Author: GPS World Staff

  • Real-Time Extended GNSS Positioning: A New Generation of Centimeter-Accurate Networks

    A new method brings together advantages of real-time kinematic (RTK) and precise point positioning (PPP) in a technique that does not require local reference stations, while still providing the the high productivity and accuracy of RTK systems with the extended coverage area of solutions based on global satellite corrections. The real-time centimeter-level accuracy without reference-station infrastructure is suitable for many market segments — and is applicable to multi-GNSS constellations.

     

    By Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka

    Real-Time eXtended (RTX) positioning is a technology produced by combining a variety of innovative techniques, which together provide users with centimeter-level real-time position accuracy anywhere on or near the Earth’s surface. This new technique is based on the generation and delivery of precise satellite corrections (that is, orbit, clocks, and others) on a global scale, either through a satellite link or the Internet. The innovative aspects of the new solution can be divided into different categories, which directly relate to the areas that have previously limited the provision of global high-accuracy positioning:

    • Integer-level ambiguities derivation;
    • Real-time, high-accuracy satellite corrections generation;
    • Data transmission optimization;
    • Positioning technology.

    Because of various new aspects of the technique, RTX differs from both differential RTK and precise point positioning as currently understood by the general GNSS community.

    System Overview

    RTX technology is used to provide centimeter-level GNSS positioning through the CenterPoint RTX service. Figure 1 shows the general infrastructure of the system.

     

    Data from monitoring stations distributed around the globe are collected and transmitted via the Internet to operation centers at different locations. The complete operation centers (enclosed by the red dashed square) are redundant in order to assure the very high (~100 percent) availability of the system. In case it is needed, the correction stream source might change between operation centers and/or processing servers within centers. These operational changes are handled in a deterministic way by all parts of the system including the user receiver. Inside the operation centers, redundant communication servers relay the network observation data to the data processing servers, which host the network processors that produce precise orbit, clock, and observation biases valid for any place on the globe.

    After being generated, the precise satellite data are compressed in messages compliant with the CMRx format, specially developed for compact transmission of satellite information. The messages are finally routed to either a satellite uplink station or made available for Internet connection access by the users.

    The CenterPoint RTX tracking network currently consists of around 100 stations, distributed across the globe, as shown in Figure 2. The CenterPoint RTX service is currently offered in North and South America, via satellite link, as indicated in Figure 3. Today the CenterPoint RTX service has been made available globally for all those with Internet access.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 2. CenterPoint RTX tracking network distribution. (Click to enlarge.)
    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 3. CenterPoint RTX L-band satellite service coverage in the Western hemisphere.

    Limiting Factors

    To understand the limiting factors associated with global high-accuracy positioning, it is helpful to consider the simplified basic GNSS observation equations for carrier-phase and code measurements:

    Φi=ρ+c(dT−dt)+T−Ii+λi Ni,
    +Ai−ai+λi(WΦ−wΦ)+BΦ,i−bΦ,i+MΦ,i+nΦ,i
    and
    Pi=ρ+c(dT−dt)+T+Ii,
    +Ai−ai+BP,i−bP,i+MP,i+nP,i

    where:

    Φi    is the carrier-phase measurement for frequency i in meters;
    ρ    is the geometric distance between the antennas of the receiver and satellite in meters;
    c    is the speed of light constant in meters per second;
    dT    is the receiver clock error in seconds;
    dt    is the satellite clock error in meters per second;
    T    is the slant neutral atmosphere delay in meters;
    Ii    is the ionospheric delay for frequency i in meters;
    λi    is the carrier-phase wavelength for frequency i in meters;
    Ni    is the integer carrier-phase ambiguity for frequency i in cycles;
    Ai    is the combined receiver antenna offset and directional variation correction for frequency i in meters;
    ai    is the combined satellite antenna offset and directional variation correction for frequency i in meters;
    WΦ    is the receiver antenna phase wind-up effect, in cycles;
    wΦ    is the satellite antenna phase wind-up effect, in cycles;
    BΦ,i    is the carrier-phase receiver bias for frequency i in meters;
    bΦ,i    is the carrier-phase satellite bias for frequency i in meters;
    MΦ,i    is the carrier-phase multipath for frequency i in meters;
    nΦ,i    is the carrier-phase observation noise and other un-modeled effects for frequency i in meters;
    Pi    is the pseudorange measurement for frequency i in meters;
    BP,i    is the pseudorange receiver bias for frequency i in meters;
    bP,i    is the pseudorange satellite bias for frequency i in meters;
    MP,i    is the pseudorange multipath for frequency i in meters;
    nP,i    is the pseudorange observation noise and other un-modeled effects for frequency i in meters.

    The feasibility of high-accuracy absolute positioning relies on the assumption that phase and code measurements on the different frequencies or on specific observation combinations are modeled quite reliably. This ultimately means that the parameters (or certain combination of them) of the two equations given are known very precisely, that is, with an accuracy of better than a few centimeters.

    Having a global system where every component of the un-differenced GNSS observational model is well known requires advanced understanding and modeling of the involved GNSS-related effects. This is a general achievement of the RTX system.

    (An extensive section here, encompassing satellite orbits and clocks, receiver clock error, antenna phase center odeling, phase wind-up effects, neutral atmosphere delay, and ionospheric delay, appears in the online version of this article, at env-gpsworld-integration.kinsta.cloud/rtx.)

    Real-Time Network Processing

    As previously stated, the RTX system works based on precise satellite information generated at processing centers and broadcast to users. The precise information employed by the systems comprises satellite orbits, satellite clocks, satellite biases, and other auxiliary information.

    The requirements for the satellite orbits to be used in the global RTX system can be summarized as accuracy, continuity, robustness, and reliability. The satellite positions have to be accurate for obvious reasons, including the fact that orbit errors have direct impact on rover-position determination quality. Furthermore, because the RTX network process algorithms use ambiguity resolution, the reliability of the ambiguity determination is highly affected by the satellite orbits quality due to the distances between reference stations in the tracking network. The continuity requirement is put in place to avoid the need of handling observation modeling inconsistency over time for both network and rover processing.

    For the same reason, the overall system employs techniques to properly handle switches between redundant orbit-processing servers without degradation of position quality. As one would expect, network processors have to be, in general, robust against the eventuality of poor data entering the system for various reasons. The RTX network processors employ a variety of quality-control techniques to ensure that only data with the highest expected quality is used for the computation of end products.

    Finally, reliability is a very important factor for real-time orbit processing. At the current stage, the RTX real-time orbit processors are able to run for several months with virtually zero intervention from operators, while handling events such as satellites going through unhealthy periods and satellite maneuvers (during unhealthy period or not).

    There are at least two strong reasons for justifying the need of implementing and running an RTX proprietary orbit processing server. The first one is simply the need of reliably meeting the above-mentioned requirements. The second one is that from an operational perspective, the RTX system is conceived in such a way that it does not rely on any external source of information to run at its full accuracy capability. Figure 4 shows the achieved orbit errors provided by IGS ultra-rapid products during two weeks of March 2011, where IGS rapid orbit products are used as truth. The ultra-rapid orbits are evaluated using the initial portion of the predicted arc, thus making use of the most reliable part of the predicted arcs as the products become available in real-time. In that case, neither accuracy nor continuity requirements for RTX processing are completely met.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 4. IGS ultra-rapid orbit errors, as compared to IGS rapid orbit products.

    Orbit Estimation. The orbit estimation in the CenterPoint RTX system is based on a combination of a UD-factorized Kalman filter estimating satellite position, satellite velocity, troposphere states, integer ambiguities, solar radiation pressure parameters, harmonic coefficients, and Earth-orientation parameters. The prediction step in the filter uses a numerical integration of the equations of motion in connection with a dynamic force modeling. Forces considered in the approach are: the Earth’s gravity field, lunar and solar direct tides, solar radiation pressure, solid earth tides, ocean tides, and general relativity.

    In RTX orbit processing carrier phase integer ambiguities are resolved in real-time. Also, the satellite orbit states are truly estimated in real-time and continuously adapted over time to better represent the current reality. This means that the satellite positions that are evaluated by the user have prediction times of no more than a few minutes since the last orbit processing filtering update, providing negligible loss of accuracy. Figure 5 shows the orbit errors obtained from the RTX orbit processor. Similarly to the previous figure, IGS rapid orbit products are used as reference. The time span is also the same as in the previous figure. The RTX real-time orbit components have a typical overall accuracy of around 2.5 centimeters (cm), and a 3D error accuracy of around 4 cm, considering IGS rapid products as truth.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 5. RTX real-time orbit errors, as compared to IGS rapid orbit products.

    Clock Estimation. Satellite clock estimation forms an essential part of the RTX system. It plays a fundamental role on positioning performance due to a number of reasons. Satellite clocks map directly into line-of-sight observation modeling, yielding into a one-to-one error impact from clocks into GNSS observables modeling. Due to the same strong relationship, it is of fundamental importance that clocks are generated in a way to facilitate ambiguity resolution within the positioning engine. The processing speed of a clock processor is also of critical importance, due to the fact that any delay in computing satellite clocks is directly translated into correction latencies when computing real-time positions on the rover side. For that matter, one should keep in mind that regardless how late satellite corrections get to the GNSS receiver in the field, positions have to be provided to the user as soon as the rover GNSS measurements are available. Therefore latencies typically introduce errors into the final real-time position. In this article, we define real-time positioning as the computation of positions at the time when the rover observables are available, regardless of the latency of the correction stream. This is a necessary concept in order to support dynamic rover GNSS positioning.

    The RTX clock network processor was designed around the requirements discussed earlier. It computes clocks that are compatible with ambiguity resolution on the user receiver. As a matter of fact, the clock network processor itself employs ambiguity resolution for the generation of the RTX clocks. The processor architecture is based on an innovative design that allows processing data of several hundreds of reference stations, including all necessary steps such as data quality control, ambiguity resolution, and the final clock generation, within a fraction of second. The processing time of this kind of real-time network processor has to be minimized as much as possible in order to allow the processor to operate at 1 Hz, and to minimize the final correction latency at the rover end. Note that the final latency of the correction stream is a composition of three basic components: the time for the network data to arrive at the network processing server; the network processing time; and the correction transmission time to reach the final user. Figure 6 shows the typical total correction latency for the RTX system, when corrections are broadcast through a satellite link.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 6. Typical RTX correction stream latency. The dashed green line represents the latency at 50 percent (3.7 s), and the dashed red line represents the latency at 99 percent (5.6 s).

    Unlike satellite orbits, satellite clock solutions are more difficult to compare directly. This is because different clock solutions might have offsets between each other, as well as behave differently due to differences in their GNSS reference time realization process as well as in their observation modeling approaches. That said, one way of verifying the quality of satellite clocks is to quantify how well it can be used to model actual receiver observation data. This can be in general achieved by applying satellite orbit and clock correction onto GNSS data and verifying the remaining residuals. Other quantities such as receiver coordinates have to hold their correct values for the residuals to be meaningful. In this case, the combined satellite orbit and clock error are assessed, and not just the satellite clock alone. For our purposes this is perfectly fine, since this is the way orbits and clocks are employed in rover positioning as well. Figures 7 and 8 show typical combined satellite orbit and clock errors at line-of-sight for different satellites. Figure 7 shows the ionospheric-free phase modeling error for GPS satellites, while Figure 8 is for GLONASS. Note that observations of a reference satellite (highest elevation at the time of observation) were reduced from the others. This was done in order to remove the receiver clock errors from the residuals. For both GPS and GLONASS cases, the observation modeling error after using RTX orbit and clock corrections is on average at the 1 cm level, with values typically less than 2 cm. The GPS satellite with outlying behavior in the plot below was setting at that time, and the increased amplitude of the residuals is mostly due to receiver observation errors such as multipath.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 7. RTX clock quality (GPS) by means of corrected ionospheric-free phase measurements.
    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 8. RTX clock quality (GLONASS) by means of corrected ionospheric-free phase measurements.

     

    Communication and Positioning

    Once all satellite information is available, it must be compressed in a message that can be broadcast to the user in the field. The transmission of global corrections can be done in different ways, such as via Internet, in case the user has access to it, or using a satellite link. In the latter it is customary that corrections sufficient to cover the transmission satellite footprint are broadcast, rather than corrections complete enough to cover the globe. Firstly, because it is expected that users operating inside the satellite footprint will use the corrections only for that region, and secondly because bandwidth restrictions usually play a role in message design for satellite-based communication. The bandwidth restrictions not only enforce maximum bandwidth utilization below a certain limit, but also require that the utilization over time is homogeneous to ensure optimal usage of the satellite channel.

    Furthermore, satellite signals are typically susceptible to frequent message-packet losses depending on the user environment, such as when a receiver is running under canopy. To mitigate packet losses, the message must be built in such a way as to allow the rover to continue operations with minimum loss of availability. In that case not only the message design has to foresee this type of situation, but also the message decoding, usage, and positioning algorithms have to be optimized to most favorably couple with the received messages. All these factors have been taken into account in RTX system communication design. A new message format was created to carry information on satellite orbits, clocks, observation biases, and other auxiliary information. The new RTX CMRx satellite messages deliver 1-millimeter resolution for satellite orbits and clocks.

    The RTX positioning engine inherits several technological aspects from Trimble’s pre-existing RTK engine. This aspect makes the RTX positioning mode, and traditional RTK positioning modes (for example, single base, virtual reference station) easy to co-exist. Among other things, the new engine has been thoroughly tested and optimized for challenging tracking environments. In these scenarios the engine is presented with observation data collected with a high level of multipath and low signal-to-noise ratio, often producing cycle slips and gaps in the data. As previously mentioned, at the same time the correction stream also suffers packet losses and the correction data might not be completely available during certain masking conditions.

    Positioning Performance. The RTX engine delivers typical final accuracies at 1–2 cm level for horizontal positioning, and 2–4 cm for vertical, 1-sigma. The final convergence of the system is achieved in 10 to 45 minutes after receiver startup. The time to converge might depend on several aspects, including satellite geometry and multipath conditions.

    To overcome the increased convergence time as compared to traditional RTK systems, a number of features have been implemented as part of the RTX positioning engine, two of which are worthy of mention here. The Fast Restart feature allows users to power up or place the receiver at a known location and immediately obtain a converged solution. This is also applicable when users have not moved their equipment since the last RTX solution. This feature is quite valuable in agriculture applications, where the user typically does not move the tractor between RTX-steered field work activities, thus avoiding in the majority of cases the need to wait through a new convergence period before starting work, one or more days after the last system usage.

    The second feature is also related to avoiding system re-convergence. The Bridging feature, an outage recovery capability, enables the RTX positioning engine to immediately recover from a complete constellation outage with loss-of-lock during any dynamic activity. This prevents the system from entering a new convergence phase in case the receiver loses track of up to all satellites in view, coupled with outages of up to a couple of minutes, such as when running behind a tree line, or under a bridge.

    Accuracy

    Horizontal position error obtained in real time in a receiver acquiring the RTX correction data through the satellite link in North America is shown in Figure 9. The receiver was running continuously for several days, and was located in Ames, Iowa. As displayed, the horizontal RMS was 1.4 cm, with a 95 percent horizontal error of 2.4 cm. These are typical values for satellite-based RTX horizontal performance.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 9. RTX real-time horizontal positioning performance. Results obtained from a receiver operating in Ames, Iowa.

    Figure 10 shows the vertical performance for the same receiver and time period: the vertical RMS was 2.8 cm, with 95 percent vertical error of 4.4 cm.

    Time to Achieve Convergence. Convergence is directly connected to the level of productivity that can be achieved for actual field applications. In the following example a continuously powered RTX receiver was used to show an assessment of the RTX (re-)convergence capability. The receiver’s tracking of all satellites was disabled every hour by an antenna switch. Each outage lasted three minutes, during which times no GNSS satellites were tracked.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 10. RTX real-time vertical positioning performance.Results obtained from a receiver operating in AMES, Iowa, US.

    This procedure was repeated hourly for several days in order to gather enough performance runs to derive meaningful statistics. Figure 11 shows the resulting performance of this assessment. The standard cold-start re-convergence performance is indicated with blue lines, where the solid lines represent 90-percent performance and the dashed line represents 68-percent performance.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 11. RTX re-convergence performance results.

    As the figure shows, the RTX system converged to better than 5 cm horizontal error after 20 and 25 minutes for 68 percent and 90 percent of the runs, respectively. Convergence time is correlated with a number of aspects, including satellite geometry and multipath environment. Because of these variations, the claimed RTX convergence time is between 10 and 45 minutes for full accuracy achievement.

    The red lines in Figure 11 indicate performance obtained with a second receiver, connected to the same antenna, and thus subject to the exactly same GNSS signal outages. This second receiver had the Bridging functionality enabled, and thus is expected to bridge the outages and phase cycle slips without resetting the positioning solution. The red lines confirm that the desired behavior is achieved. To better visualize what happens over time in this case, Figure 12 shows a few hours of the real-time results obtained with the receiver running with the Bridging functionality activated.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 12. RTX outage recovery real-time performance.

    Figure 13 gives an example of Internet protocol (IP)-based RTX performance. This is a single run where the system converged to better than 5 cm (horizontal) in approximately 15 minutes. Figure 14 shows how the L1 ambiguities of individual satellites in view during that time converged.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 13. RTX IP-based run example.
    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 14. Example of ambiguities convergence during an RTX IP-based run.

    In these two plots, positioning convergence is, as expected, highly correlated with the ambiguities convergence to their final integer values in cycles. Note that satellites that come in after the overall solution is converged (for example, in light blue) achieve their final ambiguity values much quicker than during the position convergence phase, also as expected. The proprietary algorithms used for ambiguity resolution and validation in RTX allow the ambiguities to reliably converge to their integer values. Arbitrary integer number of cycles have been removed from the original ambiguity values to allow better simultaneous visualization of the ambiguities for several satellites.

    Optimizing the RTX system to work under different scenarios was necessary because the multipath and signal availability levels are reasonably different between running an antenna with a reference station setup and the actual user environment, where the data tracking conditions impose additional challenges on making high-accuracy positioning effective on a global basis, in a productive manner. Therefore, an extensive field test campaign was conducted during the pre-release phase of the RTX system. The next example shows RTX in-field performance for an precision agriculture application in Illinois. The setup is typical for agricultural use, with the antenna and receiver mounted on a tractor that ran for about 103 minutes. Figure 15 shows theactual track of the tractor; RTX corrections were received via satellite link.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 15. RTX tractor field test track in Illinois.

    The horizontal positioning performance for that field test can be seen Figure 16. The overall 2D RMS was 2.3 cm and the 95 percent horizontal error was 4.2 cm. Note that this position difference plot is between the RTX solution and a short-range single baseline (SBL) RTK solution providing truth. Therefore the numbers and plot actually show a combination of errors between the global RTX solution and the SBL solution to the local reference station.

    Photo: Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka
    FIGURE 16. Horizontal positioning results for a real-time RTX tractor field test in Illinois.

    Nevertheless the error magnitudes achieved lie within the same range as in the previous assessments shown here.

    Summary

    RTX positioning brings together the advantages of positioning techniques that do not require local reference stations while providing the productivity of RTK positioning. Its deployment introduces innovations in GNSS network processing, as well as advancements in the rover global positioning algorithms.

    RTX employs ambiguity resolution on a global scale for both network and rover processing, including GPS and GLONASS satellites in the solution. The delivery of this new technology is achieved through the CenterPoint RTX positioning service, capable of providing world-wide real-time centimeter-level accuracy without the direct use of a reference station infrastructure.

    A longer version of this article was presented at the 2011 ION-GNSS conference in Portland, Oregon.


    Rodrigo Leandro, Herbert Landau, Markus Nitschke, Markus Glocker, Stephan Seeger, Xiaoming Chen, Alois Deking, Mohamed Ben Tahar, Feipeng Zhang, Kendall Ferguson, Ralf Stolz, Nick Talbot, Gang Lu, Timo Allison, Markus Brandl, Victor Gomez, Wei Cao, and Adrian Kipka are members of the Trimble Engineering Team in Höhenkirchen, German

  • Letter to the Editor: Automatic Gain Control, Spoofing

    Cover: GPS WorldJust for the record: what is reported in “Detecting False Signals With Automatic Gain Control” (April GPS World) is what we introduced a long time ago and is reflected in one of our videos, and implemented in all of our GNSS receivers. AGC information is one of the four ways, and the least significant way, that we show interferences. There is a big difference between showing something in the laboratory and in some receivers, compared with having technology in mass production that everyone can understand and use.
    — Javad Ashjaee
    JAVAD GNSS, San Jose, California

    Author Dennis Akos replies:
    I am sure JAVAD receivers work quite well to leverage AGC to flag RFI (it was not the survey-grade model I used for the paper, though). The original Nordnav R30 GPS receiver showed both AGC and the L1 frequency spectrum back in 2004. u-blox has an RFI flag in its receiver, which is based on AGC. Others likely do as well.

    In any event, AGC detection of RFI (and you could say spoofing) is not new. I coauthored an ION GPS paper with Bastide and others back in 2003 showing how powerful AGC could be to detect interference. In 1997 Per Enge had a student, Awele Ndili, working with the Plessey chipset, who did something similar, checking the AGC for signs of RFI.

    So when all the hubbub came up about spoofers a couple years back, I tried to flag the question — why be concerned about this? AGC can tell when more power is coming in the frequency band and thus flag RFI or spoofing is happening. So spoofing is no more of a threat than simple jamming, should one be concerned about it and make a relatively small effort to check for it.

    I was quite impressed with the spoofer design Humphreys/Psiaki/Ledvina came up with (“Straight Talk on Anti-Spoofing,” January 2011, and “Assessing the Spoofing Threat,” January 2009). Quite neat, needs very little additional energy with the lift and carry-off approach. But also very hard to leverage for any dynamic case where the victim receiver did not want to be spoofed (spoofing a dynamic receiver with the approach? Doable, but really hard, and would still inject more RF energy). So it left the threat, in my mind, to those who are being monitored and want to spoof their device: very small subset — the fisherman in illegal waters, the prisoner with ankle monitoring. This is the hardest detection case, but I am still fairly confident AGC can work here.

    Main motivation for the article: I was troubled that I did not see the need for folks to be up in arms any more about spoofing than plain old jamming.

    Again, my premise: in the great majority of cases spoofing is easily detected using technology already in a majority of receivers, making it no worse than jamming, and the harder cases should still be detectable with additional effort/sensors. But it is important for all to remain vigilant, as these AGC-based techniques do need to be implemented/leveraged to avert the spoofing threat — and Humphreys/Psiaki/Ledvina deserve credit for bringing this potential to light. Even with successful spoofing detection it will appear as much less sophisticated jamming, not allowing the receiver to obtain position/time information.

    So that is why I worked with the Swedes to try and show this and get that message out. It would have been great to test with one of the more sophisticated jammers (perhaps will have a chance to do so with an upcoming test), but I did not have one, so we just did simple repeater jamming.

    I am glad Javad is preaching the same message. It would be great to see him to more widely disseminate that message and put much of these concerns to rest.

    Regarding the video: Thanks, Javad. Really some nice features. I need to get a TRIUMPH-VS or two here at Colorado University to work with. Quite curious as to the sensitivity of the AGC. But the receiver has a great feature set!

    One quick comment. In the video where you tested the RX with the jammer — I might go back and qualify that indicated you did the test under controlled/allowed conditions. I recall we published an GPS RFI test back about 10 years ago, and we had some official inquires for more details on the testing and why we were broadcasting in the GPS band. No idea how/where you did your testing (assuming 746th Jamfest or similar), but unless you state otherwise, it might bring some unwelcome attention.

  • Reminder: Leap Second This Weekend

    News courtesy of CANSPACE Listserv.

     

    Likely none of us needs a reminder as the upcoming leap second has been all over the news outlets for the past few days. But just to provide the details again, read this article.

    Presumably, all GPS receiver manufacturers have checked to make sure their receivers will handle the leap second properly. However, at least one late-model high-end receiver from a leading manufacturer is currently reporting incorrect advance leap second information in its data files.

    The European Satellite Services Provider (ESSP), the EGNOS system operator and EGNOS safety-of-life service provider, announced in a service notice dated 22 May that there might be an interruption in service for a 72-hour period should the leap second not be managed correctly.

    AGI, a company that develops commercial modeling and analysis software for the space, defense and intelligence communities, has warned: “The consequence of failing to accommodate this event is that orbit in-plane motion and corresponding Earth orientation will both become inaccurate by at least one second until the leap second is properly implemented. This will also affect estimating orbits using time sequences of observations spanning this leap second event. GEO satellites might be inaccurate to about 3 km and LEO satellites to about 8 km. How great the discrepancy will be depends on how long one waits to implement the leap second. The probable inaccuracies may be within the collision keep-out zones of many satellites, causing either false alarms or totally missed threat detections.”

    And it has also been reported that some computer operating systemsmight hang due to improper handling of the leap second.

    An article on the upcoming leap second for the popular press may be found here. And, in case you missed it, a recent Physics Today article on the leap second and its future can be found here.

  • LightSquared and Another FCC Issue You Should Be Aware of

    Although the LightSquared issue seems to have waned, it’s like a virus in that it’s really difficult to erradicate it completely. However, Harbinger Capital Partners (LightSquared’s primary financial backer) and LightSquared are facing tougher problems than they have since they’ve started this adventure, not only from their technical foes but now from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Earlier this week, the SEC filed fraud charges against Phil Falcone and Harbinger. In particular, the SEC alleges that:

    • Falcone fraudulently obtained $113.2 million from a hedge fund that he advised and misappropriated the proceeds to pay his personal taxes;
    • Falcone and two Harbinger investment managers through which Falcone operated manipulated the price and availability of a series of distressed high-yield bonds by engaging in an illegal “short squeeze;”
    • Falcone and Harbinger secretly offered and granted favorable redemption and liquidity rights to certain strategically-important investors in exchange for those investors’ consent to restrict redemption rights of other fund investors, and concealed the arrangement from the fund’s directors and investors; and
    • Harbinger engaged in illegal trades in connection with the purchase of common stock in three public offerings after having sold the same securities short during a restricted period.

    “Not only are hedge fund managers expected to be savvy investors, they are supposed to serve the interests of their clients. Here, in addition to raiding a fund for personal benefit and cutting secret deals with favored investors, Falcone then lied to investors about what he had done,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

    This follows a civil lawsuit filed on February 17, 2012 by Harbinger investors, claiming Breach of Fudiciary Duty, Gross Negligence, Breach of Contract, and Fraud.

    It also follows LightSquared filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May 14, 2012.

    Yes, it’s getting ugly. However, they aren’t giving up. I wouldn’t expect so after spending ~$4 billion on this project.

    LightSquared’s latest proposal to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a spectrum swap. Read the details of their proposal here. In fact, LightSquared was able to convince a group of your legislators to lobby the FCC in support of the spectrum swap.

    “In the absence of a viable technical solution that would allow LightSquared to use its own licensed spectrum, we believe a spectrum swap is the most resourceful and efficient way to quickly expand broadband access nationwide,” wrote Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.), Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), who all serve on the Appropriations Committee.

    Seriously? Our own U.S. legislators want to trade for spectrum worth almost nothing for spectrum worth billions of dollars? Who’s side are these people on? Clearly, not the taxpayer. However, there’s little or no chance a spectrum swap is going to happen. It’s a dream that they ran up the flagpole so see who would salute it. I doubt anyone did, at least anyone of significant influence, and now the legislators can say they fulfilled their obligations (in exchange for ??) and no harm done.

    Serious Technical Issues Still Exist

    Aside from the serious financial, legal, and political challenges LightSquared faces, they are no closer to solving the GPS interference problems disclosed a year ago.

    If you recall, the National Telcommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a U.S. government agency tasked by the FCC to study the LightSquared/GPS interference issue, concluded:

    “The federal agencies and LightSquared have invested significant time and resources to identify and analyze proposed solutions to address the impact of LightSquared’s planmned network implementations. Based on the testing and analyses conducted to date, as well as numerous discussions with LightSquared, it is clear that LightSquared’s proposed implementation plans, including operations in the lower 10MHz would impact both general/personal navigation and certified aviation GPS receivers. We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment.”

    That pretty much says it all. While the “lower 10” the NTIA is likely a technically solvable problem, the cost of redesigning and redeploying GPS receivers across commercial, military, aviation, etc. markets to accomodate the lower 10 MHz is huge. It’s likely in the high tens of billions or even into the hundreds of billions.

    The upper 10 MHz of LightSquared’s spectrum, there is no practical technical solution that exists. If there was one, even one that was close, LightSquared would be talking about it all day long. You can bet that many engineers from many different companies and agencies have been working to solve this technical problem since early last year, but no one has come up with any reasonable solution yet. Also, remember that the upper 10 MHz hammered the vast majority of all GPS receivers in existence, not just high-precision receivers.

    The Way Forward

    Without a technical solution to their GPS interference problem, LightSquared is stuck trying to convince regulators that it deserves to be gifted alternative spectrum since they couldn’t make theirs work. As I wrote earlier, I think the possibility of a spectrum swap is low, but the conversation may linger.

    From now on, it’s clear that the technical discussion has disappeared. It’s turning into a pure political discussion. Even though the FCC received the NTIA’s recommendation to not allow LightSquared to proceed back in February, the FCC still hasn’t declared a ruling on anything regarding this matter. Some speculate that they won’t make a ruling before the U.S. presidential election this coming November in order to fly under the radar. For this reason, it would not be surprising to me if this issue hung in limbo for the rest of the year; dormant, but it’s still lurking, like a virus.

    Last Monday, June 25, 2012, I was a guest on America’s Web Radio’s ACSM Radio Hour discussing the current LightSquared situation. It’s a good discussion (60 minutes). The podcast is a standard audio recording you can play on your MP3 player or listen to on your computer. You can download it here.

    FCC Narrowbanding Rule

    While we’re on the subject of the FCC, you might have heard about the Narrowbanding rule the FCC established some years ago. It’s going to kick in January 1, 2013. If you’re an RTK user who uses UHF or VHF radios, you’re likely going to be affected and should be aware of it. Following is a summary statement from the FCC:

    “On January 1, 2013, all public safety and business industrial land mobile radio systems operating in the 150-512 MHz radio bands must cease operating using 25 kHz efficiency technology, and begin operating using at least 12.5 kHz efficiency technology. This deadline is the result of an FCC effort that began almost two decades ago to ensure more efficient use of the spectrum and greater spectrum access for public safety and non-public safety users. Migration to 12.5 kHz efficiency technology (once referred to as Refarming, but now referred to as Narrowbanding) will allow the creation of additional channel capacity within the same radio spectrum, and support more users.

    After January 1, 2013, licensees not operating at 12.5 KHz efficiency will be in violation of the Commission’s rules and could be subject to FCC enforcement action, which may include admonishment, monetary fines, or loss of license.”

    Essentially, the FCC is trying to increase the efficiency of the UHF and VHF radio spectrum so it can accomodate more users.

    If you use UHF or VHF radios for RTK, you’ll likely need to upgrade or replace your UHF/VHF radio hardware. Be aware that this could be quite expensive.

    Following are some relevant FCC documents on the matter:

    May 13, 2008 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order

    January 5, 2012 Reminder from FCC Regarding Narrowbanding Transition

    February 21, 2012 FCC Provides Supplemental Guidance For Licensees In The 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz Bands Seeking Waivers Of The Narrowbanding Deadline

    Following is a link to a page on Pacific Crest’s website regarding narrowbanding transition:

    The FCC’s Narrowbanding Regulations

    April 30, 2012 Pacific Crest Letter “Applying for a 25kHz FCC License”

    Look for more from me on this subject soon as the deadline is looming.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

    Follow me on Twitter

  • Reminder: Leap Second This Weekend

    News courtesy of CANSPACE Listserv.

    Likely none of us needs a reminder as the upcoming leap second has been all over the news outlets for the past few days. But just to provide the details again, read this article.

    Presumably, all GPS receiver manufacturers have checked to make sure their receivers will handle the leap second properly. However, at least one late-model high-end receiver from a leading manufacturer is currently reporting incorrect advance leap second information in its data files.

    The European Satellite Services Provider (ESSP), the EGNOS system operator and EGNOS safety-of-life service provider, announced in a service notice dated 22 May that there might be an interruption in service for a 72-hour period should the leap second not be managed correctly.

    AGI, a company that develops commercial modeling and analysis software for the space, defense and intelligence communities, has warned: “The consequence of failing to accommodate this event is that orbit in-plane motion and corresponding Earth orientation will both become inaccurate by at least one second until the leap second is properly implemented. This will also affect estimating orbits using time sequences of observations spanning this leap second event. GEO satellites might be inaccurate to about 3 km and LEO satellites to about 8 km. How great the discrepancy will be depends on how long one waits to implement the leap second. The probable inaccuracies may be within the collision keep-out zones of many satellites, causing either false alarms or totally missed threat detections.”

    And it has also been reported that some computer operating systemsmight hang due to improper handling of the leap second.

    An article on the upcoming leap second for the popular press may be found here. And, in case you missed it, a recent Physics Today article on the leap second and its future can be found here.

  • CoreLogic Maps 63,000 Completed Foreclosures in May

    CoreLogic released its National Foreclosure Report for May, which provides monthly data on completed foreclosures and the overall foreclosure inventory. According to the report, there were 63,000 completed foreclosures in the U.S. in May 2012 compared to 77,000 in May 2011 and 62,000* in April 2012.

    According to the announcement, since the financial crisis began in September 2008, there have been approximately 3.6 million completed foreclosures across the country. Completed foreclosures are an indication of the total number of homes actually lost to foreclosure.

    Approximately 1.4 million homes, or 3.4 percent of all homes with a mortgage, were in the national foreclosure inventory as of May 2012 compared to 1.5 million, or 3.5 percent, in May 2011 and 1.4 million, or 3.4 percent, in April 2012. The foreclosure inventory is the share of all mortgaged homes in some stage of the foreclosure process.

    “There were more than 819,000 completed foreclosures over the past year, or an average of 2,440 completed foreclosures every day over the last 12 months,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “Although the level of completed foreclosures remains high, it is down 27 percent from a peak of 1.1 million in all of 2010.”

    “Though the national foreclosure inventory levels remain steady, around 1.4 million homes, there have been dramatic shifts at the state level,” said Anand Nallathambi, president and CEO of CoreLogic. “Nevada, Arizona and Michigan, for example, each experienced at least a 20-percent decline in the foreclosure inventory from a year ago. While foreclosure inventories in most states are declining, the foreclosure inventory is still rising in many judicial states, such as Hawaii, New York and Connecticut.”

    Highlights as of May 2012

    The five states with the highest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in May 2012 were: California (133,000), Florida (92,000), Michigan (60,000), Texas (58,000) and Georgia (57,000). These five states account for 48.8 percent of all completed foreclosures nationally.

    The five states with the lowest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in May 2012 were: South Dakota (48), District of Columbia (74), North Dakota (547), West Virginia (620) and Hawaii (623).

    The five states with the highest foreclosure inventory as a percentage of all mortgaged homes were: Florida (11.9 percent), New Jersey (6.6 percent), Illinois (5.3 percent), New York (5.0 percent) and Nevada (4.9 percent).

    The five states with the lowest foreclosure inventory were: Wyoming (0.7 percent), Alaska (0.8 percent), North Dakota (0.8 percent), Nebraska (1.0 percent) and South Dakota (1.3 percent).

    *April data was revised. Revisions are standard, and to ensure accuracy CoreLogic incorporates newly released data to provide updated results.

    To download a copy of the National Foreclosure Report, please visit www.corelogic.com/ForeclosureReport-May2012.

    Methodology

    The data in this report represents foreclosure activity reported through May 2012.

    This report separates state data into judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosure state categories. In judicial foreclosure states, lenders must provide evidence to the courts of delinquency in order to move a borrower into foreclosure, while in non-judicial foreclosure states lenders can issue notices of default directly to the borrower without court intervention. This is an important distinction since judicial states as a rule have longer foreclosure timelines thus affecting foreclosure statistics.

    A completed foreclosure occurs when a property is auctioned and results in the purchase of the home at auction by either a third party, such as an investor, or by the lender.  If the home is purchased by the lender, it is moved into the lender’s Real Estate Owned (REO) inventory.  In “foreclosure by advertisement” states, a redemption period begins after the auction and runs for a statutory period, e.g., six months.  During that period the borrower may regain the foreclosed home by paying all amounts due as calculated under the statute.  For purposes of this Foreclosure Report, because so few homes are actually redeemed following an auction, it is assumed that the foreclosure process ends in “foreclosure by advertisement” states at the completion of the auction. 

    The foreclosure inventory represents the number and share of mortgaged homes that have been placed into the process of foreclosure by the mortgage servicer.  Mortgage servicers start the foreclosure process when the mortgage reaches a specific level of serious delinquency as dictated by the investor for the mortgage loan.  Serious delinquency is typically defined as 90, 120, or 150 days delinquent (sometimes more), in foreclosure or in REO. Once a foreclosure is “started,” and absent the borrower paying all amounts necessary to halt the foreclosure, the home remains in foreclosure until the completed foreclosure results in the sale to a third party at auction or the home enters the lender’s REO inventory. The data in this report accounts for only first liens against a property and does not include secondary liens. The foreclosure inventory is measured only against homes that have an outstanding mortgage. Homes with no mortgage liens can never be in foreclosure and are therefore excluded from the analysis. Approximately one-third of homes nationally are owned outright and do not have a mortgage. CoreLogic has approximately 85 percent coverage of U.S. foreclosure data.

    1The number of mortgages per completed foreclosure nationally is calculated by dividing the number of homes with a mortgage by the number of completed foreclosures in the month. By State and CBSA, it’s calculated by dividing the number of homes with a mortgage in each area by the sum of completed foreclosures for the prior 12 months. The slight difference in the calculation between national and state and CBSA helps to account for data volatility.

  • LightSquared’s Philip Falcone and Harbinger Charged with Securities Fraud

    On June 27, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against New York-based hedge fund adviser Philip A. Falcone and his advisory firm, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC for illicit conduct that included misappropriation of client assets, market manipulation, and betraying clients. The SEC also charged Peter A. Jenson, Harbinger’s former Chief Operating Officer, for aiding and abetting the misappropriation scheme. Additionally, the SEC reached a settlement with Harbinger for unlawful trading.

    In a separate, settled action, the SEC charged Harbert Management Corporation, whose affiliates served as the managing members of two Harbinger-related entities, as a controlling person in the market manipulation.

    The SEC alleges that Falcone used fund assets to pay his taxes, conducted an illegal “short squeeze” to manipulate bond prices, secretly favored certain customers at the expense of others, and that Harbinger unlawfully bought equity securities in a public offering, after having sold short the same security during a restricted period.

    “Today’s charges read like the final exam in a graduate school course in how to operate a hedge fund unlawfully,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “Clients and market participants alike were victimized as Falcone unscrupulously used fund assets to pay his personal taxes, manipulated the market for certain bonds, favored some clients at the expense of others, and violated trading rules intended to prohibit manipulative short sales.”

    The SEC filed actions in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Falcone, Jenson, and Harbinger, and, in connection with the illegal trading scheme, separately instituted and settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Harbinger.

    In particular, the SEC alleges that:

    • Falcone fraudulently obtained $113.2 million from a hedge fund that he advised and misappropriated the proceeds to pay his personal taxes;
    • Falcone and two Harbinger investment managers through which Falcone operated manipulated the price and availability of a series of distressed high-yield bonds by engaging in an illegal “short squeeze;”
    • Falcone and Harbinger secretly offered and granted favorable redemption and liquidity rights to certain strategically-important investors in exchange for those investors’ consent to restrict redemption rights of other fund investors, and concealed the arrangement from the fund’s directors and investors; and
    • Harbinger engaged in illegal trades in connection with the purchase of common stock in three public offerings after having sold the same securities short during a restricted period.

    “Not only are hedge fund managers expected to be savvy investors, they are supposed to serve the interests of their clients. Here, in addition to raiding a fund for personal benefit and cutting secret deals with favored investors, Falcone then lied to investors about what he had done,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

    Describing the illegal short squeeze, Gerald W. Hodgkins, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said, “After he took control of an entire issue of high-yield bonds, Falcone kept buying with an eye toward rigging the market and punishing short sellers to settle a score. In the process, Falcone hijacked the market for the bonds and illegally manipulated their price and availability. The Division will continue to police the bond market to make sure it operates as an efficient market, free of the corrosive effects of manipulators such as Falcone.”

    Misappropriation Scheme

    In the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone unlawfully used fund assets to pay his personal taxes. In 2009 Falcone owed federal and state authorities $113.2 million in taxes. Declining to pursue other financing options, such as pledging his personal assets as collateral for a bank loan, Falcone elected instead to take a $113.2 million loan from the Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. – the same fund from which Harbinger had earlier suspended investors from redeeming.

    Falcone authorized the transfer of fund assets to himself in a transaction that Jenson helped structure. Falcone and Harbinger never sought or obtained consent from investors prior to using the fund's assets to benefit Falcone.

    As part of the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone and Harbinger, aided by Jenson, made several material misrepresentations and omissions in seeking legal advice regarding the loan and in subsequent communications with investors, including, among other things:

    • the financing alternatives available to Falcone;
    • the circumstances that led to Falcone’s need for the loan;
    • the ability of the Special Situations Fund to furnish the loan, without disadvantaging investors;
    • the terms and conditions of the loan, including the interest rate charged and the amount of collateral posted by Falcone; and
    • the role of Harbinger’s outside legal counsel in vetting the transaction.

    The SEC also alleges that Falcone and Harbinger delayed disclosing the loan for approximately five months because of their concern that disclosure of Falcone’s financial condition might have a negative impact on investor withdrawals and on Falcone’s ability to attract more investments for other Harbinger funds. Falcone repaid the loan in 2011, after the Commission commenced its investigation.

    Market Manipulation / Illegal Short Squeeze

    In a separate civil action, the SEC alleges that from 2006 through early 2008 Falcone and two Harbinger investment management entities manipulated the market in a series of distressed high-yield bonds issued by MAAX Holdings Inc. In this fraudulent scheme, Falcone and the Harbinger entities allegedly orchestrated an illegal “short squeeze” – a market manipulation scheme in which an investor constricts the supply of a security, through large purchases or other means, with the intent of forcing settlement from short sellers at arbitrary and inflated prices.

    The SEC’s complaint alleges that at Falcone’s direction, Harbinger purchased a large position in the MAAX bonds during April and June of 2006. After hearing rumors that a Wall Street financial services firm was shorting the MAAX bonds and also encouraging its customers to do the same, Falcone decided to seek revenge. In September 2006, Falcone directed the Harbinger-managed funds to buy every available bond in the market, often purchasing the bonds from short sellers. Ultimately, Falcone raised the funds’ stake to approximately 13 percent more than the available supply of the MAAX bonds.

    At one point, Harbinger had purchased 22 million more bonds than MAAX had ever issued. Contemporaneously with these purchases, Falcone locked up the MAAX bonds the Harbinger funds had purchased in a custodial account at a bank in Georgia to prevent his brokers from lending out the bonds to sellers seeking to deliver the bonds to purchasers after short sales.

    Having seized control of the supply of the MAAX bonds, Falcone then demanded that the Wall Street firm and its customers settle their outstanding MAAX short sales, not disclosing that it would be virtually impossible to find bonds available for delivery. The Wall Street firm bid daily for the bonds, which quickly doubled in price. Then, Falcone engaged in a series of transactions with certain short sellers at arbitrary, inflated prices, while at the same time valuing the funds’ holdings on his books at a small fraction of the prices he charged the covering short sellers.

    Preferential Redemption Scheme

    In its action alleging misappropriation, the SEC also alleges that in a further breach of Falcone and Harbinger’s fiduciary duties to their clients, Falcone and Harbinger engaged in unlawful preferential redemptions for the benefit of certain favored investors.

    In 2009, while soliciting required investor approval to restrict withdrawals from another Harbinger fund, Falcone and Harbinger secretly exempted certain large investors that Falcone deemed to be strategically important from soon-to-be imposed liquidity restrictions – provided those investors voted to approve restrictions that would temporarily stabilize the decline in Harbinger’s assets under management.

    Ultimately, pursuant to these ‘vote buying’ agreements, Falcone and Harbinger allegedly permitted these investors who were connected to certain favored institutional investors to withdraw a total of approximately $169 million. Harbinger concealed these quid pro quo arrangements from the independent directors and from fund investors.

    Other Illegal Trading by Harbinger

    In a separate administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding, the SEC found that between April and June 2009, Harbinger violated Rule 105 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 105 is an anti-manipulation rule that prohibits short selling securities during a restricted period and then purchasing the same securities in a public offering.

    The Commission’s Order censures Harbinger and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Rule 105 now or in the future. Harbinger will pay disgorgement in the amount of $857,950, prejudgment interest in the amount of $91,838, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $428,975. Harbinger consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the Commission’s findings.

    Settlement with Harbert Management Company

    In a separate complaint also filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Harbert and two related investment entities – HMC-New York Inc. and HMC Investors, LLC – for their role in the illegal short squeeze described above.

    The SEC alleges in its complaint against Harbert that during the entire period of the short squeeze, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors, directly or indirectly, possessed the power to control Falcone and the investment managers through which he operated. HMC-NY and HMC Investors, two entities controlled by Harbert, served as the managing members of two limited liability companies that acted as the general partners of the funds advised by Falcone.

    Harbert and its affiliates also provided hedge fund administrative, legal, compliance, risk assessment and other services to the funds. In these capacities, Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors knew of Falcone’s trades in the MAAX bonds, but failed to take appropriate steps to address Falcone’s manipulative conduct. The SEC charged the Harbert defendants as controlling persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that they are jointly and severally liable for Falcone’s and the Harbinger investment managers’ violations of the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act.

    Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors have agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1 million. The Harbert defendants also have consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The proposed settlement with Harbert is subject to approval by the court.

    In the pending federal court actions concerning the first three fraudulent schemes described above, the Commission seeks a variety of sanctions and relief including injunctions against Falcone and Harbinger from violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

    In addition, the Commission seeks to enjoin Harbinger and Falcone from controlling any person who violates the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act. As for monetary relief, the Commission seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties from Falcone and Harbinger. The Commission further seeks to prohibit Falcone from serving as an officer and director of any public company. Against Jenson, the Commission seeks to enjoin Jenson from aiding and abetting future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act and seeks to obtain monetary penalties.

    The SEC’s investigation was a coordinated effort between teams from the SEC’s headquarters and the New York Regional Office, including Conway T. Dodge, Jr., Robert C. Besse, Ken C. Joseph, Mark Salzberg, Brian Fitzpatrick, and David Stoelting. Messrs. Joseph, Salzberg, and Fitzpatrick are members of the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. Mr. Stoelting and David Gottesman will lead the SEC’s litigation team.

  • GITA Begins New Era

    The Geospatial Information & Technology Association (GITA) announced the transition of GITA to an all volunteer organization officially begins at the close of business Friday, June 29, 2012. The following Monday, the association will enter a new phase of its existence, one that will be marked by a focus on virtual, on-line education and less of a dependence on resource-heavy conferences.

    According to Executive Director Bob Samborski, it means the following for GITA members?

    • You will continue to receive the GITA News Hub without interruption.
    • Existing memberships in GITA will continue and individuals will be contacted at the time of their next renewal.
    • GITA is reaching out to each of its current chapters to determine how each of these local organizations can move forward. Any currently active chapter can continue to operate as usual under the auspices of GITA’s non-profit status.
    • Options for realigning GITA’s administrative and IT infrastructure in a cost-effective way are being researched. Because the current staff of GITA will end full–time employment on Friday, normal communication channels (phone calls and emails) will be changed.
    • More information about the transition will be made available in the near future in the News Hub and on the GITA website.

    Samborksi writes:

    “It is important for everyone to know that GITA will continue to function as a professional, non-profit educational association. The Board of Directors will continue to explore new ways to add value to GITA membership and consider options for managing potential future educational events. More content and learning will become available online. And, as the association transitions to a volunteer-driven organization, active participation from our members in GITA activities will be sought.”

    “While I personally will not be an employee of GITA after Friday, I will continue to serve the association as a volunteer during the period of transition. If you would like to contribute your time and effort to helping to redesign GITA, please just let me know! I will be reachable at my usual email address for the foreseeable future: [email protected].”

    “Finally, I look forward to contacting our individual and corporate members, chapter officers, international affiliates and other important constituents in the next few days as we wind down this chapter of GITA. I will offer a few more details about what the future holds for GITA, as well as some personal comments about my 24 years of service to the association.”

    “Until then, sincere thanks to everyone who reads the GITA News Hub. I wish you the best in your geospatial endeavors.”

     

  • Google Releases 3D Imagery on Google Earth for Android

    Google announced, via its Lat Lon Blog, 3D imagery on their latest version of Google Earth for Android.

    Google announced with 3D imagery, there is now a new way to explore the world, right from the palm of your hand with a 3D view of your favorite metropolitan area. Now you can soar above your favorite cities in 3D, with Google Earth for mobile.

    Google reports they recently shared a preview of this striking new 3D imagery and starting today, users can take flight with their latest version of Google Earth for Android. An updated version of Google Earth for iOS will be also be available soon.

    According to the announcement, creating the comprehensive 3D experience is possible due to advanced image processing. Using 45-degree aerial imagery, Google said its able to automatically recreate entire metropolitan areas in 3D. This means every building (not just the famous landmarks), the terrain, and any surrounding landscape of trees are included to provide a much more accurate and realistic experience.

     

    Initial 3D imagery cities are: Boulder, Boston, Santa Cruz, San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Antonio, Charlotte, Tucson, Lawrence, Portland, Tampa, Rome or the San Francisco Bay Area (including the Peninsula and East Bay). Google said it will continue to release new 3D imagery for places around the world over the coming months; by the end of the year, they aim to have new 3D coverage for metropolitan areas with a combined population of 300 million people.

    Download the latest Google Earth for Android here.

     

  • Google Maps for Android Now Works Offline

    Google announced on their Lat Lon Blog that Google Maps for Android now works when it's disconnected from the internet. Users can select and save a region of a map from more than 150 countries for use offline.

    "Having an Internet connection has always been a key requirement for using Google Maps for Android… until now," said the blog post dated June 27, 2012.

    Whether travelling internationally, carrying a WiFi-only device, heading underground on the subway or restricting your mobile data usage, you can now save up to six large metro areas (e.g., Greater London, Paris, or New York City and surrounding area) and use Google Maps for Android to find your way.

    For example, Let’s say you find yourself traveling to London this summer. Before you head off on your trip, simply find the area that you’ll be visiting. Then select “Make available offline” from the menu and verify the area that you would like to save. Below the map, you’ll see we estimate the file size for you, so you know how much space it will take on your device. Once you confirm your selection the map will immediately start downloading.

    Save an area and go to My Places to see all your offline maps

    If you have GPS enabled on the device, the blue dot will still work without a data connection so you know where you are, and if your device has a compass you can orient yourself without 3G or WiFi connectivity.  

    So whether you’re traveling internationally or underground, we hope offline maps will help you get around. 

    Google announced it is also releasing a smoother and faster Compass Mode for Street View within Google Maps for Android. The device becomes a window into a 360-degree, panoramic view of the outdoor or interior location through Business Photos. To experience the improved qualities of this feature you need a device with Google Maps for Android, Android 3.0 or higher and a gyroscope sensor plus version 1.8.1 of Street View on Google Maps.

  • Acquisition of Cognovo Gives u-blox Own 4G Chip Technology

    u-blox, a positioning and wireless semiconductors, announces the acquisition of UK-based Cognovo Ltd., a company specializing in software defined modem (SDM) chip development technology. The acquisition extends u-blox’ chip design capabilities to create differentiated products for strategic markets that require 4G communications combined with global positioning.

     

    “This is a very exciting acquisition for u-blox as it positions us as an agile and cost-effective supplier of high-speed wireless modem products based on our own chip IP. This allows us to meet market demand for connected systems that require positioning, connectivity and application-specific functionality on a single integrated circuit,” said Thomas Seiler, u-blox CEO. “This new foundation broadens our serviceable market, and will increase our margins in the automotive, consumer, and industrial sectors. Our first 4G product is planned for 2013.”

     

    Cognovo’s Software Defined Modem (SDM) technology and development tools quickly translate complex radio modem designs into fully characterized low-power semiconductor chips, u-blox said. The combination of technologies from Cognovo and the recently acquired 4M Wireless will result in a new wireless modem platform based on IP owned by u-blox.

     

    Cognovo has already demonstrated its SDM baseband chip running high-speed 4G cellular functionality working with the LTE protocol stack from 4M Wireless at Mobile World Congress. With these acquisitions, u‑blox lays the groundwork for establishing a leading position in 4G wireless modems similar to the strategy that u-blox followed to become a market leader in GPS/GNSS modules, u-blox said. The market for 4G modems used for machine-to-machine (M2M) applications is predicted to grow rapidly, surpassing 20 million units by 2016.

     

    “We are very pleased to deploy our SDM technology within u-blox,” said Gordon Aspin, Cognovo CEO. “With over 300 man-years of R&D invested in our SDM technology, this acquisition brings together the industry’s most advanced software modem development platform with some of the best IC design and GNSS engineers in the world. This will be an unbeatable team.”

     

    Key terms of the transaction include:

    • Acquisition of 100% of the shares of Cognovo Ltd at a price of 16.5 million US.
    • Acquisition of key intellectual property and software.
    • Integration of the Cognovo business and 30 employees into u-blox’ organization.