The location industry is evolving. In the near future we won’t be discussing navigation and mapping as a way of finding the nearest Starbucks. Contextual location driven advertising will start delivering solid revenues, as soon as the market becomes better organized. The value of location information will be magnified as it shifts to the cloud. Vehicle manufacturers will be creating their own rich contextual location information. Near field communication, NFC, with its seat between consumers and cash registers, will provide some of the most valuable location data. These are points all made at last week’s LocNav conference by The Where Business.
Tipping Point. Half of Americans are not using smartphones. Location becomes more interesting when everyone has a smartphone and it reaches a tipping point. Social proximity and location has big benefits. “When everyone has a smartphone, you can connect via wireless mesh,” says Michael Metcalf of Yahoo. “If I’m in a line at JFK for a cab, I can let others know my destination and I can reduce the line and wait by half.” Geo-fencing has been stymied by the battery drain caused by frequent GPS pinging. Wireless mesh technology solves this issue. Another winner in location is near field communications, which works in short range proximity to enable purchases and other activities via smartphones. It creates a valuable database that includes precise location tracking data.
Power to the Automotive OEMs. Unlike the rest of the industry, automotive OEMS won’t need to rely on location integrators or cellular providers to provide them with a driver’s location. With integrated GPS and communications, they are well equipped to understand the context of where drivers are located, what they may be doing, and where they may go next. “In the past, the automotive industry didn’t get a share of the advertising revenue generated in the vehicle by radio, which was usually even installed as OEM equipment. “That will change,” says Lou Brugman of Pioneer Automotive. “In-vehicle infotainment will be adding location-based social networking, which might include automatically sharing your location or estimated time of arrival with specific contacts. The excuse for being stuck in traffic might not work as easily when you’ve actually been lingering over lunch.
Contextual Advertising Road Block. Everyone is talking about contextual location-based advertising, but it is being held back by a complicated eco-system. “There is little conformity. There are open standards and closed standards,” says Chris Peralta of Nokia. “Contextual advertising offerings are operating as separate silos.” Peralta feels that MirrorLink, previously called Terminal Mode, is getting traction. The MirrorLink Consortium is dedicated to cross-industry collaboration in developing global standards and solutions for smartphone and in-vehicle connectivity.
Heard in the Hallways:
“Sensors that use location will change more people’s lives than giving turn-by-turn directions faster. In the future location conferences will have nothing to do with navigation and mapping.”
“Apple required us to add a navigation application for the iPad. We hadn’t even considered that the iPad would be used in a vehicle for navigation.”
“People will accept dirtier data that is cheaper. Mapping that is from a user-generated community will be good enough. There will be some mapping that will sell for a premium for some uses, but map data will be commoditized.”
“In the future, all mobile advertising will be opt-in. It won’t continue an upward trajectory if it doesn’t do otherwise.”
Intelligence in the Cloud. The shift of information to the cloud will have a significant impact to our industry. “The cloud moves localization to a global context,” says Kanwar Chadha of CSR. “In the cloud, it becomes intelligent context and simplifies information that can feed sensors that work on low energy.” It is important to provide the right level of location accuracy for different contexts. For privacy concerns, social networking users don’t want location that is too precise; yet for mobile promotions, the closer the better. Weather can be regional for most common uses although agriculture requires precision. Having the location intelligence in the cloud enables more sensor usage.
Smartphones and Shopping. It sounds redundant, but Google’s research indicates a heavy reliance on smartphones while shopping in brick and mortar stores. A whopping 70 percent of smartphoners use their phones as a shopping aid while inside of a store. Almost 25 percent report researching purchases on a phone, visiting a store to view merchandise, but then buying online. The benefits of mobile advertising are significant. “Hyperlocal advertising has an ROI of about 800 percent,” said Surojit Chatterjee, of Google, “Mobile ad campaigns are seeing 40 percent more calls compared to desktop.”
I will host a free GPS World webinar on Thursday, December 1, with interesting guests. Details will be provided in November’s Wireless Pulse.
We published a news story recently suggesting that Albert Einstein, the Mighty Hip Einie, got one thing wrong, or at least not quite totally right: the universal upper limit constituted by the speed of light. Precise-timing GPS receivers in a Geneva lab helped indicate that subatomic neutrinos can travel at a velocity just a smidge faster than the speed of light. Someone at a burning idea factory in the Netherlands riposted that the scientists erred in their conclusion because they failed to take into account the relative movement of the GPS clocks in space and thus miscalculated the neutrinos’ time of flight. We hereby refute that assertion with our heavy-lifting Innovation columnist, Richard B. Langley.
The original news story, derived from a breathless announcement out of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, reported that Septentrio’s precise-timing GPS receivers PolaRx2eTR synchronize the time bases at CERN and Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, 730 kilometers away, for the OPERA experiment. Researchers at the two labs synchronized to an accuracy of a couple of nanoseconds and then measured transit speeds of 15,000 neutrino events in a neutrino beam between the two sites.
Light moves at 299,792,458 meters per second. Let’s see, doing the math, that’s 299,792.5 kilometers per second, divide into the distance from Geneva to Gran Sasso, carry the one, cross the fingers, spit downwind, gives 0.002435017553808 seconds. Two-and-a-half thousandths of a second. 24,350 nanoseconds. If the neutrinos got to sunny Abruzzo any sooner, well then, they were the new universe record-holders.
It turns out, the little buggers made the trip 60 nanoseconds faster than that. Killing it. Just killing it. And poking a hole in the Mighty Hip Einie’s Special Theory of Relativity.
“This result comes as a complete surprise,” said Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) spokesperson Antonio Ereditato.
Then Ronald van Elburg of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands climbed into the ring. The OPERA project researchers did not take into account the relative movement of GPS clocks in space and thus miscalculated the distance, he said. “From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter.”
Thus, according to van Elburg, the travel time measured by the GPS was shorter than the travel time measured in the reference frame on the ground. Accounting for the changing distances between the GPS clocks and the neutrino detectors would lengthen the observed time of flight by 32 nanoseconds on each end of the experiment, making for a total time delay of 64 nanoseconds — close to the interval that OPERA observed using the difference between the speed of neutrinos and that of light. Case dismissed. Einstein restored.
Unable to parse this myself, I asked Richard Langley of the University of New Brunswick whether it seemed reasonable.
“No, I don’t think so,” Langley replied. “Special Relativity is already taken into account whenever GPS is used, whether for timing or positioning, which amounts to the same thing, since 1 nanosecond of timing error equals about 30 centimeters of distance error (simply using the speed of light). Of course, anyone can use GPS incorrectly or infer something incorrectly. There is an error (likely) somewhere but I don’t think it is in the “standard way” that clocks are synchronized using GPS. The error is either a timing error (unrelated to Special Relativity but perhaps related to the electronics and associated delays) or a neutrino-path-length measurement error. The OPERA folks have put online their internal reports on the calibration of the GPS time link between the neutrino emitter and detector:
I haven’t had time to read these reports yet but it appears, at face value, that the work was quite thorough.
“By the way,” Richard said, “there have been a number of relevant articles in GPS World over the years. And we do apologize that some of these are no longer available digitally, due to a trashing of this site by its former owner, Questex Media Group.
GPS time transfer: Using precise point positioning for clock comparisons
Time and frequency dissemination: Advances in GPS transfer techniques
New IGS clock products: A global time transfer assessment
Richard adds an interesting fact: “How many physicists does it take to time a neutrino: at least 174. That’s the number of authors on the OPERA paper! The names of the authors and their affiliations takes up the first two pages of the paper!”
LightSquared’s been in the news quite a bit since my last Survey Scene newsletter a month ago, but very little of it has actual consequence. A lot of the “news” is just noise. LightSquared pumped up its propaganda campaign nationwide to try to build a consensus in their favor and put pressure on the FCC, and is threatening a lawsuit if the FCC doesn’t do what LightSquared wants. No surprises there. However, other things have happened that I think you might be interested in hearing about.
Most interesting was the partnership announced between JAVAD GNSS and LightSquared to develop a solution for LightSquared’s GPS-jamming problem. I had the opportunity to sit down briefly with Dr. Javad Ashjaee at the INTERGEO conference in Germany after he announced his company’s partnership with LightSquared. He’s a sharp engineer and well-worth listening to. Essentially, he made three points:
1. This is a spectrum issue that isn’t going away even if LightSquared isn’t allowed to proceed, so it’s in the best interest of the GPS industry to work on a solution no matter what the FCC’s decision is.
I’ve written about this issue before and I agree that the MSS spectrum has got a bull’s-eye on it. It’s a big piece of spectrum when not a lot of wireless spectrum is left to be developed. One could argue that it has its purpose as an MSS band, but the counter to that argument is that it’s under-performing. There’s only so much one can do with MSS spectrum.
That leaves two choices: the first is to keep it allocated as low-power MSS (satellite-to-earth communications) as it has historically been used. It could also be officially established and recognized as a guard band for GPS so this problem doesn’t crop up again. GPS is an important enough national asset to make this a reasonable discussion. The LightSquared debate has done a fantastic job of raising awareness of the importance of GPS technology in our everyday lives as well as the commercial and military markets. GPS has and will continue to contribute more jobs, revenue, and growth to the U.S. and world economy than LightSquared could ever dream of. You can quickly dismiss anyone who claims otherwise.
2.Secondly, Dr. Ashjaee opines that 4G LTE is something that the GPS industry needs. I don’t disagree with that statement. More and more you see the latest high-precision GPS receivers designed with integrated communications, primarily GSM modems to enable internet connectivity in the field. Connectivity in the field has always been a weak point of GPS systems. If one wireless technology could replace UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS, that would be a good thing.
I’m skeptical, though. I don’t believe LightSquared will be available where many GPS users need wireless communications even when it’s fully deployed — namely rural areas. They are going to chase after the money. The money is in the urban areas where the population is dense. Who in their right mind would spend money to establish and maintain infrastructure in areas with a very sparse potential customer base? I wouldn’t.
So, that still leaves us with needing UHF/VHF/Spreadspectrum/GSM/MSS communications technology. It doesn’t solve the problem. But, I’m not against trying as long as LightSquared’s system has no affect on the performance of high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers.
Incidentally, JAVAD GNSS intends to integrate a LightSquared mobile device into their product to manage potential interference from the uplink band (1626.50-1660.5MHz). However, this still doesn’t prevent interference from LightSquared mobile devices in the vicinity of JAVAD receivers. To this, Dr. Ashjaee says (I’m paraphrasing) “interference already exists today. Our mobile phones of today already create interference. If that happens, we simply move it away.”
3. Lastly, Dr. Ashjaee states that with GPS modernization in full swing and with new GPS signals being deployed, GPS users are going to need to upgrade their equipment to keep up with the latest technology in order to stay productive.
This is a point that he and I disagree on.
There is no reason your GPS L1 receiver will become obsolete in the foreseeable future, whether it’s a high-performance sub-meter receiver or a cm-level surveying receiver (L1-only). There is no plan by the U.S. Government to change or obsolete the L1 C/A signal.
For legacy L1/L2 GPS receivers that aren’t designed to utilize L2C or L5, it’s a different story. If you recall, back in 2008 the U.S. government floated the idea that it wanted to discontinue supporting the legacy semicodeless technique used by every L1/L2 GPS receiver in existence. Literally, several hundred thousand high-precision dual frequency GPS receivers would be rendered obsolete. At the end of the public comment period, the U.S. Air Force and Department of Commerce established a date of December 31, 2020 for this to happen. I wrote about this extensively at the time. My point is that there’s certain high-precision equipment that’s going to become obsolete at that time. However, that’s nearly ten years from now.
Should those users be forced to upgrade earlier to accommodate LightSquared?
Another point, and more serious, are the users who already upgraded in the past few years to equipment that was advertised as “future-proof”. In other words, they paid a premium for GNSS equipment that could track “all current and planned signals” such as L2C, L5, Galileo, GLONASS, etc. There is absolutely no reason those users would be required to upgrade their equipment for any imaginable reason. In fact, I’d be rather miffed if someone suggested I needed to spend money to do so.
How much money are we talking about?
That’s an interesting question.
Dr. Ashjaee guarantees that he will upgrade all JAVAD GNSS receivers for between US$300 and US$800. If you think about it, that’s similar to what you might pay in annual maintenance fees on many receivers. The issue is that JAVAD receivers aren’t that common in the U.S. Realistically, there’s a wide variety of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. market. Many of them are not the latest models, but still working perfectly fine. Manufacturers are not going to re-open those product designs and try to implement LightSquared-hardened antenna and circuitry. At that point, the user’s only choice is to purchase new equipment. I think that would be a step backwards. Many small organizations were able to purchase GPS technology with a one-time grant or specific project funds. Faced with the prospect of spending thousands of dollars on a new high-precision GPS receiver, I think many would opt not to use GPS.
To its credit, LightSquared has offered up $50 million to help retrofit or otherwise upgrade receivers owned by Federal government agencies. I think it will cost a lot more than that. I don’t believe $50 million would come close to covering the hard costs, not to mention the amount of time and effort that would be required to facilitate such a trade-in.
Let’s talk about “the fix”
JAVAD GNSS has a lot on the line, so it’s hard to imagine that the company hasn’t come up with something that works. That said, the conversation about retrofitting is meaningless until the design concept is proven, and empirical data demonstrates that it isn’t affected by LightSquared’s downlink (1526-1536MHz) or uplink (1626.5-1660.5MHz) signals, and that GPS receiver performance doesn’t pay a penalty.
Of course, LightSquared is talking like this is a done deal and predicting FCC approval by the end of the year. This is just noise, like back in August when it predicted an FCC decision within a month. Do not put any credibility in LightSquared statements. Its track record is poor, as few of their claims have materialized.
There’s no way the FCC is going to announce a decision by the end of the year. Mark my words. There’s not enough time to confirm a fix, how it might be implemented across multiple manufacturer’s receivers, and what the impact is. Believe me, there are many more hearings and information requests that are going to take place before any decisions are made by the FCC.
The “fix”, as I understand it, includes a new antenna design as well as new circuitry (filter). If you understand the high-precision GPS industry, you know this includes a substantial number of handheld units such as the Trimble Geo series, Ashtech (formerly Magellan) Mobile Mapper and ProMark series to name a few. Replacing antennas and changing circuit design is not a minor effort in a handheld unit that’s already packed tight with electronics. Which models do you support? Which models don’t you support? Which models can’t be upgraded? There are many questions to answer.
New antennas also mean new antenna calibrations by the NGS if you’re an OPUS user. Manufacturer software needs to be updated to reflect any change in antenna phase center. All of this will take time to investigate and understand. It should not be rushed just because LightSquared is in a hurry. Its “end of year” decision prediction, I’m sure, is directly correlated to an agreement with Sprint, which says the deal is off if FCC approval isn’t granted by the end of the year. Take a look at the Sprint presentation here.
Don’t let LightSquared over-simplify this “fix.” LightSquared Executive VP and lawyer Jeff Carlisle likes to play “engineer” like he did last week at a congressional hearing looking at the LightSquared GPS-jamming impact on small business. I couldn’t believe it when he pulled out a massive GPS receiver head and demonstrated how he would retrofit it with a $6 component to solve the problem, even going so far as showing where he would place it on a circuit board. The sad part is that there was not an engineer in sight to call him on it. Take a look at the 4:50 mark in this video:
Whoever put that panel together really did a disservice to this entire debate. LightSquared clearly came out on top, not because they should have, but because the witness list was not informed/prepared and the witness list wasn’t represented by the largest users of GPS in small business, surveying/engineering/construction/GIS.
The epitome of this trainwreck was when Rep. Steve King asked the guy representing the agricultural community about delineation of spectrum.
The grilling starts at the 1:49 minute mark and ends at the 4:20 minute mark.
Somehow, the witness doesn’t know or doesn’t know how to communicate that LightSquared/Skyterra sells satellite communications services to the high-precision GPS user community (via OmniSTAR) and therefore has encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers to look into the MSS spectrum. LightSquared/Skyterra has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue from agriculture and other high-precision GPS users, and now it is whining about the very people who are paying for its satellite communications data services? Are you kidding me?
Look, if LightSquared doesn’t want to sell satellite data communication services to the high-precision GPS industry anymore, that’s its decision, but don’t make this ridiculous claim that somehow GPS receiver designers are abusing LightSquared-licensed spectrum when LightSquared has been cashing in on it.
By the way, if you watch the grilling video, the “first-come, first-served” argument is really weak. Someone needs to brief the witness better than that. Even I don’t believe in squatter’s rights, and that argument will never fly with the FCC.
ACSM Radio Show Last Monday on LightSquared
I spent an hour talking with ACSM Executive Director Curt Sumner about the latest on LightSquared. We also touched a bit on the exciting Galileo satellite launch scheduled for this week, Oct. 20, that ended up being postponed for a day. You can listen to the radio broadcast here or download and listen to it on your MP3 player.
Many press reports recently said that the Federal Communications Commission plans to require GPS in all mobiles by 2018, including LBS Insider (October 12, 2011). However, the FCC said that isn’t quite so, saying that “not before 2019, on a date still to be determined, carriers will have to meet the more stringent location accuracy standards that now apply to those carriers using a handset solution for [enhanced 911], and they may choose which solution to use.”
FCC spokeswoman Lauren Kravetz said that these technology solutions may be GPS chipsets, network-based, or a hybrid. The FCC said, after the conclusion of an eight-year period that ends in early 2019, it will sunset the existing network-based rule and require all wireless carriers to meet “the more stringent location accuracy standards in the handset-based rule. The FCC will then set a specific sunset date for a network-based standard — after further notice and comments.”
An announcement completely overshadowed by the Apple iPhone 4S rollout may have a major impact on the location-based services industry. The FCC has said that all wireless carriers, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, are required to integrate GPS into phones by 2018. In other news, Intel bought Telmap, which has made inroads into the LBS market with its partnerships with carriers.
In a move designed to allow first responders to locate 911 emergency calls, the Federal Communications Commission will require all wireless operators, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, to integrate GPS in phones by 2018.
The FCC says the majority of mobile phone users will have GPS-installed devices by the 2018 deadline. The FCC did not set a deadline for phones that do not use GPS-based technology. In addition, VoIP is going toward more mobile applications, rather than its original substitute for landline service.
Most industry experts agree that the rise of location-based services occurred when the FCC mandated that carriers have location capability during its enhanced 911 rulemaking. Wireless carriers chafed at the deadlines and accuracy requirements. However, the rulemaking did bring market awareness to the carriers to the benefits, and potential new markets, coming from this mandated location requirement.
While it is too early to tell how much this will help drive LBS markets, the FCC said the decision, which was overshadowed as it was announced the same week as the rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S, was spurred by the desire to modernize 911. This means locating emergency callers quickly, particularly from smartphones and other mobile devices.
But have the wireless carriers lost their grip on LBS? In 2009, the surge in the number of GPS-enabled smartphones, proliferation of handset and mobile OS application stores, and increased availability and consumer demand for free or low-priced LBS applications has had a huge impact on the traditionally carrier-controlled LBS market, said Dan Gilmartin, Where vice president of marketing.
“The decreased costs and barriers to entry into the market place and ability to reach consumers through low- or no-cost viral social marketing channels is enabling small application developers to compete with the established LBS developers. The result is a highly competitive landscape that beforehand was dominated by only a few major players,” he said.
Gilmartin said that Google’s decision to offer free turn-by-turn navigation and acquisition of ADMob for $750 million reinforced the expectation that the viable business models for LBS in 2010 and beyond will include offering free or “freemium” services to consumers through ad-supported and other non-traditional funding models. “That said, the carriers’ subscription model still appears viable, at least for the short term, and consumers are proving to be willing to pay for what they perceive to be high-quality applications both on- and off-deck, navigation being the most prominent category,” he said.
Go Ask Apple?
The rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S may not be the biggest thing for the LBS market, but it does open it further to another tier-one carrier in Sprint. Like other iPhone models, the 4S has GPS embedded, but offers Siri voice-recognition that integrates with its navigation capability.
When LBS Insider contacted Sprint for comments on the new iPhone 4S and the FCC decision that GPS be installed in all smartphones, we got the public relations brush off to “Go ask Apple.” Ask Apple about GPS and LBS? This is an interesting response, as Sprint was one of the first major LBS market players, particularly their Nextel folks who were very innovative with location technology in the early days.
Intel Buys Telmap
At least one company in the LBS market is doing something right when a big company like Intel buys it. As GPS World reported, Intel bought Telmap, the Israel-based LBS company. The deal was announced at the recent Intel AppUp Elements developer conference in Seattle.
Motti Kushnir, Telmap chief marketing officer, said that since Telmap is a private company, financial details cannot be disclosed. He said the deal will take effect by the end of the year. “Telmap will be a wholly owned subsidiary and will maintain its independence as well as its brand,” Kushnir said in a prepared statement.
Kushnir said no layoffs are expected, nor will facilities close or be moved by Intel. “On the contrary, we are expected to grow in order to support the growth of our business both in existing and new territories,” he said.
One of the reasons Intel bought the company is that it is sees mobility as one of its growth engines — and location is a key component, Kushnir said.
Telmap says it has 6 million users for its IP portfolio that includes mapping, local search, and navigation. This includes a new restaurant LBS initiative in Israel. The company is working with Rest, a large Israel restaurant guide to provide location-based coupons to customers.
In other LBS industry news:
Fierce Wireless made an admittedly subjective list of the worst cell phones of all time. Garmin’s ill-fated Nuvifone G60 made the list. The phone, a partnership between Garmin and Asustek Computer, featured LBS — and had a $5.95 monthly charge for premium service. Fierce Wireless says that it was a failure in part because of Google’s free location services.
Nokia will be closing down its operations in Bonn, Germany, and Malvern, Pennsylvania, with an expected loss of more than 1,300 jobs in the Location and Commerce divisions. According to published reports, operations will consolidate in the Berlin, Boston, and Chicago offices. Another 2,200 layoffs will come from its European manufacturing operations.
This column has admittedly neglected traffic markets lately, but will be running more stories and interviews soon. With that, some big news has come out of that market, namely Google’s recent deal with INRIX to power its navigation and mapping applications. INRIX traffic information will be integrated in Google’s online products and services and on mobile phones.
Meanwhile, INRIX competitor TomTom is launching a Traffic Foundation that brings together stakeholders from academia, industry, and policy-making to help reduce traffic congestions. The company also rolled out its Custom Probe Counts at the ITS World Congress, that allows government and business markets to assess traffic density. The company also expanded its coverage from 14 to 18 countries.
Like many who had the pleasure of interacting with the genius that was Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs, I have been reflecting recently concerning his incredible impact on our lives. Indeed his impact on every aspect of our lives including GPS is almost beyond description.
For example, our warfighters are increasingly using iPads and iPhones in theater for multiple functions, including some dedicated and warfighter-developed GPS applications that far outshine any GPS application provided by the government. When will we learn that we must provide our warfighters what they need or they will go elsewhere to find it because lives are at stake? Today many of our warriors are developing their own applications on their individual iPads and iPhones, exactly as Steve Jobs intended.
NeXT, PIXAR, and USG
My first interaction with Steve was after he had been summarily fired from Apple (the company he cofounded) in 1985 and began a new computer company called NeXT. All I can really say in this venue about that initial interaction is that the U.S. military bought a great many NeXTstation integrated/networked computers, and many of them are in still use today. Indeed, in many circles Steve Jobs credited the U.S. government (USG) with helping NeXT computer get its start. The hardware was definitely better than anything else on the market at the time, but the selling point was the incredibly powerful and user-friendly interface and software, known as NeXTSTEP, which proved to be an early version of the next step in the sequence leading to the modern-day Mac operating system that hundreds of millions of us use today.
To put the power of the NeXT computer and Steve Jobs’ genius in the right context, think PIXAR Animation Studios. PIXAR was another of Steve’s successful collaborations (Steve was co-founder and CEO) when computer-intensive animation required powerful computers that artists as well as business people could understand and use — user-friendly, in other words — and few computers or software applications in the mid-1980s were up to the task. The U.S. government was not into animation but was into high-fidelity simulations and knew an excellent product when they saw it, hence the early supporting partnership. Those little black cubes were among the most powerful and user-friendly computers of their era, and many are still churning away today in settings befitting their hue.
This comes to mind because recently I visited a secure government facility where NeXT computers and NeXTSTEP software are still being utilized, and the users think they have no equal. I have no idea what version of the operating system they are using, but regardless, this is quite a testament to the genius and foresight of Steve Jobs and the company that helped save Apple when Apple bought NeXT and Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1996. The rest, as they say, is history.
No Competition
Every time I use a new application on my iPhone, iTouch, iPad, or iMac, I think about the clueless CEO of one of the world’s major phone companies who was interviewed about his views concerning the iPhone just before it was released. He foolishly said and probably really believed, “We are not worried about Apple and the iPhone, because they are not a recognized phone company.” Obviously underestimating the brilliance of Steve Jobs caught a great many companies and CEOs by surprise. As I wrote concerning a PC World magazine article listing the world’s best products a few years ago, “If Apple had a product in the category, it was always number one, without fail.” I know of no other company that can make that claim.
“How has Apple managed to stay so successful over 35 years? …no one can dispute that the company is the dominant American corporate brand, period. The hard numbers prove this, with Apple’s market capitalization recently surpassing Exxon-Mobile, making it the most valuable company in the world. Of course, the news always breathlessly captures Apple’s characteristics: Legendary CEO. Masterful marketing. Amazing stagecraft. Sexy products. Industry renegades. Tradition breakers. Cult-like devotion.”
Even as I totally agree with this description of the Steve Jobs-led-Apple, I feel there is a glaring omission. Apple gives the consumer what they want and need, and they do it in such an intuitive way that consumers have come to expect only the best as well as the next great product from Apple. The fact that companies worldwide then attempt to emulate the latest Apple product or service is ample evidence that this is a working and successful strategy for Apple. Remember: “Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.”
GPS on a Train
I was thinking about this recently during the 30-plus-minute train ride from the greater Portland Airport to the Oregon Convention Center where I had the pleasure of attending ION GNSS 2011 September 17-23 (Institute of Navigation, Global Navigation Satellite Systems). During that train ride I was monitoring my GPS application on my iPhone and iPad, comparing the two and trying to determine the closet stop to my hotel. I originally thought my fellow passengers might consider my activities strange or excessive, being as I was on a train, until I noticed that actually most of the people in my train car were monitoring their travel with iPhones, iPads, or smartphones. A young couple across from me wanted to know what GPS application I was using. So even on a train I experienced the extra and sometimes comforting situational awareness that GPS can provide. I knew that on a long straight stretch we once hit a top speed of 68 miles per hour, the entire trip was going to take ~35 minutes, and I was sure I exited at the nearest stop to my hotel and then found my way there on foot without any wrong turns. So, you see, a GPS application on an iPhone or an iPad while traveling on a train does make sense, because when tunnels and buildings obstruct the sky view you still have Wi-Fi, telephone (3G), and SkyHook wireless applications to keep you oriented, and in a strange location it will give you peace of mind. That is indeed priceless, and I think Steve Jobs knew that. He thought about what was needed and what could be. He made our lives better.
So when I think of Steve Jobs I will always remember the outside-the-box thinker that was never afraid to take on any challenge and who usually won simply because he gave us what we needed, sometimes even before we knew it.
ION and CGSIC
This was the second year for ION GNSS in Portland, Oregon and as with most ION events it was better this year than last. More than 1400 attended this year, which is a ten percent increase over last year and in this economic environment that is quite a feat and speaks well of the value that ION events bring to companies bottom lines. There were also more exhibitors this year; so many it was difficult to get by and visit them all because the paper presentations were so interesting.
The whole international GNSS event actually began on September 19 with the 51st Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) meeting held in conjunction with ION GNSS. This is always a great venue for an exchange of ideas and an opportunity for the various federal and state agencies that deal with GNSS on a daily basis to present their latest projects and innovations. It is always an uplifting session for me because it demonstrates that even federal and state bureaucracies’ can be innovative when the people involved are passionate about what they do. If you ever have an opportunity to attend the CGSIC sessions I highly recommend them.
You can become a member of the CGSIC, it is totally free of charge, by visiting the NAVCEN website registration page. In fact many people will erroneously but understandably tell you the CG stands for US Coast Guard because as a Service they are so heavily involved in the CGSIC. The NAVCEN CO (Commanding Officer) manages the committee, maintains membership roles, coordinates committee meetings, represents the committee chair at GPS related meetings, and coordinates responses to submitted issues, however the CG still stands for Civil GPS. However, just a reminder if you do have a question about the civil GPS signal or experience interference or outages then the place to call is the NAVCEN or U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center at (703) 313-5900, or visit the very informative NAVCEN website.
ION GNSS
As much as I would like to highlight individual papers at ION GNSS, it is impossible. There are hundreds of papers and presenters, and whether or not you find them interesting depends on your area of interest, but I can say there is something for everyone. Name a GNSS topic and there is most likely a paper being presented at ION GNSS that addresses your specific interest in a cutting-edge manner.
The exhibitors and their products were as always very informative, and I will be highlighting a few of those in the months to come. As a former marketing executive, I can tell you that if you have a cutting-edge GNSS product, hardware or software, and you aren’t exhibiting at ION GNSS, then you are missing the boat.
As usual this event is extremely well organized, and it runs like clockwork. My hat is off to ION President Dr. Todd Walter and Executive Director, Lisa Beaty along with her fine staff, for another outstanding and informative GNSS event.
LightSquared
For the past year almost every meeting of GPS professionals has been dominated by the LightSquared (LSQ) fiasco; ION GNSS and CGSIC were no exceptions. The best-attended meetings at both events concerned the current status of the LSQ fiasco. There were LSQ updates from the Pentagon, the 50SW, SMC, and finally there was a forum with an invited LSQ executive moderated by Tom Stansell titled: “Can LightSquared and GPS Coexist? Current Status and Ongoing Activities.” An excellent question that, in my opinion, was answered firmly and clearly in the negative. In my opinion, shared by many, the first three presentations, including the presentation by the LSQ exec, were of dubious value and only the Trimble, Garmin, and John Deere presentations addressed the actual issues. My hat is off to Tom Stansell and ION for making the effort, and to the extent that a great many people are now more informed about the LSQ fiasco the session was a success, and it was the best attended individual session, standing room only, of the entire ION event.
My Favorite and Most Unique Presentation
My favorite and most entertaining presentation was by none other than Alan Cameron, the editor-in-chief of GPS World magazine. Alan’s presentation, “Out in Front: C’mon, People Now” was, now don’t be shocked, on the LightSquared fiasco, and was presented to the music and words of Sonny and Cher. The highlight, however, was when Alan actually sang the chorus and the audience joined in. Leave it to Alan to do the unexpected. Most importantly, he more than made his point. This whole fiasco long along ceased to be about the laws of physics, no matter how hard LightSquared tries to change them. It is now unfortunately a sad tale full of sound and fury but not much else. It is all about politics, an embarrassed administration that attempts to tamper with congressional testimony, and a clueless FCC chairman trying to save face, his job, or both.
GPS World Dinner
To wrap up the conference’s after hours activities on Thursday night, GPS World magazine held its annual GPS gala and exclusive dinner. The GPS literati, dare I say cognoscenti, were present in all their finery, yours truly included, and a good time was had by all. Of course the LightSquared fiasco was again the main topic of discussion, and where I actually heard LightSquared used as a verb. As in, “You’ve been LightSquared!” A vision of a common fastening device comes to mind. It’s amazing but not even a couple glasses of vino rosso make that bitter LSQ pill any easier to swallow. Fortunately, the camaraderie and food were excellent as always. And once again there was record attendance.
Personally, I can’t wait until we do this all again next year in Nashville, Tennessee. I hope to see you there September 17-21, 2012, at the Nashville Convention Center.
In this hour of crisis, in this hour of need, I would recall for you the immortal words of the Brotherhood of Man, as reprised here by their disciples, Sonny and Cher:
For united we stand,
Divided we fall,
And if our backs should
ever be against the wall,
We’ll be together,
Together, you and I.
Or will we?
The LightSquared crisis has been and continues to be the most perplexing and fascinating episode I have followed in 11 years of covering the GNSS community. Fascinating because it has so many political and societal implications, as well as tangled-up technical, application, and business issues. In the end, it’s all about money. Money and power.
It further fascinates me from a sociological point of view. The way the unfolding of this process has affected the GNSS community, in particular the subset of that community that is the GPS industry in the United States, strikes many reverberating chords.
At first glance, we can say that the crisis has pulled a diverse community together, united it against a common foe. Witness the work of the Coalition, the agreement among the TWG sub-groups, the NPEF, the chorus of supporting letters and comments in the FCC docket, and so on. This is true — but only to an extent.
I believe the opposite is also true: it has exposed cracks or fissures within the community, driven wedges into those cracks, and widened the cracks into gaps. It has exploited natural divisions that exist because GNSS technology is so widespread in applications and variegated in types of users. The process threatens to fracture the industry, and the community, further. That’s alarming.
In the early going, response was fairly uniform: how can LightSquared and the FCC do this? How can we stop them? Thus the Coalition to Save Our GPS was formed. The Coalition has functioned very ably, but in fact it represents only one segment of the community: the high-precision segment. It is staffed and directed, to my knowledge, largely by Trimble and John Deere with some help and assistance from the off-shore and aviation segments. There is participation and membership from other areas, but generally, high precision drives it.
This is also largely true of the GPS Industry Council. I am making broad generalizations that are surely inaccurate, to a degree. The GPS Industry Council earlier served the community in the pre-LightSquared negotiations of 2002 and continues to do so today alongside the Coalition It is similarly oriented towards the interests of its principal members.
The high-precision bias, if you will, of the scenario became apparent to me when I tried to recruit webinar speakers and contributed editorial pieces from the other end of the GPS community: consumer and handheld receiver and cell-phone chip manufacturers. These companies, among whom I number Qualcomm (which long ago snapped up SnapTrack), Broadcom (acquired Global Locate a few years ago), and CSR (now owns the company formerly known as SiRF), declined to participate, speak out, or become involved in any public way. They seemed content to stand on the sidelines, watching. A newly appointed Qualcomm board member of the PNT Excomm Advisory Committee recused himself from participation in LightSquared-related activities.
Why? Money. These companies are much closer to, in many cases are business partners with, the wireless carriers and the cell-phone manufacturers who have stock in seeing 4G happen and broadband roll out across the land. The L1 GPS companies feel they have to be fairly careful about how they proceed.
As one person from such a company told me, “I think we tend to have a positive view, which is contrary to everyone else. This was a political issue, not a technical one, and the political wheels were in motion for a long time. Now, it’s up to us to decide how to deal with it. Whine and cry that we were cheated and duped, or seize the day and do what we are good at: engineer our way out.
“It’s interesting how much this industry likes staring at its own navel, rather than looking (or listening) to other points of view. It is what I call ‘violent agreement’.”
No matter how violently you may disagree with this view, it is vital that you be aware that it exists within the same group that you are part of.
So we have the beginnings of a split, of something that could become a gulf, between the high-precision and the consumer segments of the industry.
On the second hand, we have the military, many of whom — now these are the oldtimers — are secretly pleased by the travail the industry and civil users are going through. Because they never really liked sharing GPS with the civils anyway. However shortsighted, impractical, and shoot-yourself-in-the-foot this attitude may seem, it also exists, and is held by powerful, influential people.
Third, some people within and without the GNSS community accept some or all of the LightSquared claims: that there’s no problem, or if there is a problem then filters can solve it, that alternative solutions are ready-to-hand or can be found through diligence. You may disagree, violently or non-violently, with these believers; you must still take them into serious account.
Finally, JAVAD GNSS has announced a partnership with LightSquared and declared that “LightSquared not only can coexist with GPS, it complements it.” The company has always set an independent course, but this breaks new ground.
What to do?
My colleague Eric Gakstatter perceived the need for a more broad-based organization, an all-inclusive industry and users association, which the GPS Industry Council patently is not, however earnestly it has tried to serve that purpose in the absence of anyone else to do so.
Almost simultaneously, Glen Gibbons wrote a column in his magazine proposing just such an association. “The need for more effective, continuing organization and representation of the GNSS community — manufacturers, service providers, and users — seems clear. . . . Common interests abound, and I’m not just referring to the RF issues that fuel the present furor,” he stated.
We have an assortment of forums already: the Civil Global Positioning System Service Interface Committee, industry councils in the United States, Europe, and Japan, the Institute of Navigation. But these bodies cannot represent nor accomplish — it is not in their respective charters to do so — all that must be represented and accomplished.
Building and maintaining a new entity will not be easy, because the GNSS community is more diverse, and I venture to say more divided, than we may like to admit. A consensus-driven organization of divergent interests is a very ornery thing; just ask the European Union about its efforts to mount Galileo.
A coalition of like-minded folks united around one issue differs greatly from a broad organization assembling diverse points of view. The GPS community may never speak with one voice, even in the matter of its own survival. But other courses of action lie open to us.
Test Till You Drop. The new phase of Lower 10 testing extends into November. After that, the JAVAD filter technology must be widely distributed, as soon as it is available, to all interested parties and rigorously tested to determine its validity and, equally important, its extrapolability to other proprietary receiver technologies well established in the field. I dare say there are many further aspects that must be thoroughly investigated and analyzed before anybody asserts that “We’re not [doing] anything that creates problems for GPS safety and service.” Because Julius Genachowski said we can’t.
Long after the unfounded claims and the tortured analogies have lapsed into dust, the laws of electromagnetic
behavior will go on working, as they have always done. And very admirably at that.
C’mon, people now,
Call on your physics.
Everybody get together,
Try to use your analytics,
Right now.
China’s GNSS, Compass or Beidou, intends to publish its signal interface control document (ICD) in October. Representatives of the system made an unprecedented showing at ION GNSS in Portland, and referred frankly to “internal deliberations” that may be at the root of much of the public uncertainty about the system’s planned structure and timeline. Meanwhile, representatives of other navigation satellite systems also delivered updates on their status and plans. Everyone is concerned about LightSquared interference, but everyone continues to move forward.
This month’s column is a two-parter: a guest appearance by Len Jacobson, editorial advisory board member for GPS World magazine and president of Global Systems and Marketing Inc. Len writes on the “Harmonizing GNSS” aspect, the briefings by all systems and their efforts to achieve compatibility and interoperability. Then I’ll return with an account of the Compass panel that formed part of the CGSIC meeting immediately preceeding ION.
Harmonizing GNSS
by Len Jacobson
Representatives of the International Committee on GNSS (ICG) participated in briefings and a panel discussion at the ION-GNSS Conference in Portland on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011. The ICG is a committee formed under the auspices of the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs. The purpose of the panel was to acquaint the audience with the activities of the ICG and to allow the global and regional satellite navigation systems providers to describe their policies and efforts with regard to interoperability and compatibility among the various GNSS and to advise how multi-GNSS services could be harmonized.
Rick Hamilton from the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center organized the panel, and Jeffrey Auerbach, from the same U.S. Department of State (DOS) office as the U.S. ICG representative Dave Turner, moderated it.
The first speaker was Sharafat Gadimova, from the ICG Executive Secretariat. She described the functions and make-up of the ICG and suggested visiting their web site www.icgsecretariat.org for further information. The next meeting of the ICG is scheduled for December 4–9, 2012 in China.
David Turner, the deputy director of the Office of Space and Advanced Technology in the DOS, reiterated the President’s 2010 Space Policy and in particular the addition emphasizing international cooperation and more use of foreign systems by the U.S. government to enhance GPS. Turner co-chairs Working Group (WG)-A on compatibility and interoperability. He discussed a Multi-GNSS Monitoring Network using new and existing GNSS monitoring receivers and networks. He stated that the various GNSS geodetic and timing references can be found on the ICG web site.
Dr. Sergey Revnivykh, deputy director-general, GLONASS Information and Analysis Center, stated his desire that all GNSS be considered equal. In this sense, Russian policy differs from U.S. policy, which considers GPS as the premier GNSS. Dr. Revnivykh discussed the GLONASS System of Differential Correction and Monitoring (SCDM), the Russian version of WAAS. It will augment both GLONASS and GPS. He had to leave after his presentation so was not able to participate in the ensuing panel discussion.
Independently, we have learned from GLONASS communications that the launch of GLONASS-M No. 42 from Plesetsk is scheduled to take place on October 1 at 20:19 UTC. The launch of GLONASS-M Nos. 43, 44, 45 from Baikonur may occur as early as November 2. The launch of GLONASS-M No. 46 from Plesetsk is now scheduled for November 22. The launch of the next-generation GLONASS-K1 No. 12 from Plesetsk will likely slip to 2012. Additionally, Luch-5A, a Russian geostationary communications satellite that includes an SBAS payload, will launch together with Amos-5, a Russian-built Israeli communications satellite, on December 10 from Baikonur.
Next we heard a short briefing by Xavier Maufroid from the Galileo Implementation office of the European Commission in Belgium. He stressed compatibility with all services, and then interoperability. He stated that the European Union (EU) is concerned about LightSquared (LS) because LS transmissions could affect Galileo reception in the United States and also could expand to provide a similar disruption in Europe if they were to expand into that area. And if not LS, then someone else could attempt a similar broadband service over Europe with the same potential to interfere with Galileo. He later added that 7 billion euros are budgeted for Galileo between 2014 and 2021.
From the Chinese Electronics Technology Group came Dr. Xiancheng Ding, the deputy director-general. He described Beidou (Compass) as having nine satellites with five more to be launched in 2012. This will provide regional service by the end of 2012, including over Australia and New Zealand. Beidou has a communications capability for short messaging, which is needed in rural China.
Dr. Ding said the Beidou signal interface control document (ICD) would be released soon. Other sources indicate it to be as early as October 2011. He indicated that Beidou is fully funded for phase 2 (regional system) and will probably be funded for phase 3 (global system).
The final briefer was Dr. Satoshi Kogure from the Japan Space Ageny. He gave a QZSS update similar to one given in other ION GNSS sessions.
During the panel interchange and answers to questions from the audience, various combinations of signals were discussed as needing to be compatible. That is, to not interfere in same frequency band and to comply with International Telecommunications Union (ITU) regulations. Specific signal pairs mentioned in this context included: GPS L1 and L5 with Galileo; Compass and future GLONASS CDMA; the QZSS LEX with Galileo; and others.
A WG-A workshop proposed jointly to ICG to study the potential noise impact of too many satellites. By 2020, more than 100 satellites are expected to be transmitting the myriad of GNSS signals, with up to 35 in view at any one place. This could cause mutual interference, which in turn could cause degradation in the levels of service of the various GNSS.
Dr. Kogure described a Multiple GNSS demo campaign sponsored in part by the Japanese Space Agency consisting of tens of receivers monitoring GNSS signals over Asia and the Western Pacific. For multi-GNSS testing there is better availability in these region as there are initially more GNSS signals in view. This experiment is a prototype of a multi-GNSS monitoring network with 20 QZSS receivers by March of 2012 and 40 by a year later. China will supply Beidou receivers to Japan for the multi-GNSS Monitoring Network in cooperation with the ICG. There will be a workshop on this topic in November in Korea.
There is still an issue between China and the EU on frequency compatibility for authorized services, but Dr. Xiancheng said a technical solution is known. Negotiations are still ongoing.
All members of the panel were cognizant of the LS problem and are focused on providing interference detection and mitigation for their GNNS.
Compass ICD in October
The long-awaited signal interface control document (ICD) for China’s growing GNSS will appear this month, according to representatives of the system who spoke in a “Compass: Progress, Status, and Future Outlook” workshop as part of ION GNSS and the CGSIC meetings in Portland in September.
The ICD has been rumored to be available previously to receiver manufacturers within China, creating some disgruntlement among companies outside the country. One of the workshop panelists affirmed that GPS/Compass chips and receivers are being actively developed by many Chinese manufacturers and research institutes.
The ICD announcement came among many valuable pieces of information presented during the pre-ION workshop, sponsored by the International Association of Chinese Professionals in Global Positioning Systems. The workshop was chaired by Jade Morton, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Miami University, Ohio.
Dr. Xiancheng Ding of the Beidou Program Office described Compass as a demo system in transition to an operating navigation system. Two more satellites will launch in 2011, making a total of five new space vehicles this year,as part of a total “simple navigational system” of nine satellites that has been built up, and what is termed a “test system” over the Asia-Pacific region, to be complete by the end of the year.
Five more satellites will rise into orbit in 2012, and the system will graduallly extend its coverage and improve its performance. Compass will start official regional service by the end of 2012, meeting user requirements in the Asia-Pacific region.
ICD document v1.0 will be published in 2011, and probably in the month of October. It will be available for international download on the Compass website, www.beidou.gov.cn (as yet without an English version), also at www.compass.gov.cn.
There was some disagreement among panelists as to the final targeted number of satellites in the system: either 30, or 35. Subsequent comments indicated that much of the structure may still be under discussion. The impression given was very much of a dynamic system in formation and growing rapidly.
In a presentation on “preliminary Results of GPS/Compass Integrated Positioning and Navigation,” Dr. Uanxi Yang of China’s National Administration of GNSS and Applications reported integrated navigation with a Unicore UB 240 Compass/GPS receiver, and also mentioned a Shanghai Huace Compass/GPS receiver. Some systematic errors in Compass positioning were reported, and attributed to the sparse satellite distribution currently.
Dr. Yang concluded with the exhortation, “Reasonable Wishes for Compass!” emphasizing the desire of the delegation to continue working hard on, but with realistic expectations for, the new system.
During the Institute of Navigation Satellite Division conference (ION GNSS 2011), I may have made a major mistake by being dragged kicking and screaming into the controversy that dominated its opening days.
Excitement can be a relative term — if the sheer panic, and doom and gloom of what appears to be an impossible situation could be termed excitement. The dominating issue throughout the Tuesday CGSIC meeting, and in the conference rooms, corridors, and on the floor of the exhibition and technical conference later in the week, was clearly the LIghtSquared (LS) waiver situation. While well-intended presenters at CGSIC rolled out their news, an off-hand comment or question from the audience seemed to pull us all back to the LS threat to the GPS spectrum.
An informed estimate of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other government testing costs indicated that this so-called distraction has already consumed millions of dollars — to the government. That does not encompass the monumental efforts and expenses on the part of industry. While LS has now moved the goal-posts again, and a whole suite of re-testing has been mandated before the next impossible-to-achieve milestone in November.
Alan Cameron actually sang a presentation to the accompaniment of the Sonny and Cher song, ‘United we stand, divided we fall, and if our backs should ever be against the wall,” to CGISIC attendees. I’m not even sure he mentioned LightSquared, but we all got the message. I guess this community does feel that it has been lined up against the wall, preparatory to what seems to be an inevitable blindfold and execution.
However, by the end of the panel discussion on Wednesday evening, Tom Stansell and LightSquared’s Martin Harriman had us all convinced that there was nothing to worry about. Even-handed management and screening of written questions from the floor helped us all believe that the audience felt a solution could be at hand. I think the mood swing that seemed to permeate the audience might have helped us lose a little track of some of the major impediments, impediments that have neither disappeared nor changed with the current LS “30dBm-lower 10” proposal.
For instance, Iridium, Inmarsat, Omnistar, and Starfire may all need to re-think how they can still operate alongside high-power terrestrial transmitters in their MSS band.
I heard the views of Pat Fenton — one of the key technical leaders in this industry — criticized as being less than positive: that we risk losing the potential performance of high-precision receivers on which Pat has based his career and the fortunes of NovAtel. I really think we should consider this as critical.
One speaker implied, what’s 1dB or 6dB and a little in-band jamming anyway? The groans I heard coming from the FAA delegation at the end of my seat-row seemed to indicate a different opinion.
At this point, we had only reached day two of the conference. Reality crept further back in fo rthe delegates as they gathered for subsequent full day and further discussiuobs. Certainly sober thoughts seemed to re-emerge from those people I talked to on the floor of the exhibition: “We still have a problem here, Batman!”
Losing the business that the correction-distribution guys have in the MSS band might not be recognized as being that important to people with other interests. At the same time, jamming Compass and part of GLONASS within the United States so that North American don’t get access to all those extra satellites that the rest of the world will benefit from, may seem a distant and unlikely prospect. Beware, beware.
We’ve spent 25-odd years creating a multi-million dollar GNSS industry that supports a satellite navigation infrastructure used around the globe by hundreds of billions of people, for millions of different applications. Now we face the threat that someone will destroy or severely limit future GNSS growth so everyone in the United States will have the ability to text continuously while driving?
What’s going on here??!!??
Fortunately, I had the other side of the conference to fall back on: the enthusiastic, innovative and apparently healthy business climate that the exhibitors and most of the attendees brought with them to Portland. Attendance iwas up 10 percent on last year to around 1,400 delegates, and the 144 booths of 91 exhibitors are back up to 2009 levels. so we’re well into recovery, it would seem.
I would not say that I saw lots of new stuff this year at ION, but there are new product launches and there are new innovations — it’s just that they were more evolutionary rather than breakthrough. Javad Ashjaee might challenge this view and claim that his new LightSquared-Protected/Compensated/Integrated receiver design is revolutionary. But filters are not really new and likely don’t solve the loss of available signals, and this approach does not protect the millions of existing receivers from multiple manufacturers that are already out there. Good business for him, though, if it works at $300–800 a pop! (Upps, I got dragged back into that black hole again!)
IFEN has new GNSS simulators and a growing, viable business, and Septentrio looks very healthy with the introduction of its new AsteRx-m receiver — both companies apparently borne out of the European industrial policy behind EGNOS and Galileo. More on this at another time.
Trimble has a new RTK correction service that is operational in agriculture in the U.S. Midwest, and Hemisphere introduced its S320 GNSS Survey receiver, data collector and survey software package.
GNSS Technologies has apparently found a new way to tackle the indoor nav problem: simply embed IMES chips in buildings that each broadcast the location of the room where they are installed. Your receiver gets a position for the room you’re in, and the next room, and the corridor as you progress through the building. Possibly quite accurate enough for first responders to navigate the building, or to locate someone in a particular room in a building. Neat idea.
Locata worked its indoor location demo endlessly throughout the conference as attendee interest exceeded their expectations. NovAtel introduced a scintillation monitor/TEC receiver to join its wide product inventory, along with the GAJT anti-jam adaptive antenna that finally made its ION debut.
This has just been a short snapshot of some of the new stuff and the excitement that always surrounds an ION conference. Snapshots are always incomplete and only capture part of the picture, so my apologies to those companies I didn’t mention – there were after all 91 companies exhibiting, as I said earlier.
Thank goodness that the industry is still pouring on the investment in R&D and we’re still moving forward!
If only we can maintain our focus on creating new business instead of working though expensive distractions that divert money and energy, and undermine the very basis of our industry.
The 2011 Frankfurt Motor Show is underway. The Ford Evos concept car is having its debut and overtakes the company’s Sync offering, with a high level of social networking and connectivity features. A departure from the Sync approach of vehicles as smartphones on wheels, this plug-in hybrid is designed to always be connected to the cloud. Some of the distractibility found in the Sync has been diminished. The driver’s “personal cloud” makes automatic adjustments to music, temperature, traffic checks, and navigation that reflect learned personal choices of the driver and her schedule. Hooking a car up to the cloud comes with significant risks. Moving from stand-alone isolated in-vehicle systems to the connected network world carries the threat of being hacked and exposed to viruses. iSec researchers demonstrated unlocking and starting a car by sending text messages to its alarm system. The problem, however, is much broader than having a car stolen.
White Flag. The industry has surrendered mobile check-in to Foursquare. It isn’t often one gets to report on a Facebook failure, but after one year of disappointing traction, the company has abandoned Places. A location-based social network offering, Facebook Places allowed users to share location at venues, and see who among their contacts were checked in nearby. When Places launched a year ago, it wasn’t clear if start-ups like Foursquare, Gowalla, and Whrrl could compete with Facebook. Yet the day following the Facebook Places launch, Foursquare sign-ups swelled with a record number of new users. Dennis Crowley of Foursquare asserts that they have captured 10 million users by “being about what people are currently doing,” while Facebook records what people have done in the past. Facebook users won’t be able to check in, but can add location to a tag.
No More Gowalla Badges. Unable to compete with Foursquare on check-ins alone, Gowalla is shedding some of its check-in bells and whistles and adding social travel guides for travelers. These location-based communities emphasize image sharing and storytelling and are now available in 60 cities worldwide. Gowalla is also featuring content from National Geographic and other travel-oriented sites.
Looking for Metrics. Local, location-based search is a key driver for mobile advertising. Google has 200 million active mobile map users in more than 100 countries. Navigation is search’s bosom buddy. “In general, I think you can look at navigation as a type of conversion, for example, after searching for directions,” says Suroijit Chatterjee of Goggle, as reported by The Where Business. “Better attribution models are needed, however, in order for revenue generation to develop further.”
Fourth Amendment and Location: Law and Order Edition. In November, the Supreme Court will hear the most important fourth amendment case in years, and it is all about location. The question is whether the police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle and track movements. The court case arose from an investigation of a Washington man who was suspected of being part of a cocaine selling operation. The police had obtained a search warrant, but installed the tracking device one day late.
Literary Location Judges. Recent rulings from judges across the country that have included tracking of cell phone locations have sided with protection of privacy. It is common for judges to invoke George Orwell’s 1984 and its depiction of a futuristic police state that keeps citizens under constant surveillance. In November, the Supreme Court Judges will address the specific question of whether the placement of a tracking device on a vehicle qualifies as a search, and if the surveillance by location technology is different from conventional methods such as tailing suspects and stake-outs, which do not require a warrant.
Navv Revamps. Navv has recreated itself in the navigation industry by adding social networking into its personal navigation offering. Users can share their locations, itineraries, or current routes to their Facebook wall, directly from the app. Check-ins via Foursquare are automated. In March, the Navv navigation app was removed from the Apple App Store in a now-resolved argument with Apple over rights to the navigation app’s name.
Mark your Calendar. Don’t miss LocNav 2011, October 18-19 in San Jose. The Where Business has co-located its annual Location Business Summit and Navigation conferences to create an even bigger show. I’ll be moderating the panel, “Connecting People Places and Things: Advertising and Social Networking in the Location Ecosystem.” My guests include executives form Expedia, Nokia, Yahoo, and A&G. See you there.
The October issue of Wireless Pulse will be published one week later than usual to allow reporting on the LocNav show.
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
Four weeks ago I attended a USSOCOM and Navy Post Graduate School event known simply as Camp Roberts TNT. Located in a remote part of the California Central Valley near the town of Paso Robles, the best way to describe Camp Roberts is that it’s like a Boy Scout Jamboree for engineers, scientists, and military operators. However, Camp Roberts focuses on the serious business of Special Operations that was made even more somber by the loss of 30 Navy SEALS the day before the start of the event.
Sunday, as I was packing to go to Camp Roberts, I couldn’t help but reflect on the loss of the Special Operations team that day. I knew that throughout the country there were 30 Navy and Marine Corps officers putting on their dress uniforms to personally deliver the most horrific news a family can get. Each officer held a message that would turn into a dagger which would penetrate and twist in the heart of a mother, wife, or children. At Camp Roberts many attendees had personal connections to the lost troops but everyone hunkered down to the business at hand.
The USSOCOM Camp Roberts TNT (Tactical Network Testbed) was well attended with more than 850 registered attendees. Camp Roberts is about 15 miles from the charming wine country town of Paso Robles. The camp is mostly dirt roads and gravel, 42 degrees in the morning up to 98 by noon. There are two primary buildings (double wides): a large briefing room that was designed for about 80 but packed with 200, and the TOC (Tactical Operations Center) with numerous flat screens showing different displays depending on who was demonstrating.
Unlike trade shows, TNT is mostly live equipment demos, outside, in the dirt with very informal discussions. But unlike contract delivery testing, perfection was not expected since some of the equipment was still in the development stage. Uniform of the day was khakis, jeans, T-shirts, polo shirts, caps and water bottles. Lunch was a vendor tent with hot dogs, chips and drinks. TNT has become so popular, that other COCOMs are looking to start their own.
Every morning there was a group meeting led by Dr. Buettner (NPS, retired Navy) who heads up the TNT effort. The staff reviews the plan of the day, demos, weather, safety (heat, snakes, foxes, elk, moving equipment, etc.) and logistics. Each participant quickly explains their demo, time, and location. I highlighted my 30-minute lunch time session on oblique imagery. Dr. Buettner, who has a dry sense of humor, interjected that I may or may not be there in November with a live aircraft demo if the audience gives me a thumbs down. I had good attendance at my presentation and closed by asking for a show of hands if we should come back in November for a live aircraft capture demo. Fortunately all hands went up, which I was quick to point out to Dr. Buettner. He muttered something about old Navy guys being mission focused.
The majority of demonstrations focused on communications equipment ranging from very secure high bandwidth line of sight to satellite up and down links. Although there was a schedule, the schedule was done primarily to prevent frequency interference so demonstrators had a clean hour or two. Most of the demos went on all day as attendees walked from one tent to another or to remote locations on the base.
Ball Aerospace highlighted geospatial technology. Ball had helicopter flying overhead carrying its Flash liDAR system downloading imagery and 3D data.
For those of you not familiar with Flash LiDAR, it is what the name implies. Rather than a raster point scan the Flash LiDAR shoot all points at once. That permits the union of other data such as full-motion video with the 3D data of the Flash LiDAR. Therefore, 3D video on the fly. Their field of view is was a relatively narrow but engineers are working to widen it.
Outside the two main buildings were numerous companies set up under pop-up canopies ranging from Lockheed Martin and Harris with high-end communications gear.
Shown here are two battery powered UA’s. The helos with installed video cameras have loiter times of up to 45 minutes. There were many examples of wireless handheld com gear and high bandwidth Line of Sight transmission devices such as the example below.
There was a demonstration of paint-on antennas that turn trees or wall into an antenna and very compact fuel cells shown here.
ITT had a field demonstration of a two-way audio/video link designed for corpsman operating in remote locations. The corpsman wore a vest that contained mics, earphones and a video camera (the white device on this man’s vest). The entire system was very light and unobtrusive. It permitted multiple corpsmen to communicate directly with mobile field locations or even a specialist in a hospital. The doctor could see exactly what the corpsman was seeing and give the corpsman directions real time and hands free. This also permitted the doctor to make advance preparations to receive the patient when he was medevaced.
All during the field exercise each corpsman was tracked via GIS on an image base map. The tracking and communications were never lost even though the corpsmen were traveling behind hills with no line of sight to the mobile bases. This was accomplished through a system of local and satellite communications that reached back to Reston, Virginia. I could see that this would be beneficial for domestic first responders as well as the military. The quality of the video being sent from the corpsman was extremely good and the GIS display at the mobile base station tracked their movements very accurately.
Camp Roberts is unique in that it’s not a “sound clip” marketing bombardment like most trade shows. Since attendance is by invitation only, marketing is discouraged. What does happen are informal and in-depth discussions between field operators and engineers. Attendees get a chance to see equipment in action and exchange ideas freely. I felt lucky to be invited and hope that I can do some small part to help our troops accomplish their missions.
My mailbox is currently overflowing with comments and questions concerning rampant rumors that in the March 2011 time frame a U.S. military reconnaissance aircraft was forced to land during an annual major east Asian military exercise, known as Key Resolve, due to GPS jamming. The jamming reportedly took place along the northern portion of the 684-mile long Korean peninsula, with the jamming supposedly originating with the North Koreans. The jamming scenario should come as no surprise, but it is the emergency or forced landing due to loss of a GPS signal among other supposed “facts” with which I take issue.
The Rest of the Story
As a former USAF (United States Air Force) aviator, who spent literally thousands of hours in the cockpits and mission compartments of various and highly sophisticated reconnaissance aircraft, allow me to set the record straight on several important issues. First the reports that the plane was forced down or made an emergency landing due to loss of GPS are certainly inaccurate, an exaggeration, and a devious way to generate headlines. The journalist who initially reported the incident was simply seeking media attention and was unfortunately successful. The reconnaissance aircraft was not forced down by jamming or enemy interference but rather the aircraft commander took the most prudent action, both from a military and political vantage point, and it may well have saved lives.
Sordid Aviation and Military History
Lest we forget, historically civilian airliners have been harassed, intercepted and even shot down in this area of the world. Consider North Korea’s extreme and high-profile actions of late concerning the U.S and South Korean military as well as the civilian populace of South Korea are solely for the purpose of provoking a military response. Both the U.S. and South Korean military have shown remarkable restraint. This latest jamming incident is merely another in a long series of provocations by North Korea. Remember the North Koreans reportedly sank a South Korean military vessel recently, with all lives lost, because it was supposedly in North Korean waters. Authorities do not know, or have not said, for certain if the South Korean vessel experienced GPS jamming, but GPS readouts and coordinates have now become the defacto standard for proving or disproving the legitimacy of reported border incursions, whether by land, sea, or air.
To reiterate, the U.S. reconnaissance pilot took the prudent action once the GPS signal was reportedly jammed even though I can assure you the pilot (and crew if there were any) had numerous other means of navigation at their disposal. None of our reconnaissance aircraft depend solely on GPS for PNT information.
Unlike so many of the critical, uninformed responses I have read concerning this incident, I applaud the reconnaissance pilot for making the right decision. And since this was a reconnaissance aircraft, it is very possible the military gained all the necessary data before deciding to terminate the mission. Suffice it to say our SIGINT (SIGnals INTelligence) tools are extremely sophisticated.
Are We Too Dependent on GPS?
This incident reminds me that the 19th USAF Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, provoked quite a furor just 20 months ago when he spoke of a troubling operational dependency on GPS that must be tempered by other technologies and capabilites lest we become too dependent on one technology that could be denied our warfighters at critical times. It was reported at the time, by yours truly in GPS World and others, that General Schwartz’s call for alternative or augmenting technologies was “driven by serious threats to GPS… Officials familiar with the issue would not discuss current threats; however, they confirmed the GPS has been jammed or interfered with recently.”
Course of Action
The correct course of action is not to limit GPS — just the opposite. Refine GPS; increase the overall signal strength and accuracy for all users by integrating GPS with other embedded PNT (Position, Navigation and Timing) and communications systems through the use of intelligent software-defined receivers capable of utilizing all PNT signals available.
The dynamic Perfect Handheld or embedded GPS Transceiver (PHGPST) that I originally wrote about in March 2007 has evolved. The PHGPST must now be capable of receiving PNT signals from GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Compass, among others. It must be capable of receiving all the wide area and local area augmentation systems available globally, such as DGPS (Differential GPS), WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System), and EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service), just to name a few. Such a system would also utilize a chip-scale atomic clock (CSAC) and ingenious commercial systems such as Skyhook Wireless, which uses Wi-Fi and GPS carrier signals for immediate (under four seconds) PNT results, even indoors.
Of course, to provide any future PNT capabilities GPS and all other satellite-borne PNT systems must exist within the protected satellite navigation spectrum currently threatened by LightSquared and an apparently clueless FCC (Federal Communications Commission).
eLORAN
The current LightSquared debacle and the North Korean jamming incident certainly underscore the reasons for General Schwartz’s concerns. The fact that the U.S. military has recently decommissioned one of the primary and historically viable backups and augmentations for GPS, that was essentially too powerful to be easily jammed — and I am speaking of course of eLORAN — is another matter for another column. In my opinion, and it is an opinion shared by many in the know, decommissioning eLORAN was a major operational blunder induced by minor budget concerns that both the current administration and the Coast Guard need to remedy. I would very much appreciate your comments, pro and con, on the eLORAN debate. This is far from a dead issue. Drop me a line at [email protected]. I digress.
Historical Viewpoint: Lessons Learned
The entire incident with the North Korean’s supposedly jamming GPS and General Schwartz’s comments regarding our dependency on GPS brings to light navigation concerns, actions, and lessons we should have learned from another well-known general officer who served as the fifth chief of staff of the USAF and as the commander of Strategic Air Command (SAC). I am speaking of the famous General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay who had a well-known aberration for navigation devices that were not passive in nature or integral to the aircraft being navigated. And even though he was primarily a command pilot, General LeMay understood navigation; in 1940 he served as the navigator on the prototype Boeing XB-15 heavy bomber that when it first flew, in 1938, was the most massive and most voluminous aircraft ever built in the United States. Late
r in his career as USAF CSAF (Chief of Staff) General LeMay strongly advocated the introduction of satellite technology for navigation and pushed for the development of the latest electronic warfare techniques. However, for General “Iron Pants” (the XB-15 could fly unrefueled for over 20 hours) LeMay new technology was never allowed to overshadow or jeopardize the primary mission.
General LeMay was a big believer in the basics, especially celestial navigation, and I can testify from personal experience that just a few years past, long after the advent of GPS and LORAN (LOng RAnge Navigation), SAC navigators and crews routinely flew vast distances across oceans and continents with nothing but a sextant and a very busy and nervous navigator. General LeMay was also concerned about SIGINT and required SAC aircraft to routinely practice radio and signals silence, no signal emissions. Entire missions were frequently flown from takeoff to landing without a single radio call or signal being transmitted. There were totally radio silent air refuelings by SAC tankers and bombers. Consider that celestial, inertial, eLORAN, and GPS fall into the silent and SIGINT free category. The inveterate cigar chomping and garrulous General LeMay would undoubtedly have approved and championed these new technologies. But he would never have allowed the loss of one capability to compromise the overall mission, and thankfully that same attitude is still prevalent in our Air Force today. Hence the timely comments by General Schwartz.
Today SAC’s assets (SAC was disestablished as a USAF Major Command — MAJCOM — in June 1992 after the end of the Cold War) are divided among Air Combat Command (ACC), Air Mobility Command (AMC), and Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC). To my knowledge none of these MAJCOMs today require crews to carry sextants onboard their aircraft, and indeed many of the newer aircraft do not have sextant ports. Apparently manual aviation celestial navigation skills are no longer taught at the joint military navigation courses except to Navy and Coast Guard shipboard navigators/personnel. Perhaps a back-to-basics approach is needed in training as well as in operations.
LightSquared Debacle
While we should not be surprised that GPS jamming takes place, we should be surprised and indignant that the current FCC commissioner has initially authorized legal GPS jamming by LightSquared. I originally penned three articles about the FCC and the ridiculous chain of events that led to the LightSquared debacle, and then circumstances precluded me writing any further articles on the topic. What I can say now is the LightSquared terrestrial transmitters and receivers, if approved by the FCC, amount to FCC-sanctioned jamming that will cause mayhem among GPS users worldwide. This is no longer an issue confined to the CONUS (Continental United States). There are billions of dollars in economic and containment costs at stake as well as lost income and revenue, not to mention the potential loss of life, detailed in a recent FAA report. Approval of the LightSquared terrestrial plan would be a global catastrophe and I am incredulous that the administration and the FCC are still unsure of what action to take.
Way Ahead
It is really rather simple: LightSquared originally signed on to provide broadband communication capabilities via satellite to everyone in the U.S. They propose broadcasting in the spectrum allocated to satellite transmissions, and as long as they fulfill that mission at the nominal satellite power levels from orbit there is not an issue. In this originally approved LightSquared scenario, all users would have the capability to receive broadband signals everywhere they can now receive a GPS signal. As we all know, with ever more sensitive receivers you can now routinely receive GPS signals almost everywhere, even indoors. The proposed broadband satellite coverage area provides a huge customer base for LightSquared but apparently it is not enough. It becomes a matter of market dominance versus market share. The FCC needs to wake up and take immediate actions to curtail plans for all high-powered terrestrial transmissions in the protected satellite spectrum or face the disastrous consequences. The North Korean jamming headlines are bad enough; none of us want to read a headline that says “FCC GPS Actions Cause Huge Loss of Life as Airliners Collide.” This is far from over; write your Congressman.
My mailbox is currently overflowing with comments and questions concerning rampant rumors that in the March 2011 time frame a U.S. military reconnaissance aircraft was forced to land during an annual major east Asian military exercise, known as Key Resolve, due to GPS jamming. The jamming reportedly took place along the northern portion of the 684-mile long Korean peninsula, with the jamming supposedly originating with the North Koreans. The jamming scenario should come as no surprise, but it is the emergency or forced landing due to loss of a GPS signal among other supposed “facts” with which I take issue.