LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening. In either case, the GPS user community shouldn’t be held accountable in paying for the FCC’s and LightSquared’s lack of communication/notification.
2. The FCC needs to consider future GPS signals as well as satellite signals from other satellite navigation systems. The FCC needs to investigate the effect of the LightSquared system on the future GPS L1C signal as well as GLONASS L1 (Russia), Galileo L1 (Europe), and Compass L1 (Chinese) to understand the effect on receivers of today and of the future. GPS L1C, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 all use wider bandwidth than today’s GPS L1, which makes them even more susceptible to interference from LightSquared’s system.
L1 and L5 are the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and Compass signals of the future. Those signals will drive hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue because they will bring high-precision accuracy to our everyday lives, which is something only available on very expensive GPS receivers today.
Again, precedence has been set. Look at what happened to GPS navigation after Selective Availability (SA) was turned off in May 2000. Overnight, GPS accuracy improved from 100 meters to 10 meters, and subsequently the multi-billion dollar market for GPS automobile navigation devices was launched. Companies like TomTom grew from zero revenue to multi-billion dollar corporations.
The same is expected to happen again when mainstream GPS accuracy improves from 10 meters to well under a meter using the L1 and L5 signals, but that will only occur if the GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 signals are protected. Some say that L2 can be used instead of L1 in the future. While that’s true for GPS, L1 and L5 have become the international standard while L2 is not supported by the international community.
3. LightSquared mobile devices are potentially portable GPS jammers. The FCC needs to seriously investigate the interference impact of LightSquared mobile handsets (1626.5-1660.5 Mhz) on GPS receivers. It is already known that Inmarsat (1626.5-1660.5 MHz) devices and Iridium (1616-1626.5 MHz) devices interfere with each other, but Iridium devices are only used in remote areas so it’s not a widespread problem. It is also known that these devices interfere with the GLONASS L1 signal (1597-1605 MHz). We don’t know the extent of the effect that LightSquared mobile devices will have on GLONASS L1, GPS L1, Galileo L1, or Compass L1 signals. The problem is that no LightSquared mobile phones are available to test. Yes, lab simulations can be performed, but LightSquared devices will be made in Asia, among other places, where the designers won’t care one bit about GPS interference. There is not an acceptable design margin, if any, to allow for sloppy LightSquared device designs.
The consequence of LightSquared mobile devices interfering with GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 is hard to imagine and might be worse than interference from the 40,000 LightSquared towers. Although the LightSquared mobile devices are much lower power (2-3 watts vs. 1,500 watts), LightSquared has announced they intend to deploy more than 250 million mobile devices, which could behave like portable GPS jammers.
Please pay attention this important technical issue that many have chose to ignore.
4. LightSquared needs to permanently abandon using the upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial broadcasting. The idea of LightSquared using its licensed upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial purpose needs to be permanently abandoned. It’s clear from the test results that this causes widespread GPS interference no matter which class of GPS is used.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the GPS user community should bear no cost as a result of any interference from LightSquared’s system. The GPS user community was blindsided in November 2010. While you can debate whether about the communication between the FCC, MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared, and the U.S. GPS Industry Council, no case can be made that the GPS user community knew of MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared’s intentions earlier than late last year, yet the FCC and LightSquared expect the GPS user community to bear the cost of interference caused by LightSquared’s system?
Furthermore, far too little testing has been completed in order to fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s system on GPS receivers. Yes, we have a rough idea of the scale of interference from the test reports submitted in June 2011, but the devil is in the details.
Even if LightSquared only uses the licensed lower spectrum (1526-1536 MHz), as it has proposed as an alternative, the number of high-precision receivers affected would be at least 200,000 at an estimated replacement cost of $10,000 per unit which equates to a total equipment replacement cost of $2 billion dollars. That does not include the cost of removal/installation, lost productivity, required software upgrades, and training. Does the FCC expect the GPS user community to bear that cost?
For the above reasons, I recommend that the FCC deny LightSquared’s request to proceed and encourage them to use spectrum outside of the MSS band. The resources expended by federal/state/local governments and private corporations to vet LightSquared’s proposal to use the MSS band has run into the tens of millions of dollars, if not more than a one hundred million dollars. I’m afraid the cost of further vetting will double or triple the expenditure as well as result in tremendous opportunity cost as significant resources are expended by public and commercial entities to continue this debate.
Thank you for your attention. If you feel that further testimony is needed, I’m more than happy to oblige.
Sincerely,
/S/ Eric Gakstatter
Eric Gakstatter
Principal – Discovery Management Group LLC
Editor – GPS World Magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
At stake is the high-precision GPS industry as we know it. If LightSquared’s current proposal is approved by the FCC, it will render tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of GPS receivers obsolete starting as early as next year. The FCC is accepting public comments until July 30 and replies to those comments until August 15. After the public comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time. Last weekend, I spoke alongside LightSquared and the Coalition to Save Our GPS in a two-hour panel discussion at the Esri Survey Summit in San Diego. Here’s my report.
Last weekend, I attended the Esri Survey Summit in San Diego. This year was different in that it was combined with the ACSM (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) annual conference. Part of the conference Plenary on Saturday were 30-minute presentations by LightSquared and the Coalition to Save Our GPS. The following morning (Sunday), there was a two-hour discussion panel on the LightSquared/GPS interference issue, in which I participated.
At stake is the high-precision GPS industry as we know it. If LightSquared’s current proposal is approved by the FCC, it will render tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of GPS receivers obsolete starting as early as next year. The FCC is accepting public comments until July 30 (see also instructions at the bottom of this column) and replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
The FCC is clearly biased on the LightSquared/GPS issue favoring LightSquared. There’s a lot of pressure to push the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which includes improving Americans’ accessibility to high-speed wireless connectivity to the Internet. After only 2 ½ weeks on the job, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Rick Kaplan stated earlier this month that “We need to make sure we aren’t locking out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission,” obviously referring to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
The LightSquared propaganda machine has been effective in bending the ear of technically-challenged policymakers into believing GPS receivers are using LightSquared’s spectrum without permission, and that GPS receiver designers have known this issue was coming since as early as 1995. Both statements, of course, are not true as I’ve written before, as has GPS World editor Alan Cameron (see LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record), and as published on the Coalition to Save Our GPS website.
Last weekend’s Survey Summit was perhaps the best opportunity to date for land surveyors and other high-precision GPS users to speak out and let LightSquared and our policymakers know how crucial high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers are to their operations. The discussion content was very good and our industry clearly made its points, but it was all for naught.
Esri got LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeffrey Carlisle to fly in from Washington D.C. to speak at the plenary and then participate in the discussion panel along with myself, moderator John Matonich (NSPS), Dr. Javad Ashjaee (JAVAD GNSS), Dr. Joe Paiva (consultant), Curt Sumner (ACSM), and Peter Large (Coalition to Save Our GPS). However, it was a lost opportunity. Only fifty or so people attended the discussion panel, and I’m sure Mr. Carlisle flew back to Washington D.C. to report that the high-precision GPS users just rolled over, and they are not nearly the roadblock that might have been anticipated.
LightSquared: 1, High-Precision GPS Users: 0
A few key points from the discussion panel I think are worth noting:
It’s a joke, but LightSquared is probably going to win the argument that the “GPS industry knew this was coming.” It is going to win not because it is correct, but because Jeff Carlisle was an FCC employee for several years and knows which buttons to push at the FCC, where to find documents that are publicly available — but not reasonably accessible to the general public, in my opinion — and how to misrepresent them.
Who is the “GPS industry” that LightSquared and the FCC refer to?
When LightSquared and the FCC refer to the “GPS industry,” they certainly are not referring to the GPS user community (you and I), which is expected to bear a huge financial burden (you and I will need to buy new GPS equipment) if the LightSquared proposal is approved.
In nearly all of its documents, LightSquared refers to discussions and agreements with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC). I have a problem with this, and so should you. The USGIC is a sort of chamber of commerce for GPS manufacturers. If you perform a Google search for the U.S. GPS Industry Council, you won’t find a website, you won’t find a listing of council members, nor will you find much other information about it.
The USGIC, in other words, does not maintain a high public profile. To be fair, it is an industry council, not a user council.
To be further fair, the Industry Council did negotiate an agreement several years ago with a former version of LightSquared (under different ownership then) and with the FCC, along certain business terms and technical parameters. That agreement did not harm GPS users in any way; in fact, it contained some inherent protections for GPS users. The current version of LightSquared has completely changed both its business plan and those technical parameters — turned them on their heads, as a matter of fact — but blithely continues to claim that this was all worked out and agreed to previously.
Nevertheless, how has it come about that the USGIC was the negotiator with LightSquared and its predecessors for you and I regarding your GPS equipment when you’ve never met a USGIC representative, and never had a chance to provide comments before negotiations with LightSquared and its predecessors on such a critical issue?
When I made a statement about this during our discussion panel, Jeff Carlisle called me a “fear-monger,” if I recall correctly, and he referred to my assertion that the USGIC is a chamber of commerce as “ridiculous.” I think he needs a little education.
The analogy I used was that when Walmart wants to build a store in your town, it does not negotiate with the Chamber of Commerce, because the Chamber of Commerce does not represent the citizens. Walmart negotiates with the City Planning Department and City Planning Commission, which is comprised of citizens of the community, who are directly impacted and must bear the consequence of the development.
The reason LightSquared is in this controversial and expensive predicament today is because it chose the incorrect organization to negotiate with. Perhaps on purpose, so it could maintain later that it had negotiated with someone.
This is not virgin territory. There is a clear precedent on this subject. Do you remember back in 2008 when the U.S. Air Force (GPS stewards) wanted to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian dual frequency GPS receiver in existence? It was the first time in GPS history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the effect that the LightSquared system would have on high-precision GPS receivers today.
Do you recall an industry coalition being formed to fight it? Do you recall an industry outcry? Do you recall a technical working group being formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported?
The answer is no.
Why is that
?
The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on GPS receivers. It held a public comment period. The following statement from its website succinctly summarizes its approach:
“The Office of Space Commercialization worked hard to raise awareness of the size and significance of the high-end GPS user community, which was poorly understood within the government. The Office collected industry information to quantify the installed base of codeless/semi-codeless GPS equipment, estimate its economic value, and determine an acceptable time frame for its replacement. The Office also issued a request for public comments to receive broad stakeholder feedback.”
In other words, it did its homework. At the end of the day, the U.S. Air Force set a date of December 31, 2020 to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the correct amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the GPS user community. Users would naturally upgrade their equipment during that period.
Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community, and the continued adoption of high-precision GPS technology would have been set back for years. Fortunately, it did its homework.
LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening.
During the discussion panel, I wanted to (and I think I did) make three points very clear:
The high-precision GPS user community did not know this was coming, period.
There was a precedent already set that clearly illustrated how to successfully communicate to the high-precision GPS user community when an action is proposed that would effectively render hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS receivers obsolete.
The high-precision GPS user community should not bear any cost related to LightSquared implementing its system.
That said, I’m not saying “no” to LightSquared.
I get the 4G wireless broadband argument that LightSquared and the U.S. National Broadband Plan make. I want high-speed internet on my smartphone too. I want my phone to work in elevators and elevator-like environments that LightSquared promises. I think this might be a boost to the economy.
While I’m not saying “no” to LightSquared, I’m saying “no” to LightSquared’s proposal at this moment. There are still waaaaay too many unknown issues to be understood and resolved.
A few of them are:
Even using the lower frequency spectrum in its new proposal (1526-1536MHz), at least tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of your high-precision receivers will need to be replaced. Who will bear that cost?
More testing is needed to understand exactly what the effect of using only the lower frequency spectrum will have on all types of GPS receivers. That was not LightSquared’s original roll-out plan and therefore wasn’t tested extensively to determine its affect on GPS receivers.
The idea of using the upper frequency (1545-1555MHz) for high-powered terrestrial broadcast needs to be permanently abandoned.
The effect on GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, Compass L1, and GPS L1C need to be extensively tested to understand the effect on GNSS receivers of today and of the future. Galileo L1, Compass L1 and GPS L1C all use wider bandwidth than today’s GPS L1 C/A, which makes them even more susceptible to interference from LightSquared’s system.
A serious effort needs to be made to understand the effect of LightSquared’s mobile devices on GPS/GNSS receivers. LightSquared’s mobile devices will operate in the 1626.5-1660.5MHz frequency spectrum, above the GPS L1 spectrum and GLONASS L1 (~1597-1605MHz). It’s been reported that Inmarsat devices (using LightSquared’s 1626.5-1660.5MHz mobile device spectrum) do not fare well around Iridium phones (1616-1626.5MHz), which is very close to GLONASS L1.
We have to be very careful and test these scenarios because once the plug is pulled, you can’t suck the water back out of the drain. There’s no turning back. Also, the FCC doesn’t have a solid history of making good decisions in the wireless arena. In the words of noted wireless industry guru Andrew Seybold (BlackBerry, HP, AT&T, Motorola):
“The history of wireless is littered with examples where the FCC acted on a request by a vendor, approved the deployment of a system, and later learned that the new system created interference to other services.”
In fact, Mr. Seybold writes that LightSquared shouldn’t be permitted to move forward at all. On July 6, 2011, he published the following:
“Okay, I admit it. I don’t believe LightSquared should be permitted to use what was supposed to be satellite spectrum for a terrestrial broadband network. Not only that, I don’t believe LightSquared has a sound business plan. Building more than 40,000 cell sites, maintaining them, and reselling the bandwidth to others who want to sell it to its customers, does not pencil out in my book. The margins will be too slim, especially given the fact that prices for both voice and broadband services keep falling in the United States so margins will continue to be squeezed. But apart from a faulty business plan, the main reason I am opposed to LightSquared’s plan to build this network is that if there is the slightest chance it will interfere with GPS receivers, it simply should not be permitted to be built.”
To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
Originally, the LightSquared/GPS Technical Working Group’s (TWG) report was due to the FCC on June 15, 2011. LightSquared requested from the FCC, and received, a two-week extension to submit their report. Three days later, LightSquared announced it found a solution to the GPS interference problem. Its new proposed solution is not good news for the high-precision GPS user community. Instead, it’s a threat directed squarely at high-precision GPS users like you and me. Do you recall what I wrote a month ago? It’s ringing true with the latest LightSquared proposal.
“I’m going to keep this simple. You, the high-precision GPS user, are likely going to be considered collateral damage.
The military is going to be accommodated in the name of national security. The aviation industry is going to be accommodated in the name of safety-of-life. The auto navigation industry is going to be accommodated because they are high-profile. The high-precision user is going to be thrown under the bus because we are the most difficult to accommodate (technically) and don’t have a high profile nor are perceived as significant enough to accommodate.”
If you recall, the TWG consists of LightSquared and GPS industry representatives tasked with testing the effect that LightSquared’s proposed system may have on GPS. Four of the five sub-teams were ready to file their final report with the FCC on June 15. LightSquared’s sub-team, according to the Coalition to Save Our GPS webinar on Thursday June 16, was only sub-team not ready to file its report.
Ok, so after the FCC granted LightSquared the two-week extension, I’m thinking we have a two-week hiatus from the LightSquared discussion as LightSquared compiles and prepares their July 1 submission.
LightSquared’s solution is to temporarily abandon the upper frequency they originally planned to roll out (1550-1555 MHz) and rollout its service using the lower spectrum I refer to as “modified” (1526-1536 MHz) in Figure 1.
It’s important to remember that the lines separating frequency spectrums are not “brick walls.” There is signal “roll off” that results in a gray area between spectrums. That’s the reason the LightSquared upper frequency at 1550-1555 MHz was slamming GPS. Even though it is apparently separated from GPS L1, the sheer power of the LightSquared signal at 1,500 watts significantly bled into the red RNSS zone (1559-1610 MHz) in Figure 1.
Figure 1: FCC Spectrum Dashboard
Using only the lower frequency spectrum (1526-1536 MHz), LightSquared claims that they are “largely free of interference issues with the exception of a limited number of high-precision GPS receivers that are specifically designed to rely on LightSquared’s spectrum.” LightSquared’s CEO said that this solution will accommodate 99.5% of the GPS receivers.
Uh oh, guess who the remaining .5% are? Yes, your high-precision GPS receiver. One half of one percent is about the percentage of high-precision GPS receivers with respect to the total GPS market size in the U.S.
I’m pretty confident that LightSquared isn’t weighting the receivers, so that means a $2 GPS chip inside a mobile phone carries the same weight as your $15,000 RTK receiver. But obviously the impact on our infrastructure and economy differs by orders of magnitude between the two.
Remember last month when I wrote that high-precision GPS receivers might be thrown under the bus and considered collateral damage (LightSquared: It’s Worse than You Think)? The latest LightSquared proposal is what I was referring to. High-precision GPS receivers are the most difficult to accommodate, and LightSquared is thinking that if they tell the FCC (and the world) that they’ve taken care of 99.5% of the GPS receivers in the U.S., the other .5% can deal with it.
It’s not yet clear how LightSquared broadcasting on 10L (1526-1536 MHz) will affect high-precision receivers. We should see some of those details at the end of the month when all reports are filed with the FCC.
But either way, it’s clear that LightSquared broadcasting in the 1526-1536 Mhz spectrum would slam OmniSTAR and Deere & Co. Starfire users as you can see in Figure 1.
Not so fast, say GNSS engineers. What about GLONASS, Galileo, and Compass?
Russia’s GLONASS satellites are increasingly being used by high-precision receivers. In fact, it’s safe to say that all major manufacturers sell GPS/GLONASS receivers, which is an expensive option on most receivers. However, it’s relatively easy to justify the additional expense due to the productivity gains from the additional GLONASS satellites. Generally speaking, more satellites equals less down-time.
The problem is that the U.S. government has no vested interest in protecting the GLONASS spectrum.
The FAA doesn’t care about it. The U.S. military doesn’t care about it. The first-responders don’t care about it. Although GLONASS is starting to show up in consumer GPS chips, it’s not being used in those markets like it is in the high-precision markets such as surveying, engineering, construction, agriculture, GIS, and various machine control applications. Therefore, no GLONASS testing was performed at the Maryland test site (simulator not configured to output GLONASS) and little or no testing was done using GLONASS at the New Mexico or Las Vegas sites unless individual companies took it on themselves.
Some say that GLONASS will get hammered by LightSquared mobile phones.
To this point, most of the talk has been about GPS interference from LightSquared transmitters in the 1525-1559 MHz spectrum. We also need to be aware of LightSquared mobile phones, of which they intend to field 250 million — 100 million by the end of 2012. While LightSquared has control over the filtering on their transmitters, it have no control over the filtering used in mobile phones designed to use their system.
I’ve heard there is some mention of LightSquared mobile phones in the reports that are to be filed with the FCC, but not made public yet. However, no LightSquared mobile phones exist today so it’s only possible to simulate them in a lab environment using a lot of design assumptions.
The uplink frequency used by LightSquared mobile phones (to talk to the nearest tower) is in the range 1626.5-1660.5 MHz. That frequency is getting close to the top end of GPS and really close to GLONASS L1 which has a range of ~1598-1605.4MHz.
According to one RF engineer I’ve spoken to, “We already know that Iridium (1616-1626.5 Mhz) and Inmarsat cannot co-exist in the upper band and seeing that the LightSquared handset transmit frequency is in that same spectrum, I think GLONASS in the U.S. is toast.”
The future of GNSS receivers is definitely trending towards integrating GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Compass, etc. signal
s. A section of the NPEF report (mentioned above) succinctly describes the interference issue with GNSS receivers.
Another approach examined involves limiting the LightSquared transmissions to the lower 5 or 10 MHz channel of their planned deployment. However, while this approach would protect a limited number of GPS applications other applications would still be susceptible to interference. Using this approach it may be possible to protect classes of GPS receivers, primarily those with greater receiver selectivity. However, some classes of GPS receivers would still not be protected under this mitigation technique. Receivers having wider RF front-end characteristics, such as those used for scientific and commercial uses requiring high-precision measurements, and some receivers capable of receiving multiple signals from different GNSS systems (e.g., GLONASS) would remain susceptible. Additionally, the use of only the lower LightSquared channel would provide only a temporary solution to the existing interference problems as 4G LTE levels of service may not be possible. Thus, even if allowed, the FCC’s objectives and service conditions on the LightSquared license would not be met.
Finally and on a slightly different note, the future GPS L1C signal and L1 signals proposed by Galileo and Compass are a wider band than the current GPS L1 CA, which means they are likely more subject to interference from the LightSquared system.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski: “As I have stated previously to Congress, the commission will not permit LightSquared to begin commercial service without first resolving the commission’s concerns about potential widespread harmful interference to GPS devices. Under no circumstances would I put at risk our nation’s national defense or public safety.”
The FCC has stated on numerous occasions that LightSquared won’t be allowed to begin commercial service until GPS interference issues are resolved, but what does that really mean?
Chairman Genachowski has also stated that “It should come as no surprise to anyone involved in the LightSquared matter that the company was planning for some time to deploy a major terrestrial network in the spectrum”. He’s implying that all parties involved should have prepared for this moment, and if the GPS industry didn’t, it should bear some of the burden. This is bad news indeed.
Bottom line: The FCC is not looking out for your interests. The National Broadband Plan is heavy on their minds. I can clearly see the FCC thinking “in the interest of the bigger picture, the high-precision GPS user community can deal with it since its only .5% of the total GPS market.”
We need to squash this new proposal by LightSquared in a hurry. It’s a threat directed squarely at the high-precision GPS user community.
LightSquared Consultant claim:in the GPS industry’s “insatiable thirst for precision,” it made poor engineering decisions that made GPS receivers more vulnerable to interference from neighboring bands.
Although it appears the statement is from an independent consulting firm, PRTM consultant Dan Hays is a Harbinger crony so don’t let it fool you into thinking it’s anything but another piece of LightSquared propaganda.
But, let’s visit the subject for a minute to clarify because LightSquared has also claimed that high-precision GPS receivers are somehow at fault because they “are looking in our spectrum”.
Jim Kirkland, VP and General Counsel for Trimble Navigation, said it well when I presented Mr. Hays’ statement during the Coalition to Save Our GPS webinar last Thursday. Mr. Kirkland responded:
“… we’ve engineered our products to use services that are available for payment to LightSquared’s predecessors. That’s a critical point…these precision receivers are designed to receive MSS signals to make the services better and they pay for those services to Skyterra (owned by LightSquared) and Inmarsat (LightSquared vendor). So if that’s a bad design decision that we decided to design our receivers so that our customers could pay money to Skyterra (LightSquared), that’s one of the more absurd things I’ve heard in this whole debate.”
What he’s talking about is that OmniSTAR pays SkyTerra (LightSquared) to lease bandwidth on their satellite to deliver corrections to high-precision GPS users on the ground. Yes, if you pay OmniSTAR for their VBS, HP, or XP service, then a portion of what you pay goes to LightSquared. The irony is as thick as molasses. Furthermore, Deere & Co/Navcom offer a similar service called Starfire in which they lease satellite bandwidth from Inmarsat. LightSquared and Inmarsat are connected. Based on an original agreement signed in December 2007 between LightSquared’s predecessor and Inmarsat, Inmarsat is to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from LightSquared towards “the re-banding and efficient reuse of L-band radio spectrum covering North America.”
Essentially, what LightSquared is doing is selling the GPS industry their satellite-to-earth wireless services (a la OmniSTAR), but they are complaining that the GPS industry has designed GPS receivers to utilize services in which LightSquared gets paid. Is that a “poorly designed GPS receiver”?
I’ve even heard, through the grapevine, that some legislators are regurgitating this nonsense of “poorly designed GPS receivers.” Maybe there’s no ill-intent, but it’s either that or a fair amount of ignorance.
Logically, many of today’s high-precision GPS receivers have OmniSTAR/Starfire capability built into their antennas and RF front-ends to look into the 1525-1559 Mhz spectrum for the OmniSTAR/Starfire signals. They don’t focus on particular frequencies in that band because the frequencies change periodically as OmniSTAR users can attest. Also, even if you have the OmniSTAR/Starfire capability turned off in your receiver, the antenna is still designed to look into that band so there’s no way around it.
Like I mentioned earlier, even if your receiver isn’t designed to utilize OmniSTAR/Starfire, no one knows yet if it might be affected by the LightSquared 5L/10L signal.
Where do we go from here?
There’s a lot more to talk about on this issue. It’s as critical as it’s ever been that you make you concerns known to your state senators and representatives as well as the FCC. Scroll to the bottom of this article for web links and contact information.
Free Webinar – Thursday, June 23. LightSquared: What it means to the GPS Surveying/Mapping User Community
Thursday, June 23, I will conduct a webinar to discuss the LightSquared issue as it relates specifically to the GPS Surveying/Mapping community (high-precision users). Joining me will be Dr. Mike Whitehead, VP of Technology at Hemisphere GPS. He’s a leading GNSS design engineer and can speak clearly about the technical ramifications of LightSquared interference on high-precision GPS receivers. Click here to sign up for the webinar. Sign up even if you can’t attend the live webinar on Thursday because you’ll be sent an email on how to view the archived presentation that you can listen/view at your convenience.
Light
Squared coverage at the Esri Survey Summit (July 7-12, San Diego, CA)
On Friday, July 8th @ 2pm at the Survey Summit, I’ll be giving a 60 minute presentation entitled “GPS/GNSS Technology Update” focused on covering the latest developments in GPS/GNSS. I will cover the latest LightSquared news as well as other recent GPS/GNSS technology developments.
On Saturday, July 9th @ 3:30p and 4:00p respectively, Jeffrey Carlisle from LightSquared and Peter Large from Trimble Navigation will give 30 minute presentations on the GPS/LightSquared interference issue.
On Sunday, July 10th @ 8:00a-10:00a there will be a GPS/LightSquared discussion panel consisting of myself, Peter Large, Jeff Carlisle, Curt Sumner (ACSM), John Matonich (NSPS), and Dr. Javad Ashjaee. The panel discussion will be moderated by Joe Paiva. This will be the first panel discussion in the industry focused on the high-precision GPS/LightSquared interference issue.
Following the discussion panel, at 10:30am-Noon, there will be a strategy session designed to plan actions that surveyors (high-precision users) can take to avoid becoming collateral damage.
———————–
Take Action Now
The Coalition to Save Our GPS has posted guidance on its website as to how to submit your comments. They are:
Voice your concerns directly to Congressional Representatives
To voice your concerns about GPS interference, you can send letters, emails, faxes, call or visit your Congressional representatives’ office in person to explain how you use GPS as a local business and what the impacts of interference would be to the local economy.
The Washngton Wire reported this week that “A bipartisan group of 66 House members asked the FCC Tuesday to protect global positioning systems from interference from wireless broadband start-up LightSquared…”
For your ready reference, below are the actions the Coalition is seeking from the FCC:
The FCC must make clear, and the NTIA must ensure, that LightSquared’s license modification is contingent on the outcome of the mandated study unequivocally demonstrating that there is no interference to GPS. The study must be comprehensive, objective, and based on correct assumptions about existing GPS uses rather than theoretical possibilities. Given the substantial pre-existing investment in GPS systems and infrastructure, and the critical nature of GPS applications, the results of studies must conclusively demonstrate that there is no risk of interference. If there is conflicting evidence, doubts must be resolved against the LightSquared terrestrial system. The views of LightSquared, as an interested party, are entitled to no special weight in this process.
The FCC should make clear that LightSquared and its investors are proceeding at their own risk in advance of the FCC’s assessment of the working group’s analysis. While this is the FCC’s established policy, the Commission’s International Bureau failed to make this explicit in its order.
Resolution of interference has to be the obligation of LightSquared, not the extensive GPS user community of millions of citizens. LightSquared must bear the costs of preventing interference emanating from their devices, and if there is no way to prevent interference, it should not be permitted to operate. GPS users or providers should not have to bear any of the consequences of LightSquared’s actions.
This is a matter of critical national interest. There must be a reasonable opportunity for public comment of at least 45 days on the report produced by the working group and further FCC actions on the LightSquared modification order should take place with the approval of a majority of the commissioners, not at the bureau level.
Earl F. Burkholder, PS, PE, F.ASCE
Global COGO, Inc.
Las Cruces, NM 88003
