Category: Opinions

Is Google’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility an Attempt to Control Location Biz?

Google is at it again. This time Motorola Mobility is on the buying block. What does this mean to the location-based services market? Another potential location platform market closed off? Some industry experts believe this is the case. In addition, Iridium and TeleNav are making LBS news with recent product launches and acquisitions.

The recent $12.5-billion Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility has some industry experts saying that the location market piece of pie is getting smaller every time the search giant makes a deal.

“I think with Google controlling both the hardware and software stack of the Android ecosystem it will be hard for any technology company to work with Motorola. They want to own the whole shooting match for themselves,” said Ted Morgan, Skyhook Wireless CEO.

Boston-based Skyhook is suing Google for allegedly using tactics to block Motorola Mobility and Samsung from contracts that use the company Wi-Fi-based tracking system in Android smartphones.

Many industry experts have said that the main makers of Google Android smartphones should feel challenged as well as the company has seemingly gone into business against them.

Google has made many moves into the location business in the last two years. It is trying to grab a large share of the European traffic market by offering real-time services in 13 European companies. Google shook up the navigation market with free navigation service for Android phones in 2009. Last month, LBS Insider detailed Google’s purchase of The Dealmap, which offers a location-based daily deal service.

Google’s acquisition of Motorola is another step in a development strategy that appears to be aimed at increasing the company’s ability to compete across multiple markets that are served by mobile computing, said Mike Dobson, Telemapics president, author of Exploring Local. “[This is] supplemented by the company’s ability to supply its customers proprietary content that can provide a unique and informed world view whether those customers are at home or on the road exploring new geographies,” he said.

Dobson says that Google clearly wants to compete on a level playing field with Apple and appears to feel that the only way they can do so is to acquire one of the premier manufacturers of mobile phones. “While Google had hoped to control the mobile market by developing Android, doing so has not allowed them the gather the strategic control of phone design, pricing, positioning, placement, or distribution,” he said. “Conversely, Apple has been able to bring mobile phones to the marketplace whose features, functionality, and looks have generated a design revolution that has enchanted consumers in a manner dissimilar to anything we have ever seen in the mobile marketplace.”

Although Motorola’s brand has been tarnished in recent years, it is clearly the case that they are an extraordinarily talented developer of popular mobile devices that continue to stretch to boundaries of the capabilities of the cell phone world, said Dobson, who believes that this is evidenced by the fervor of anticipation surround the current release of the dual-core, 4G LTE compatible Motorola Droid Bionic.

Motorola’s design team, however, does not appear to understand the consumer mobile phone market with the same ability to interleave design and hardware functionality that is the hallmark of all Apple products, including the iPhone. “Nor do I believe that Google has the capabilities, as of this time, at least, to remedy this situation,” he said.

Dobson said that Google’s proposed acquisition of Motorola, coupled with those like its acquisition of Zagat’s and proposed acquisition of ITA Software, an airline ticketing company, seems to indicate that Google is interested not only in providing the platform and OS, but also the common content that might be of interest to users of their mobile devices. “When Google’s control of key content is wrapped within the control of the delivery platform and nested within the Internet’s most successful advertising delivery platform, AdSense/AdWord, it would appear that Google will have advantages in the mobile world far superior to any company that currently exists,” he said.

Now that the U.S. government has blocked AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile, all eyes are on Google’s newest purchase. Dobson has said that while it is impossible to estimate the size and data usage total that can be attributed to location services, there is little reason to assume that it does not mirror the growing trend in data growth.

At the time the AT&T/T-Mobile deal was announced, Dobson told LBS Insider that if AT&T can advantage itself by easing its spectrum crunch through the acquisition, it could result in the company being more interested in navigation and LBS than in the past.

Iridium Making LBS Foray

As GPS World reported, McLean, Va.-based Iridium Communications announced that its Iridium Force strategy will include LBS and M2M to grow its personal mobile satellite capabilities beyond satellite phones. The new capability enables communication with Wi-Fi-enabled devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. The Iridium Extreme, which is the company’s smallest, will be connected to online portals with GPS and LBS capabilities.

The company also says that Iridum Tracking Portals allow customers to access location monitoring that show real-time status and location, scheduling regular check-ins, geo-fencing, and other features.

In a July interview with LBS Insider, Patrick Shay, Iridium vice president and general manager for data services, said that the machine-to-machine market constitutes the company’s fastest growing segment. The company said it reached 500,000 total billable subscribers for its satellite voice and data services worldwide. The breakdown of subscribers includes 90 percent commercial customers and 10 percent U.S. government customers.

TeleNav Buys LBS Firm Goby

In a smaller acquisition, of which financial details were not disclosed, TeleNav purchased Boston-based Goby, a local and travel search startup that focuses on mobile applications — and will look at advertising revenue models.

TeleNav has been tight-lipped about the acquisition, only saying that they are impressed with the small company and its personnel and technology. Published reports indicate that the company, and 10 employees, are staying in Boston.

September 13, 2011
Expert Advice: EPIC Happening — Europe’s PNT Industry Council
John Wilde

By John Wilde

We have the United States GPS Industry Council, the Japan GPS Council, and the Korean GNSS Technology Council.

Anything missing?

The challenges facing the performance, navigation, and timing (PNT) community, which relies on GNSS amongst other things, are getting more numerous and complex, and Europe is the only major territory without a unified industry nexus where such challenges can be engaged. However, this is about to change.

From my background and current activity as CEO of DW International, an independent navigation consultancy with a strong interest in GNSS specifically, I have begun forming the European PNT Industry Council (EPIC) with other industry leaders to act as a focal point for the PNT community’s concerns and to help coordinate the effort for standardization and harmonization. Additionally, with issues such as the LightSquared debacle looming, it is key that European stakeholders have a voice on the global stage.

A recent survey that the nascent EPIC conducted jointly with Marketing Analytics highlighted the need for an organization such as EPIC. We asked key PNT figures around the globe about the issues concerning them and how these concerns should be addressed by EPIC. For such a diverse group of respondents (including representatives from state transport agencies, academic institutions, OEMs, independent consultancies, land survey companies, maritime, and aviation) there was clear agreement on the need for a European focal point for PNT to better facilitate interoperability and harmonization of standards among the current PNT activities being undertaken around the world. Sixty-six percent of respondents wanted an international forum for information exchange (that is, ideas, best practices, and lessons learned) where such issues as interoperability and harmonization could be addressed.

Sixty-three percent rated system-level PNT policy issues as a very important subject area for EPIC, while 56 percent rated standards for PNT in areas such as aviation, rail, and E112 as being very important. There is no shortage of issues to tackle, and EPIC will prove to be a key player in forming the coalitions required.

As one respondent put it, when asked about his priorities regarding PNT policy:
- Galileo launch schedule;
- Compass CPII and CPIII signal details and operational plans;
- Information about GLONASS L3 and GLONASS CDMA plans, particularly ICD and frequency of planned L1 CDMA signal;
- SBAS plans, such as EGNOS and GAGAN;
- European regulatory plans that relate to navigation and positioning; E112, road user charging, tracking and logistics;
- Standards for navigation and positioning applications, plus applications that rely on a position.
Whatever the appeal of a forum for the exchange of technical knowledge amongst professionals, it was also clear that respondents wanted EPIC to take action as well. One wrote:

“EPIC needs to be outcome/results oriented and not turn into a talkfest. Therefore issues such as LightSquared need to be addressed head on so that bureaucrats start listening to the science behind decisions and policies rather than commercially driven for short-term political expediency.”

Indeed, EPIC joined the chorus of organizations writing directly to the FCC calling for a rethink of the LightSquared issue.

I personally believe that with the industry councils active in the United States and Asia, EPIC is the third leg of the stool. PNT is such a dynamic world, with so many moving parts, that even large international organizations risk being left behind unless their interests are represented and the information they need is available in a consistent and practical fashion.

But more than that, PNT is a utility that needs to be protected, maintained, enhanced, and utilized. EPIC will ensure that those who want to, can.

The need is there. The stakeholders are there. It’s happening.
September 1, 2011
Out in Front: The Good, the Bad, the Incompetent

The most efficient use of spectrum the world has ever seen benefits more than a billion people today. Two billion tomorrow, when modernized and interoperable GNSS gets real. This massive installed base constitutes a source of innovative advantage and invaluable good will for the United States.The latter arises from the high degree of trust and confidence in the United States and its stewardship of GPS, one of the most successful — and perhaps only — simultaneous foreign aid and domestic economic stimulus programs ever created.

Smooth dealers operating inside a hedge, playing with other people’s money, want to make billions by raiding this national resource to provide video on cell phones to young audiences.

The Federal Communications Commission has acted in ways inconsistent with reasonable public expectations of a federal rule-making agency. Early on, it gave the appearance of buying into the LightSquared agenda, issuing a ruling with undue speed.

It has waived, explained, and proclaimed in ways that show an abject ignorance of radio frequency (there are conflicting reports as to whether agency technical staff was ever consulted by leadership prior to acceding to the LightSquared request) — and too clever by half. The chairman, rumored to be in line for the China ambassadorship, was careful not to sign the waiver himself, but have the deed done by a subordinate.

In this act, they ignored the inherent conflict in two competing national policy objectives: the National Space Policy and the Broadband Memorandum. Rather than taking time to reconcile crucial guiding principles, the waiver plots its own course.

The ruckus has gotten the president out on a limb, and now the agency must find a solution allowing him to crawl back before the election. Either that, or he and his advisors, including the FCC chair, will knuckle down and carry on regardless, saving political face in the short run while weakening national infrastructure and defensive capabilities.

Never underestimate politicians’ desire to save face. In many ways, it’s all they’ve got.

The best thing the GPS community can do during this quiet reloading period is to keep the letters and calls flowing to Congress: the safest and most fact-based action for the FCC is to conclude that the terms of the LightSquared conditional waiver have not been met and withdraw the license to deploy a terrestrial network in the 1525–1559 MHz band. This is the only approach fully consistent with both the National Space Policy and the Broadband Memorandum, as well as the FCC’s own regulations.

At this point, any actions taken by the FCC are subject to unpredictable political considerations.

Shootout at the cantina.

September 1, 2011
Expert Advice: Exploring the Technologies Behind Location-Gate

Marty Feuerstein

By Marty Feuerstein

For the past several months, controversy has raged over the revelation that Apple and Google tracked mobile subscriber location movements and stored that information in an unencrypted file on the handset, where it was potentially vulnerable to hacking and other inappropriate usage. The resulting Location-gate scandal highlights the sometimes tenuous control of mobile subscriber information versus the business objectives of dominant platform and applications providers. These business objectives may include immediate revenue opportunities from the subscriber being tracked or broader self-interest initiatives, such as collecting marketing data that may be valuable to third parties like advertisers, or building subscriber-reported Wi-Fi access point databases.

Furthermore, while much has been written about the privacy impacts of the collection and use of consumer location information, few articles have clearly outlined the technologies behind Apple and Google’s tracking activities. It is important to fully explore and understand these technology methods, and how they differ from other location technologies in use, in order to properly evaluate the threat posed by Location-gate and to develop responses that maintain privacy while enabling the benefits of location-based services.

Location, Tracking, and Storage

iPhone and iPad subscribers had previously been aware that Apple tracked their location via GPS, because the company notified subscribers when an app required the use of GPS to identify location, and asked them to opt-in. However, soon after Location-gate erupted, Apple’s vice president of software technology, Bud Tribble, testified to Congress in May 2011 that Apple also had been tracking device locations over time using triangulation between nearby Wi-Fi access points and wireless base stations. Triangulation is the moderately accurate method in which the mobile device measures the nearby cell site or access point identifications and possibly signal strengths, typically pinpointing device location to within a few hundred meters.

Following this revelation, Apple’s initial response was that “users are confused” and that it was simply “maintaining a database of Wi-Fi access points and cell towers around your current location…to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested.” Soon after Apple location tracking activity was revealed, it became known that Google was doing essentially the same thing, although to a slightly lesser degree (Android phones stored only the 50 most recent coordinate fixes and up to 200 Wi-Fi access-spot locations), and using a similar triangulation method without the subscriber’s explicit knowledge. Google Android devices also have GPS capability.

Why, if both OS providers embedded or leveraged GPS in their phones, would they resort to a less accurate location method, triangulation?

Neither company has provided an answer. We know that the triangulation method uses less battery power than GPS, conserving battery life for other uses while filling in performance holes for GPS in urban and indoor environments. Also, unlike with GPS, mobile subscribers are either not able to disable triangulation or must disable it separately. More relevant is the fact that triangulation allowed the OS providers to identify location automatically and track it over time in the background without the subscriber’s knowledge, for purposes such as building and maintaining a subscriber-reported database of Wi-Fi access points.

From a privacy perspective, there is a dramatic difference between tracking someone’s location over time (the bread crumb trail that Apple and Google used), versus locating one’s position for a specific purpose and handling the location information only within the confines of a secure wireless network. Useful applications that are universally accepted, such as E911 for safety-of-life situations, employ the latter method.

Other players in the mobile ecosystem, such as wireless network operators, have collected subscriber location information as well, but not by storing it in the device as historical files in the same way that Apple and Google did. Some information exists on the network side in association with billing records for calls (call detail records or CDRs), but this is not bread-crumb tracking of cell-IDs. E911 calls have records stored for use by public safety agencies, but most users never make an E911 call. Other messages containing coarse location may exist on a transitory basis (for example, location area updates), but these are not typically aggregated or stored for later processing.

Depictions of location information stored on handset and in operator network.

Alternative Geo-Location Methods

There exist location methods that provide far greater privacy and security than the location tracking and handset storage that Apple and Google have utilized. Standard methods exist for performing location using the wireless service provider’s network elements. These are called control-plane methods, which follow standards developed by 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and 3GPP2. Other standard methods exist using IP transport from the client phone to a location server. These are called user-plane methods, such as the Secure User Plane Location (SUPL) standard from the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA). Both control- and user-plane location standards incorporate mechanisms for data security and user privacy. These standard control- and user-plane methods differ from the proprietary methods used by many client applications and OSs, which are inherently user-plane in nature but with non-standard implementations.

Methods using a client application with handset-based location on the mobile device, also called user-plane methods, bypass the carrier’s wireless network elements and instead rely on an IP connection to transmit information from the client application to a server on the Internet. These user-plane location methods, such as client applications for handset-based A-GPS, as discussed, are already widely in use for location-based services. Handset applications are inherently vulnerable to hacking and privacy intrusions, as the recent spate of mobile viruses on Android has highlighted.

A-GPS is highly accurate at identifying location in direct line-of-sight conditions with the satellites (open sky conditions), as found in suburban and rural areas, but performs less well in challenging dense urban and indoor environments. GPS in the phone can be easily disabled by the end user, and the receiver chip in the handset can cause significant battery consumption when used in demanding applications, such as navigation and monitoring geo-fences. A-GPS, as used by wireless network operators for navigation and other location-based services, does not usually store unencrypted files of historical location information in the handset, as Apple and Google did.

Alternative, network-based, or control-plane, methods make use of the wireless services provider’s network elements to keep location information wholly behind the security of the operator’s firewall, employing highly standard protocols for security and privacy. Control plane location methods are used for today’s safety-of-life applications, like E911, where security and privacy are prime considerations.

One example of a network-based location technology that can work in control-plane is RF pattern-matching (RFPM), which is the only high accuracy, software-based, scalable location solution that requires no additional hardware changes/additions to the mobile device or at the base stations. It compares mobile measurements (signal strengths, signal-to-interference ratios, time delays, and so on) against a geo-referenced database of the mobile operator’s radio environment. RFPM boasts a 100 percent security record for subscriber mobile location information it produces, for critical applications such as E911 emergency call and law enforcement location applications.

Location information for growing consumer uses deserves the same privacy and security protections that other standards-compliant control-plane solutions provide for today’s mission-critical and safety-of-life location applications. RFPM works extremely well in non line-of-sight conditions such as dense urban and indoor environments, where GPS-based solutions face challenges. RFPM also offers low battery consumption and geo-fencing capabilities, which makes it ideal for providing location for the growing opportunity in location-based advertising and other location-based services (widely believed to be the true driver behind Apple and Google’s location tracking activities).

As Location-gate clearly illustrates, there is no shortage of methods to identify and track one’s location via mobile device. Now that the issue has been raised, it is imperative that the entire mobile ecosystem — network operators, OS providers, regulators, and subscribers — clearly understand what methods are used, when one’s location is being identified and tracked, and what is being done with that data. Breadcrumb trails are useful if you’re trying to find your way out of the forest, but not if Big Brother is tracking you.

Marty Feuerstein is chief technology officer of Polaris Wireless, where he leads research into new products, algorithms, system performance, and regulatory activities. He has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech.

September 1, 2011
Expert Advice: Cloud-Based Location Changes Enterprise Playing Field

Mario Proietti

By Mario Proietti

New technology and wireless carrier openness now make real-time access to telephone location information available to the enterprise with no application required on the mobile device.

Yes, that’s right: no application required! Cloud-based location, offered via direct connections to wireless operators, changes the playing field for enterprises to introduce instant operational efficiencies. Marrying location insight, privacy controls, and multi-modal communications through network application programming interfaces (APIs) provides enterprises with flexibility, cost savings, and time-to-market advantages. Whether delivering geo-targeted promotions, dispatching services, verifying worker activities, or performing other location-relevant actions, businesses now have cross-carrier access to location information for more than 85 percent of U.S. wireless subscribers — instantly!

This enables businesses to go app-less with no costly, time-consuming deployment and maintenance of handset applications. Additionally, no specialized hardware is required. Location through carrier networks also assures secure and tamper-proof delivery of the location information since no potentially hackable client software is involved in the generation or delivery of that information. It comes straight from the carrier network over secure connections.

Cloud-based deployment, such as that available through TechnoCom’s Location Platform, opens up location intelligence to all device types, including both smartphones and feature phones. This removes a huge barrier that exists with the existing smartphone-only applications and enables businesses to immediately tailor their workflows and business processes to utilize the knowledge of real-time location from a secure and dependable source. Development cycles and costs are a fraction of those required for smartphone applications, such as Droid or iPhone apps, and the adoption hurdle of user download initiation is eliminated.

Simplification of access and deployment paves the way for adoption and finally opens the floodgate for location-based services to be implemented on a large scale across all wireless networks. This is analogous to the inflection point that cross-carrier text messaging access and interoperability had on cellular text messaging adoption rates in the ’90s.

By leveraging technology similar to that in the carrier networks and proven for use in 911 emergencies, businesses instantaneously benefit when new data is exposed by wireless operators, such as device capabilities, presence, rate plan status, roaming status, and so on. Enterprises may immediately harness this insight with upgrades to their server applications and no new technology deployments required in the field. That offers businesses a huge return on investment as they integrate once and consume enhancements dynamically. Location from the cloud opens up a new, instant intelligence frontier that was not possible for businesses to leverage just last year.

This unprecedented access to location information comes with a responsibility to comply with industry-accepted privacy controls. To make this easy on enterprises that are not expert in such policies, TechnoCom Location Platform provides carrier-approved privacy management functionality, and we work hand-in-hand with our customers to ensure their implementations are in line with best practices established by CTIA.

Tapping into location from other mediums such as VoIP, Wi-Max, NFC, Wi-Fi will increase the ubiquity of cloud-based location access even further. As devices get smarter and more powerful, better communications, device intelligence, and positional awareness will catapult businesses to yet another level of efficiencies in interacting with their mobile users, workers, and assets.

Mario Proietti is co-founder and chief executive officer of TechnoCom Corporation, and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of GPS World magazine. He has a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California. TechnoCom delivers cross-carrier location services to enterprises through its location platform’s web services APIs. The company also integrates location technologies into wireless networks, products, and software, and works with wireless carriers to enable E911 and location-based services.

September 1, 2011
Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance

The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen, what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in this month’s column.

To download the slides and one-hour audio recording of the “LightSquared Watch” webinar, click here.

Webinar speaker Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, included in his presentation a substantial chunk from an FCC filing by Glenn Borkenhagen of Cody, Wyoming. Here it is, verbatim.

Nav Signals Are Different from Com Signals

“The interference problems exhibited by precision GPS receivers can be fixed with filters.” [according to LightSquared]

This sounds plausible, even to some engineers knowledgeable in radio-signal processing, until it is realized that the typical filtering concepts don’t really apply here because the critical data for accurate GPS position is the ranging information that is derived from the arrival times of the state transition in the code message modulated onto the GPS carrier frequency and the arrival times of the carrier waves.

Synchronized atomic clocks on each of the satellites tell us when the signals leave the satellites, and when the GPS receiver is tracing four or more satellites the receiver can measure with atomic-clock accuracy when the clean signals arrive at the receiver’s antenna. To oversimplify a bit, the important factor about a clean code-message signal is that it has a good sharp and square edge when the digital signal modulated onto the carrier frequency changes from a digital 0 to a digital 1 or vice-versa. We know the signal traveled at the speed of light from the satellite to the receiver’s antenna and when we know how long it took to make the trip we know how far the receiver’s antenna is from each satellite and can determine the position of the receiver’s antenna.

Accurate edge/transition-time detection is necessary to determine when the signals arrive at the receiver’s antenna. When heavy filtering is applied to remove strong near-band interference, the signal edge transitions get rounded, blurred, and even time-displaced so determining an accurate arrival time becomes much more difficult if not impossible. It is easy in comparison to filter simple 0s and 1s to transmit a video file, for example – much more difficult to filter code and carrier without destroying the essential ranging information. GPS is essentially determining position using a “measuring stick” that is moving at 3 x 10 **8 meter/second.

[end of Glenn Borkenhagen’s comments, as excerpted in the webinar]

Thus, the fix proposed by LightSquared will not fix anything. It is broken to begin with.

Pace also alluded briefly to Section 25.255 of the FCC’s own rules. It states:

§ 25.255 Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to operation of ancillary terrestrial components operating in the 1.5./1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz bands.
If harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS ATC operator must resolve any such interference. If the MSS ATC operator claims to have resolved the interference and other operators claim that interference has not been resolved, then the parties to the dispute may petition the Commission for a resolution of their claims.
[68 FR 33653, June 5, 2003]

Note the date of enactment: 2003. This was at the time of, or immediately following, negotiations involving the FCC, a previous owner of the MSS band now held by LightSquared, and the U.S. GPS Industry Council. The regulation seems to imply that LightSquared could be held accountable for the costs associated with coping with the interference created by its signal, as incurred by the multitudinous arms of the GPS industry and user community, not to mention various arms of government such as the Federal Aviation Administration. We’re talking many billions here. Many billions.

Our other webinar speaker, Jules McNeff, vice president of strategy and programs for Overlook Systems Technologies, noted that this is a very political process that since the beginning has appeared heavily slanted to favor LightSquared entry. The political access of company executives and the owner to the White House has been well documented. Misinformation is rampant throughout the waiver petitioner’s arguments pre- and post-, and the pressure for action before analysis has been strong, surprisingly so. History has been reinterpreted — and McNeff should know, he was a key participant in those historical discussions of the late 90s and early 2000s — with facts twisted to fit the desired reality. The FCC’s actions are inconsistent with what public should expect from an unbiased federal rulemaking agency: public statements by agency leaders and staffers undermine the GPS industry and its users, agency positions ignore the fundamental differences between GPS and comm., and its statements resonate with assertions from LightSquared about the GPS community.

Both speakers concurred that the safest and most fact-based course of action for the FCC to take — and the only approach fully consistent with the terms of both the National Space Policy and the Broadband Memorandum as well as the FCC’s own regulations — is for the agency to conclude that the terms of the LightSquared conditional waiver have not been met and withdraw LightSquared license to deploy a terrestrial network in the 1525-1559 MHz band.

And now, your questions:

Q: What GNSS frequencies will and will not be affected by Lightsquared?

Webinar speakers’ Answer: The entire Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS) band from 1559 to 1610 MHz will be affected by LSQ transmissions below the band (ground stations) and above (handsets).

Q: Will you discuss Doppler shift and how the GPS recieved frequencies may fall in the bandwidth being used by LightSquared?

A: GPS uses relativistic doppler shift corrections and the adjusted carrier frequency is in the navigation message. Doppler effects don’t shift the received frequencies out of the RNSS band.

Q: Are there other MSS service in the band that will be affected by the power levels of LS?

A: Inmarsat is the primary MSS service affected that I’m aware of. Omnistar and Starfire use MSS to provide DGPS serives

Q: Can we address the potential effects on GPS timed simulcast radio systems?

A: Any GPS-enabled systems, capabilities, or applications would be affected within the areas covered by LSQ ground transmitters

Q: Will this problem undermine the position of the FCC?

A: If, on investigation by competent oversight authorities, the FCC’s actions prior to and following the issuance of the LSQ waiver (including rulemaking in previous years) are found to violate accepted practices or be motivated by political bias counter to the public interest or adversely affecting public safety, then yes, it will undermine the position (perception?) of the FCC as an independent federal rul
emaking organization.

Q: Does anyone have a read of how the FCC will actually rule and when? If the FCC approves LightSquared deployment, is the "Save Our GPS" coalition prepared to go to court in order to stop LightSquared deployment?

A: No to both parts. Any further actions taken by the FCC are subject to unpredictable political considerations at present. The coalition itself likely does not have the legal standing necessary to bring a lawsuit. Individual members and specific adversely affected parties would have to act

Q: This appears to me to be a factual and fair interpretation of the situation. Thank you. I assume that that since the slides provide credit to their authors and origin, I can share them with others without reproach.

A: Yes. To download the slides and full audio of the webinar, click here.

Q: How long do you think the FCC will take to review the docket before issuing a decision? Does anyone know when the FCC will render its final decision?

A: Any further actions taken by the FCC are subject to unpredictable political considerations at present.

Q: Given that the laws and regulations cited are settled law, is the GNSS industry prepared to go to The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to stop the harmful and illegal waiver process?

A: This matter is still being considered in the political arena for the moment, and so going to court is premature at this point. If the FCC upholds the waiver it issued at the beginning of this year, then my personal opinion is that adversely affected parties would have to bring suit individually (at least at first) based on the specific damages they can attribute to the FCC’s decision.

August 25, 2011
Doing GNSS Business in China
China represents a huge potential market for Western GNSS companies, even though the country has a strong and growing GNSS capability of its own. Before booking a flight to Shanghai or Beijing, however, some careful preliminary research will likely pay off: looking for potential Chinese industry partners with whom you would jointly work to open a market niche. The key ingredient — a huge investment in developing personal relationships, two-way trust, and understanding — is the only way to really penetrate the Chinese market. This month’s columns recaps some of the highlights of our recent webinar on this topic, and explores further with questions from our audience and the answers from our panel of experience China businesspeople.

Back on July 21, we held a GPS World webinar on “Doing GNSS Business in China.” The presenters were Vic Hsiao, CEO of Knowledge Access in California; Francis Yuen, CEO of Baseband Technology in Calgary, Canada; Jianhui Lee, president of BDStar in Beijing, China; and myself. The presentations were not only informative, but also generated a host of questions from a very well-informed group of GNSS-ers who logged on for the webinar. It’s therefore useful that we review what was discussed and that we try to summarize some of the key issues raised by the web audience.

Vic Hsiao has clearly spent significant time in China in his current consulting capacity, and previously with NavCom, Qualcomm, and Magellan, so he knows the dos and don’ts of trying to market in China. China represents a huge potential market for Western GNSS companies, even though there is a strong and growing GNSS capability, as Jianhui Lee explained the wide range of activities in which BDStar has become involved. Francis Yuen added a number of well illustrated commentaries around culture, communications, and negotiation which are particular to doing business in China.

In the slew of questions we received, there were a couple of common themes which I’ll try to address first. There is a really wide-felt concern about protection of intellectual property (IP) when doing business in China. While China is becoming aware of the need for IP protection, especially as its own GNSS industries create their own Beidou/COMPASS IP, and the filing of indigenous patents has grown by a whopping 57% (!), it’s still difficult to say that Chinese industry has fully grasped the concept of IP ownership and value.

So what could you do to protect your key “crown jewels” when, as a Western company, you venture into China? That question actually leads us into what would be the best way to enter the Chinese market. Showing up in Beijing with a catalogue and samples and knocking on doors is probably not the preferred approach. Before booking a flight, careful research would likely pay off looking for potential Chinese industry partners with whom you would jointly work to open a market niche. Then that leads to the key ingredient — huge investments in developing personal relationships, two-way trust, and understanding. This is the only way to really penetrate the Chinese market, through an extremely well-known and trusted partner.

And with a trusted partner, IP protection should be easier because personal relationships usually help understanding and acceptance of each other’s needs. Nevertheless, both sides need to protect their stuff as you would in a working relationship between two Western companies where trade secrets are retained and discussed only at the top level. I’ve known of instances where only object code has changed hands, and yes, object code and chips can also be cracked, which is why you need a trusted partner, as well as well established, long-term personal relationships and a business relationship which is mutually beneficial.

But don’t be fooled, China does understand IP protection very well — just ask anyone who’s still trying to get hold of the Beidou/COMPASS signal in space ICD. The Chinese government has restricted access to this key to tracking the full Beidou/COMPASS signal, and we’ve only seen Chinese companies making direct use of this ICD. Again, just another reason why you need a great Chinese industrial partner — they may be able get access to the ICD. Not that that will help you directly — you still have to work through your partner to implement Beidou signal tracking — maybe in an application embedded in the end product/receiver.

And is this all worthwhile? It’s not the easiest market to access. It’s a long way from home and the effort involved in servicing this market from the West (even with a great in-country partner) is significant. The estimated market for GNSS in China is probably around $18 Billion in 2011 and growing at a whopping 50% annual rate, so even though it takes a lot of work, the potential for a healthy return is still huge. This market will likely continue to exist for some time for Western companies, provided you’ve got the right products and have established your Chinese market baseline as we’ve outlined. But don’t wait too long — China has announced its intention to join the GNSS market on an equal footing with all the other GNSS constellation-capable nations, and that intention is not only for sovereign control of its navigation assets, it’s also to gain market share for its own industries. Import duties for GNSS products are, however, still low (around 1.5 to 5% of selling price), so it’s still possible to sell Western GNSS equipment into China. And it’s generally accepted that dual-frequency GNSS chipsets are all still imported from outside China.

Some other questions we may have not yet addressed include:
- How receptive are the Chinese to women entrepreneurs? There are a lot of women in leading positions in this industry, and Vic Hsiao believes there are a large number of Chinese women entrepreneurs — so being a Western woman trying to do business in China should be a positive thing.
- What is the requirement to offer integrated receivers with Beidou/Compass capability? As China is investing heavily in Beidou/Compass, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect something in the future like when Russia mandated GLONASS capability in Russia. The safe way forward is to find a Chinese partner and implement Beidou/Compass capability.
- Negotiation strategies? This is perhaps the hardest thing for Western companies to get their heads around. Chinese want the best deal possible and they will likely try to wring the last cent out of any negotiated sale. This is particularly true in the commercial market where pricing is the only edge Chinese companies can get in an increasingly competitive internal market. The best strategy is to look at the longer term and work hard to stay connected to the business over many years. If you drift away from your partner, expect things to come off the rails, so remain as closely connected partners. Make a deal that is good for both sides, even though you might feel you could have done better. It’s a huge market and a few points of margin might be worth it for a long-term business presence in one of the largest, fastest growing markets in the world.
So, lots of information for people looking to make their first foray into GNSS in China — maybe not so much new news for those who are old hands, but hopefully there was the odd bit which was useful. Certainly there were a lot of questions we stirred up with our webinar. Thanks for everyone who participated; if I missed your concern, please drop me an e-mail ([email protected]) and I’ll do my best to get you some help.

Tony Murfin
GNSS Aerospace
August 25, 2011
LightSquared: The Ball is in the FCC’s Court

The FCC’s public comment period regarding the LightSquared/GPS interference issue has ended and the reply comment period is over as well. To date, more than 3,300 comments (not including the 15,000+ that were submitted by the Boat Owners Association of the United States) were entered that the FCC must sift through and arrive at some sort of conclusion. Following are my last comments filed with the FCC as well as my best guess at where this is heading.

I decided to file a “reply comment” submission on August 15 to the FCC based on an August 11 filing by LightSquared where LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeffrey Carlisle stated “had the GPS industry complied with the DoD’s recommended filtering standards for GPS receivers, there would be no issue with LightSquared’s operations in the lower portion of its downlink band.” It’s a blatantly false statement, so I couldn’t let it pass without a rebuttal. Following is what I submitted to the FCC:

August 15, 2011

Eric Gakstatter

Editor – GPS World magazine Survey Scene enewsletter

Editor – Geospatial Solutions

High-precision GPS Consultant

PO Box 663

West Linn, OR 97068

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20554

Re: IB Docket No. 11-109

Dear Ms. Dortch,

In addition to my comments posted on July 28, 2011, I’d like to reply to comments submitted by LightSquared in their letter dated August 11, 2011.

Again, by way of background, as a Contributing Editor to GPS World magazine, my specialty is high-precision GPS receivers of which I’ve been involved with for more than 20 years as a product developer, power user and consultant. I’m in touch with tens of thousands of high-precision GPS users from around the world through my newsletter articles (bi-weekly), webinars and my attendance at technical conferences. I consider myself and I’m considered by others to be an advocate for the high-precision GPS community.

In Jeffrey Carlisle’s (LightSquared Executive Vice President) comments to the FCC dated August 11, 2011, he stated that “had the GPS industry complied with the DoD’s recommended filtering standards for GPS receivers, there would be no issue with LightSquared’s operations in the lower portion of its downlink band.”

This is a false statement, and to make matters worse, he knows it’s a false statement. Here’s why…

LightSquared sells high-precision satellite data communications services to the GPS industry. Before LightSquared was formed in 2010, its predecessors (Skyterra, MSV) sold the same services to the GPS industry for many, many years. In the course of business over many, many years, LightSquared and its predecessors have encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers that look into the MSS band (1525-1559MHz) in order to access LightSquared’s satellite data communication services. This service has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for LightSquared and its predecessors over many years and continues to be a revenue source for LightSquared today.

If LightSquared chooses to stop supplying satellite data communications services to the GPS industry, that’s their choice, but they should not fabricate a statement claiming that only the reason for interference in the “lower portion of its downlink band” is due to filtering technology. It’s just not true. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of expensive high-precision GPS receivers were specifically designed to access LightSquared’s and Inmarsat’s satellite data communications services that they sell to the GPS industry.

LightSquared may state they will continue to offer these services to the GPS industry in the upper portion of its downlink band (1545-1559MHz) to create separation from the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz). It’s too late for that. Billions of dollars of expensive, high-precision GPS receivers are already in the market that were designed to look in the entire MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) for services provided by LightSquared and Inmarsat. Had the GPS user community been given sufficient notice, tens of thousands of high-precision GPS equipment owners could have planned for transitioning their GPS receivers over many years with a manageable financial impact. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The GPS user community was blindsided by LightSquared’s application in November 2010 and the FCC’s waiver granted to LightSquared in January 2011.

LightSquared and the FCC failed to adequately notify the GPS user community of their intentions. As I’ve submitted before, the precedent has already been set on how to effectively notify the GPS user community about an action that would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force proposed to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian L1/L2 high-precision GPS receiver in existence. It was the first time in history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the impact of the LightSquared system.

There was no industry coalition formed to engage the Air Force. There was no industry outcry. A public/private technical working group was not formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported. Why is that?

The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating directly with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on high-precision GPS receivers.

The U.S. Air Force did its homework. At the end of the day, it set a sunset date of December 31, 2020 to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the high-precision GPS user community.

Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community resulting in billions of dollars in losses and widespread small business closure. Fortunately, they did their homework, understood the impact, and made the correct decision.

LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening. In either case, the GPS user community shouldn’t be held accountable in paying for the FCC’s and LightSquared’s lack of communication/notification.

LightSquared and the FCC incorrectly assumed that communicating/negotiating with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) was the equivalent of communicating/negotiating with the GPS user community. That is a false assumption. The USGIC does not communicate directly with the GPS user community and never has. That’s not their role. I’ve been perso
nally involved in the high-precision GPS industry for 20+ years and writing a monthly newsletter on high-precision GPS technology for GPS World magazine for more than five years. I attend almost every major GPS conference and high-precision GPS market segment conference in the U.S. and some abroad. The first I’d heard about the LightSquared interference issue was November 2010.

Even if LightSquared only uses the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz) as they’ve proposed, the number of high-precision receivers affected would be at least 200,000 at an estimated replacement cost of $10,000 per unit which equates to a total equipment replacement cost of $2 billion dollars. That does not include the cost of removal/installation, lost productivity, required software upgrades, and training. Do LightSquared and the FCC expect the GPS user community to bear that cost? Hopefully, you can see by the overwhelming number of public comments from small businesses and local government agencies, such an action would be devastating to the U.S. economy.

Lastly, please do not forget about the potential devastating impact of LightSquared mobile devices (uplink band 1626.5-1660.5MHz) on GPS and GNSS receivers. I’m afraid this is being lost in all the discussion about the downlink band. The uplink band could have a worse affect on GPS and GNSS receivers than the downlink band.

LightSquared mobile devices are potentially portable GPS/GNSS jammers. The FCC needs to seriously investigate the interference impact of LightSquared mobile devices (1626.5-1660.5Mhz) on GPS receivers. It is already known that Inmarsat (1626.5-1660.5MHz) devices and Iridium (1616-1626.5MHz) devices interfere with each other, but Iridium devices are only used in remote areas so it’s not a widespread problem. It is also known that these devices interfere with the GLONASS L1 signal (1597-1605MHz). We don’t know the extent of the effect that LightSquared mobile devices will have on GLONASS L1, GPS L1, Galileo L1, or Compass L1 signals. The problem is that no LightSquared mobile devices are available to test. Yes, lab simulations can be performed, but LightSquared devices will be made in Asia, among other places, where the designers won’t care one bit about GPS/GLONASS interference. There is not an acceptable design margin, if any, to allow for sloppy LightSquared device designs.

Thank you for your attention. If you feel that further testimony is needed, I’m more than happy to oblige.

Sincerely,

/S/ Eric Gakstatter

Eric Gakstatter

Principal – Discovery Management Group LLC

Editor – GPS World Magazine Survey Scene enewsletter

Editor – Geospatial Solutions

PO Box 663

West Linn, OR 97068

I think that three things are batting against LightSquared at this point:

1. As much as they say they gave fair warning, LightSquared and the FCC didn’t communicate with the GPS user community at all on this issue. The U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) doesn’t count. They don’t represent the GPS user community nor communicate with the GPS user community at all. So, the GPS user community was blindsided by this in Nov 2010.

This was either intentional or sloppy, but it doesn’t matter either way. The bottom line is that you can’t give nine months notice on obsoleting 200,000+ very expensive GPS receivers that are installed and used in critical infrastructure applications. It would take many years to transition to new equipment. The U.S. Air Force and Dept of Commerce have already been through this drill already and they determined that 12 years was about the right timeframe needed to transition high-precision civilian GPS equipment to new technology. If LightSquared and the FCC really understood this market, they would know it’s not a four-year exercise.

2. Even with LightSquared using only the lower spectrum (1526-1536Mhz), it still interferes with $2+ billion dollars worth of high-precision GPS receivers. Who’s going to pay that bill? The GPS user community that was given no advanced notice?

They can argue all they want about who’s fault it is, new filter technology, DoD standards, etc., but at the end of the day, obsoleting 200,000+ expensive high-precision GPS receivers valued at $2+ billion dollars would be devastating to American small businesses and Fed/State/Local gov’t.

3. LightSquared sells high-precision satellite data communications services to the high-precision GPS industry. Before LightSquared was formed in 2010, its predecessors (Skyterra, MSV) sold the same services to the GPS industry for many, many years. In the course of business over many, many years, LightSquared and its predecessors have encouraged GPS receiver manufacturers to design receivers that look into the MSS band (1525-1559MHz) in order to access LightSquareds satellite data communication services. This service has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for LightSquared and its predecessors over many years and continues to be a revenue source for LightSquared today.

If LightSquared chooses to stop supplying satellite data communications services to the GPS industry, thats their choice, but they should not fabricate a statement claiming that only the reason for interference in the lower portion of its downlink band is due to filtering technology. Its just not true. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of expensive high-precision GPS receivers were specifically designed to access LightSquareds and Inmarsats satellite data communications services that they sell to the GPS industry.

LightSquared may state they will continue to offer these services to the GPS industry in the upper portion of its downlink band (1545-1559MHz) to create separation from the lower portion of the downlink band (1526-1536MHz). Its too late for that. Billions of dollars of expensive, high-precision GPS receivers are already in the market that were designed to look in the entire MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) for services provided by LightSquared and Inmarsat. Had the GPS user community been given sufficient notice, tens of thousands of high-precision GPS equipment owners could have planned for transitioning their GPS receivers over many years with a manageable financial impact. Unfortunately, thats not the case. The GPS user community was blindsided by LightSquareds application in November 2010 and the FCCs waiver granted to LightSquared in January 2011.

Of course, I didn’t mention aviation, maritime, military and other safety-of-life applications of GPS. That’s a whole other story…

Does that mean the FCC is going to tell LightSquared to go home?

Maybe, but I doubt it.

In a letter dated August 10, 2011, the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Chief Julius Knapp requested more data from LightSquared and the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC). Following is an important excerpt from the letter:

“It is unclear to what extent the GPS receivers and devices tested are current production models, into what market segments those receivers and devices are most commonly sold, what fraction of a given market segment those devices represent, and their design lifetimes and typical owner-use lifetimes.This information is important in assessing the likely impact, if any, of interference on various use cases over time. We therefore request production and U.S. sales information for each of the devices tested, including (1) the dates of production, (2) the market segment(s) to which the device is targeted or sold, (3) total annual sales volume and annual sales volume by market segment or estimates thereof, (4) the date on which full support of the device by th
e manufacturer ceased (or will cease), (5) estimated time period after which the device owner would likely replace or discontinue use of the device”.

The letter also requests updated information from LightSquared based on their proposal to use only the lower spectrum (1526-1536MHz). The timeframe to provide the requested information is very aggressive, with all information to be supplied on or before August 22, 2011.

I think this is good news in general. It is the FCC’s first solid attempt to understand the GPS receiver markets in which the proposed LightSquared system will cause interference problems, including high-precision.

The bad news is that the FCC is only requesting market information on GPS receivers that were tested. If you recall in one of my earlier articles, I listed the GPS receivers being tested by the high-precision team. Obviously, if the FCC only used market data from these GPS receivers, the numbers will be underestimated by a large double-digit value and maybe orders of magnitude because many receiver models weren’t included in the test. Also, many CORS in operation are legacy GPS receivers that are out of production. Based on their questions, I have a feeling the FCC will discount those to little or no value, when they actually still provide economic benefit. However, the CORS owner can’t or aren’t in a position to replace them, resulting in a net loss.

No matter which way this goes, I’m pretty confident the FCC is going to use this opportunity to rattle the GPS industry’s cage. Spectrum is a finite resource and the FCC is going to look at ways to allocate spectrum as efficiently as possible, as they should. Is the MSS L-band (1525-1559MHz) being used in the most efficient manner? Probably not. I bet the FCC orders changes in that area, or at least the FCC sets the wheels in motion towards change. I’m ok with that as long as it doesn’t come at the unreasonable expense of the GPS user community, be it high-precision, aviation, military, etc.

All of this bruha is really about timing. Given enough time, GPS receiver manufacturers and component manufacturers have a chance to develop new technologies that use the MSS spectrum more efficiently, if at all. Actually, if the FCC pushes forward like they seem to want, it really isn’t MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) spectrum any longer, it would become a Mobile Terrestrial Service. But developing new technologies, designing/testing products and then allowing the GPS user community enough time to adopt the new technology with a reasonable financial impact takes years, a lot of years, not four or five. It takes more years than what LightSquared has to give no matter which part of the MSS spectrum (low or high) one is discussing.

I think in the short-term the FCC is going to order more testing in order to understand the impact on GPS receivers of LightSquared using only the lower end of the MSS spectrum (1526-1536MHz). We already know it’s going to hammer most high-precision GPS receivers valued collectively at $2+ billion dollars. I don’t have a good grip on how it will affect aviation, military and other receivers in critical apps. We’ll see.

Actually, I agree with what Jeff Kagan of E-commerce Times writes. LightSquared is playing the public relations game the wrong way and they’re getting their nose punched every time they turn around. They should be spending their energy on talking about how wireless communications will be enhanced by their service instead of scraping up obscure DoD specifications they claim that commercial GPS receivers are supposed to adhere to. I still don’t understand what they bring to the table that Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, etc. don’t. Yes, I get that they are a wholesaler and can bring 4G LTE to small service providers. I’m talking about technology. What technology do they bring to the table? If they are just a new distributor in the mix, there’s not much to talk about and maybe that’s why they are fighting the public relations game the way they are. Interesting enough, earlier this week LightSquared announced they hired a new Senior Vice President for Public Relations and Communications, presumably to attempt to resolve the GPS interference fiasco.

Dish Network Announces Plan for 4G LTE Network and Applies for FCC Waiver Similar to LightSquared

Dish Network is trying something eerily similar to LightSquared, but it will have no effect on GPS receivers since their spectrum is far away from GPS (2+ GHz). Dish bought two bankrupt companies last year, Terrestar and DBSD, and have 40MHz of spectrum to play with in 4G LTE. It will be interesting to watch how the FCC deals with this, especially if the Dish waiver is pushed through as LightSquared’s was. With no GPS interference concerns, Dish might be able to field a 4G LTE system before LightSquared can.

As Phil Goldstein from GPS World’s sister publication, Fierce Wireless, comments:

“One of they issues that has come to the fore in the wake of the FCC’s decision to grant a similar conditional waiver to LightSquared is that LightSquared’s L-Band spectrum sits adjacent to GPS spectrum, and that terrestrial transmissions from LightSquared’s proposed wholesale LTE network in the upper portion of its spectrum is causing GPS interference. Pointedly, in its filing, Dish said its 2 GHz S-Band spectrum “will not raise the technical issues that have hampered the use of the MSS L-Band, such as the interleaving of the operators’ assignments and the severe interference claimed by systems operating in adjacent spectrum.”

In return for the waiver, Dish said it will commit to a “substantial terrestrial network deployment” of a branded retail service intended to increase wireless broadband competition, including in rural areas, using LTE-Advanced network technology. Dish said it is prepared to work with the FCC “to develop a reasonable, attainable buildout schedule keyed to commercial availability of the LTE-Advanced standard,” and that it is committed to developing a buildout schedule “consistent with FCC precedent and based on the buildout principles established” in Sprint Nextel’s (NYSE:S) combination of its spectrum assets with Clearwire (NASDAQ:CLWR).

Read the full article by clicking here.

America’s Web Radio Guest Appearance

Last week, I was a guest on the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping’s (ACSM) weekly, one-hour America’s Web Radio program. Web radio is actually a very creative idea. You can listen to the live program on your internet-connected computer (11am U.S. Eastern time every Monday) or you can download the recorded program in MP3 format and listen to it using your iPod or other MP3 player. Click here if you’d like to listen to last week’s program when I was the guest.

Thanks, and see you next time.

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

August 18, 2011
Microsoft Missteps Add to Privacy Jitters

Microsoft is contributing to the latest location privacy jitters. Missteps by Microsoft, Apple, and Google have the potential to dampen uptake of location solutions. Microsoft published the estimated locations of millions of laptops, cell phones, and other devices with Wi-Fi connections. The location database was assembled by Microsoft’s access to Windows phones and by vehicles that drive streets and record Wi-Fi signals accessible from public roads. The data were published on Microsoft’s Live.com website.

The problem is that Wi-Fi devices can be individually identified by a unique code, often called a MAC address. It’s not just Wi-Fi routers that can be identified. Phones and computers can be used as Wi-Fi access points, via tethering and other means, and their location can be monitored. Using the Microsoft data on Live.com, CNET tracked an HTC mobile device’s movements between house addresses in the city of Columbus, Ohio.

Skyhook conducts similar Wi-Fi mapping, but according to Ted Morgan of Skyhook, does not provides direct access to its database. “All our partners use our client location engine, which does the scanning and lookups to our system,” says Morgan. “We don’t gather any MAC addresses of client devices, only access points and devices that act as access points.” Google collects similar location information and curbed access to the data a few months ago after a CNET article appeared. Microsoft just announced it too would now restrict access. When will these guys learn?

Googleola Marriage. The announcement of Google’s intention to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, a heavy bucket of cash, will have repercussions throughout the industry. Google will become a mobile manufacturer in head-to-head competition with Apple and Research in Motion. For Research in Motion, maker of BlackBerry, this may be a kiss of death, unless they are snapped up by someone like Microsoft, who may feel pressured to join the game. Google will have bought itself entry into the ferocious patent lawsuit war between Motorola Mobility and Microsoft at a time when relations between Microsoft and Google had improved.

Google’s Larry Page made assurances on the company’s blog that Android would remain an open system. “This acquisition will not change our commitment to run Android as an open platform. Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success and we look forward to continuing to work with all of them to deliver outstanding user experiences”. Say that as he may, other Android handset manufacturers will now be competing with the supplier of their operating software in a distribution channel tangle.

Connected Car. The connected car, a vehicle with embedded modules and wireless services that link to the cloud and the car’s operating system, continues to evolve. The carriers are aggressively staking out territories. Verizon has shown off a car equipped with a 4G LTE modem with OnStar prototype apps. Sprint Nextel has worked with Aeris Communications to bring the Sprint network and cellular connectivity to the Hyundai connected vehicle program. AT&T has partnered with Panasonic Automotive.

Ford has led the car manufacturers with its SYNC offering that provides hands-free, voice controlled in-car connectively. Already in 3 million vehicles, SYNC will become available on Ford’s entire passenger line-up for $295, down from its current $395.

More than half of surveyed U.S. consumers find the concept of a connected vehicle appealing, according to a survey by Alcatel-Lucent. When it comes to opening wallets, the top applications are augmented GPS; maintenance, tracking, and notification; Wi-Fi; advanced voice features; and online environmental analysis.

It’s not all about Smartphones. The global mobile app market for feature phones will almost double by 2016, reports Ovum. The success of smartphone apps will drive feature phone apps to a predicted $1 billion market. Feature phones outsell smart phones, but have lagged in applications uptake. The upswing should be helped by the increasing ease of developing apps and publishing them for this market.

Personalization, not just Location. Feature phone mobile advertisements that are tailored to a consumer’s “tastes and interests” are four times more effective than offers based on location, time, or lifestyle, according to a poll of 2,000 U.S. consumers, commissioned by mobile marketing company, Upstream. The marketing activity that was found to most likely lead to a follow-up action included mobile coupons; opt-in text alert or message; an e-mail received on a mobile phone; an ad on a mobile website; or an ad that appears during an Internet search of a product or service.

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.”

August 17, 2011
Last Week’s Solar Storm and the Final LightSquared Push

You may not have noticed it, but last Friday we experienced the first serious geomagnetic storm in this solar cycle (Solar Cycle 24), which began in 2009. Not all types of solar activity (sun spots, solar flares, solar burst, and solar radiation) affect GPS receiver operations. Geomagnetic storms are the ones that can cause problems for GPS receivers if those storms are powerful enough.

Last Thursday, I received e-mail from Joe Kunches at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

“The Sun has been erupting and looks like a storm — say G3 level — could be on for Friday, August 5.”

Joe was right, it hit about a day later, on Friday, August 5, as he predicted.

The good news is that Joe says we generally have at least a 24-hour warning before a geomagnetic storm starts disturbing the ionosphere.

That’s what it comes down to, the ionosphere.

GPS signals being delayed as they pass through the ionosphere end up being the largest source of error in GPS positioning. The signals must pass through the ionosphere, which is full of free electrons. The density of these electrons in the ionosphere affects the speed at which GPS signals travel. If the density of the electrons in the ionosphere was consistent, then it would be straight-forward to create a model and largely mitigate its effects. However, that’s not always the case. The ionosphere has been relatively benign since the last solar cycle, and that’s one of the reasons that GPS accuracy has been so good, especially GPS L1 SBAS systems like WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS, which rely on modeling the ionosphere.

The problem is geomagnetic storms. They wreak havoc on the free electrons in the ionosphere, making it difficult to accurately determine how much the GPS signals have been delayed.

The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is one of the foremost agencies that monitors the Total Electron Count (TEC) in the ionosphere. With Joe’s help, I was able to obtain dynamic plots of the TEC from last Friday so I could illustrate to you what happened. I was also able to obtain plots from Gavin Schrock at the Washington State Reference Network (WSRN) showing how it impacted the WSRN. I compiled the plots, added some text, and produced the following Youtube video.

As I wrote in the Youtube video, to get the most updated solar activity information that’s related to high-precision GPS users, you should follow me on Twitter at GPSGIS_Eric.

If you’re looking for a good backgrounder on how the ionosphere affects GPS, you might want to read this April 1991 GPS World column. Although it’s dated in some respects, the fundamental concepts are solid.

Last Push on LightSquared

There’s been some confusion on the FCC comment period regarding the LightSquared/GPS interference issue. The comment period was not extended. The public comment period was July 1 to July 30, 2011. The reply comment period is from August 1 to August 15, 2011. However, it appears the FCC is still logging new comments even after the July 30 cut-off date. Either way, do not hesitate to submit your comments before August 15; just mark it (dropdown menu) as a reply to comments.

This is your last chance to speak out and let your government know how important GPS is to your orgnization.

To date, there have been more than 2,900 individual comments electronically filed as well as more than 15,000 submitted in writing to the FCC (15,000 alone from the Boat Owners Association of the United States). The vast majority of the comments support GPS.

Some good news. On Tuesday, August 9, the FCC held an invitation-only press conference. Click here to read PC World’s summary.

To read the 2,900+ comments submitted to date, click here; type in proceeding # 11-109 and search.

Thanks, and see you next time.

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

August 10, 2011
Product Review: The Trimble Ranger 3
The Trimble Ranger 3 being tested in its natural environment.

First of all, thanks to all those who wrote me about the Trimble Ranger 3 and suggested I pen a review.

Rules of Engagement

Many of my long time readers will know that I never write a bad review, which is why I found it interesting that an e-mail from a USAF captain fighter pilot in Afghanistan commented that I “seemed to really like” every unit I reviewed. So here again are the ROE (rules of engagement) for my reviews. I will never write a bad review, and believe me I see scores of “bad” (my evaluation) GPS units that I will never review or endorse in GPS World.

The Trimble Ranger 3 was never of any danger of falling into the “non-review” category. The Ranger 3 impressed me from the very first moment I saw the unit. First of all, it is designated correctly by Trimble, and the military and first responder users who wrote me, as a rugged handheld GPS-enabled computer, and it certainly fulfills all the requirements for that designation.

If you are looking for a GPS device the size of an Apple iPhone, this is not the device for you. The Trimble Ranger 3 is for the user, and many of you are warfighters and first responders who need a portable and rugged but powerful handheld computer with tightly integrated GPS capabilities that can connect and communicate, wired and wirelessly, with other users and servers. The Ranger 3 can accomplish all that and much more.

GPS Capabilities

As soon as I powered up the Ranger 3 for the first time, outdoors for this test, the stopwatch was running to see how long it took to figure out how to enable the unit’s GPS SiRFstar III chip and firmware and obtain an accurate position. This is the new handheld TTFF (time to first fix) scenario that I always go through, in the same geographic location, with any new unit. Some GPS units, even dedicated ones, fail miserably, but not the Ranger 3. Fortunately, the unit’s battery was fully charged when it arrived, and the green power button was obvious. The 4.2 inch TFT (thin film transistor) resistive touch, sunlight readable color screen fired up immediately with a Windows menu soft key, which led me via an iPhone like “flickable” scrolling screen to the GUI (graphical user interface) or icon labeled SatViewer, (version 1.0.4.0) which comes with every Trimble GPS unit I have ever tested or reviewed. I tapped that GUI or icon and hit connect GPS and within 40 seconds had an “unaided GPS position,” or so the voice prompt from the unit informed me. Exactly 28 seconds later I had a “GPS-aided” position, again I was informed by the voice prompt, which can be turned on and off by user input. I found the voice prompts helpful because I did not have to look back at any menus to determine what type of position I was using. The initial position “unaided” was four feet or 1.33 meters from a surveyed reference position at my home, and the “aided” position was under a meter from the surveyed position. As I said, the first unaided position was pronounced 58 seconds after removing the unit from the box for the first time and hitting the power button. The aided sub-meter position was announced at 1 minute and 26 seconds after initial power on. Very impressive, and something very few units can accomplish today. Not even the best MUE or military user equipment available today can equal this feat right out of the box.

Afterwards I played around with the GPS advanced inputs but found very few settings that needed to be changed. It comes (default mode and with a default button) with SBAS capabilities enabled; in this case the FAA WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) was enabled. Had I been conducting this exercise in Europe, EGNOS or the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay would have been automatically enabled. There is also a tab for setting DGPS or differential GPS parameters, on or off or auto, and the unit software is designed for future enhancements. It incorporates an SBAS PRN designation capability, if you want to choose the SBAS PRN number manually, in case one is sending bad data and is NOTAMed (Notice to Airmen) or NANUed (Notice Advisory to NAVSTAR Users) out. Frankly, I just set the SBAS feature to auto and it worked flawlessly.

GPS Bottom Line

So the bottom line for the Ranger 3’s GPS capabilities is that the tightly integrated, aided GPS SiRFstar III receiver, compass, accelerometer, and 5 megapixel auto focus camera with auto flash and geotagged image capabilities enable almost endless possibilities for today’s ever-proliferating location-aware software to combine location, bearing, and motion data for use by our warfighters and first responders. Add these capabilities to the substantial communications features of the rugged handheld computer, and you have prodigious potentiality for the Trimble Ranger 3. There is not a single MUE GPS unit today that can touch the Ranger 3 for its tightly integrated GPS and subsequent capabilities and communications.

I also tested several new windows applications that I will not name now because they require considerable testing before I review or recommend them, but the cogent message is they integrated automatically and worked flawlessly with the Ranger 3.

Trimble SatView Software

I will, however, comment on the installed Trimble SatView GPS software on the Ranger 3. It is just so absolutely intuitive that you never really wonder about what to do next, which button to push, or box to check. Just push the button or tap the box or icon you think is the correct one and most of the time you will be correct. And if you aren’t, nothing is undoable. I intentionally push the “wrong” buttons in my tests just to see what happens, and with SatView nothing catastrophic has ever occurred. I have always been able to navigate back to where I needed to be.

The orbit inspired graphic depiction of the GPS satellites in view (almost always 12) and the satellites being used for your position (from 4 to 10+), to include SBAS satellites, is informative and useful. You merely tap on the PRN (pseudorandom noise code assignment) graphically designated SV (satellite vehicle) and it will open a tiny widow displaying the SVs PRN number, elevation, and azimuth. There is also a very useful graphical illustration of the current P (position), V (vertical), and H (horizontal) DOP for your position, which are also programmable simply by checking a box. Many of you say you don’t know or care about the various GPS DOP, even though Estimation of Dilution of Precision (DOP) plays an important role in determining the overall accuracy of your GPS position. For those of you who do care, the data are readily available on the Ranger 3. All the data, to include programmable mask angles and DOP parameters, can be automatically captured in a log file, saved, and downloaded for future use — a simple and intuitive task. I attached an 8 GB flash drive to the full-size USB port on the Ranger 3, and simply dumped the data log to a file on that device. The Ranger 3 saw the device as an extension of its built-in 8 GBs of flash storage (flash hard drive). You can also save data directly to the onboard flash memory. It is then a simple matter to export the data into an Excel spreadsheet and use however you see fit. Take it from me, not all datalogging programs are this simple and straightforward.

As the CEO of MobileEpiphany, Glen Kletzky, who produces some of the most intuitive software I have ever had the pleasure of using, once informed me, “Software that is inherently useful with an intuitive interface usually seems simple to the user, but underneath is usually very powerful and sophisticated. My goal as a software provider is to ensure the user never has to deal with the complicated bit
s.” In this regard, the Trimble SatView software as enabled on the Ranger 3 has met and exceeded the goals of simplicity, usefulness, exportability, and intuitiveness.

Trimble Ranger 3 Specifications

Now that we have covered the basic GPS functions, let’s look at the unit itself and all the Ranger 3’s integrated capabilities.

As I said, the unit is physically imposing, especially if you are looking for an iPhone-type device, which the Ranger 3 is definitely not. But neither can the iPhone accomplish all the tasks of a rugged, handheld portable computer with multiple scanners, readers, and numerous ports.

Physically the Trimble Ranger 3 is not small. It is 10.5 in × 5.2 in × 1.9 in (26.6 cm x 13.1 cm x 4.8 cm) and weighs in at 2.3 lb (1.04 kg), including battery and stylus. You don’t have to use the stylus, but for some functions it is more accurate than your fingertips. And of course, since this is a Trimble unit, to paraphrase that great entrepreneur Henry Ford, “You can have it in any color you desire as long as it is your basic black…with a yellow face.”

The Ranger 3 has an elastic (black, of course) hand strap that stores the stylus, and enables you to hang on to the Ranger 3 during all kinds of field maneuvers. The stylus is also tethered to the back of the Ranger 3, and that is handy as well. All in all, ergonomically it is a very well-designed GPS-enabled rugged handheld computer.

Features

STANDARD FEATURES
- Texas Instruments AM3715 Sitara ARM Cortex A8 superscalar processor
- 256 MB of RAM
- 8 GB of Flash storage (serves as hard drive)
- Bluetooth 2.0 +EDR
- Wi-Fi (802.11b/g)
- GPS receiver (SiRFstarIII, SiRFInstantFixII, WAAS, EGNOS/SBAS capable)
- Electronic compass
- Accelerometer
- Three tri-color notification LEDs
- USB 2.0 full speed host port
- USB 2.0 high speed client port
- Serial port, 9-pin RS-232
- Secure Digital (SD/SDHC) card slot
- Microsoft Windows Mobile 6.5 Professional
- 4.2 in (10.6 cm) landscape VGA display, sunlight-readable color TFT
- Resistive touch screen
- QWERTY keypad with number pad, directional buttons and 4 programmable buttons
- Speaker and microphone
- Headset jack (3.5 mm stereo audio and microphone)
- Operating system language options: Simplified Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish (customer selectable on initialization)
OPTIONAL INTEGRATED FEATURES
- 5 MP auto focus camera with dual white LED flash
- 3G GSM cellular data modem
- LED Flashlight function
- 1D barcode laser scanner
STANDARD SOFTWARE
- SMS Text Messaging Support
- Microsoft Office Mobile, Mobile versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint & Outlook
- Internet Explorer Mobile
- Calculator
- Microsoft Pictures and Videos
- Calendar/Contacts
- Windows Media Player
- Messenger
- Adobe Acrobat Reader
- Notes/Tasks
- Trimble SatViewer (GPS interface software application)
SOFTWARE FOR OPTIONAL FEATURES
- Customized camera and flash control through Microsoft Pictures & Videos software
- (Geo-tagging camera software)
- Flashlight mode control application
- Trimble CellStart software application (cellular connection setup)
- Trimble ScanAgent barcode scanning software
- Trimble Ranger 3 Software Development Kit
STANDARD ACCESSORIES
- Rechargeable lithium-ion battery pack
- Black Elastic Hand strap
- Stylus tether
- Clear screen protectors
- Display cleaning cloth
- Quick Start guide sheet
- Getting Started Guide on CD-ROM
- International AC charging kit with four plug adapters
- USB cable
- Stylus with force-modulating spring tip (package of 2)
- Audio port dust cover
- I/O port dust cover
OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES
- Standard soft carry case
- Vehicle mount (compatible with RAM mounts)
- Spare battery charger and12 V vehicle charger
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIFICATION: Meets or exceeds:
- Water: Immersed in 1 meter of water for 30 minutes
- Water jet 12.5 mm diameter @2.5 m–3 m, 100 Liter/, min; IEC-529, IP67
- Sand & dust: 8 hours of operation with blowing talcum powder; IEC-529, IP67
- Drop: 26 drops at room temperature from 4 ft (1.22 m) onto plywood over concrete; 6 additional drops at –22 °F (–30 °C); 6 additional drops at 140 °F (60 °C)
- MIL-STD-810G, Method 516.6, Procedure IV
- Vibration: General Minimum Integrity and Loose Cargo test MIL-STD-810G, Method 514.6, Procedures I, II
- Operating Temperature: –22 °F to 140 °F (–30 °C to 60 °C) MIL-STD-810G, Method 501.5, Procedure II MIL-STD-810G, Method 502.5, Procedure I, II, III
- Storage Temperature: –40 °F to 158 °F (–40 °C to 70 °C) MIL-STD-810G, Method 501.5, Procedure II MIL-STD-810G, Method 502.5, Procedure I, II, III
- Temperature shock: –31 °F/149 °F (–35 °C/65 °C) MIL-STD-810G, Method 503.5, Procedure I
- Humidity: 90%RH temp cycle –4 °F/140 °F (–20 °C/60 °C) MIL-STD-810G, Method 507.5
- Altitude: 15,000 ft (4,572 m) 73 °F (23 °C) 40,000 ft (12,192 m) –22 °F (–30 °C)
- MIL-STD-810G, Method 500.5, Procedures I, II, III
PHYSICAL
- Size: 10.5 in × 5.2 in × 1.9 in (26.6 cm x 13.1 cm x 4.8 cm)
- Weight: 2.3 lb (1.04 kg), including battery and stylus
- Color: Black with Yellow face
ELECTRICAL
- Processor: TI AM3715 Sitara ARM Cortex–A8 Superscalar Processor at 800 MHz
- Memory: 256 MB RAM
- Storage: 8 GB non-volatile Flash
- Expansion: SD/SDHC card slot, USB host port
- Display: 4.2 in (10.6 cm), 640 x 480 pixel, VGA TFT
- Batteries: 11.1 V, 2500 mAh, 27.8 Wh Li-ion rechargeable pack1
- I/O: USB host and client; 15 V DC power; 3.5 mm stereo + microphone audio port; 9-pin RS-232 serial port
- GPS accuracy: 2–4 m with SBAS correction2
- Radios: Bluetooth 2.0 +EDR; Wi-Fi 802.11b/g
- WWAN radios: HSDPA 3.6 Mbit/s, Tri-band; HSDPA/UMTS: 850/1900/2100 MHz, Quad-band; GSM/GPRS/EDGE: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz
CERTIFICATIONS: FCC, CE, R&TTE, IC (Canada), C-tick, GCF compliant, RoHS compliant, Section 508 compliant, AT&T certified, Wi-Fi Alliance certified, MIL-STD-810G, IP67, MIL-STD-461.

Torture Tests

The Ranger 3 is already in garrison with several of our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said, it was letters from our warfighters and first responders that first alerted me to the Ranger 3’s capabilities for wartime and disaster-preparedness purposes.

I have only been testing the Ranger 3 since early June, so many of you might erroneously assume that the freezing temperature, snow bank, and ice water immersion torture tests were not possible. Au contrair, mon ami —after all, this is the Rocky Mountains and there is almost always snow and ice somewhere to be found. This year, I found snow and ice and freezing water in the Snake River in Keystone and Breckenridge, Colorado, in June. Indeed, there was skiing at the A-Basin until late July. So the bottom line is the normal torture tests were inflicted upon the Ranger 3 and it passed with flying colors. And yes, before you ask, there have been several units that did not pass these torture tests, and they are dried out and mailed back to the manufacturers. A Trimble
unit has never failed to pass the tests, even a couple that were not rated as truly rugged with MILSPEC qualifiers. Trimble makes a quality product, and the company is evidently learning more about battery technology from Apple. The battery on the Ranger 3 lasted well over 30 hours.

Applications

As I mentioned earlier, the software applications on the Ranger 3 make it entirely suitable for warfighters and first responders. Plus, with the Windows software and operating system, the 3G GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) phone features and Wi-Fi (WWAN, Wireless Wide Area Network) capabilities, the Ranger 3 can communicate almost anywhere in the world you can legally travel (it won’t work in North Korea). The Ranger 3 recognized my phone’s 3G-sim chip immediately, and after loading Skype, I was able to make and receive calls and download files via Wi-Fi. By the way, if you don’t know about transferring files, and I mean large files, via Skype’s direct IP chat capability, then give it a try. It is an amazing capability, especially for handheld computers like the Ranger 3.

While it is not necessary to use a headset with microphone for the communication capabilities on the Ranger 3, if you want any degree of privacy it is highly recommended. I tested several headsets, including a new Bose model that worked without any issues. No software downloads were required — all the headset models I tested were immediately recognized by the Microsoft Windows 6.5 mobile operating system.

The unit I tested came complete with the optional laser scanner and bar-code reader, which worked as advertised.

One feature that I found very useful but also one that is not aggressively marketed is the physical navigation pad with six buttons and scroll bars that can be operated with one thumb. With some practice you can use this navigation pad without ever resorting to the stylus or your fingers for inputs, other than text inputs of course. And in that regard another little touted feature is the Microsoft Word auto-completion software. The software suggests words with about, for me, 90 percent accuracy and learns as you go along. Within a particular document, the software will remember certain words and phrases and suggest them where it seems appropriate. For a rugged handheld computer with a small physical 56-key QWERTY keyboard with numeric keypad suitable only for thumb texting, the navigation panel and auto-completion software are a huge help and time savers.

Bottom Line

The bottom line for me echoes what Trimble says about the Ranger 3: “It has the outdoor rugged design and integrated features that users count on.” I think this is especially true for our warfighters and first responders, if my mail expounding the virtues of the Ranger 3 is an accurate barometer, and I believe it to be true.

I am certainly taken with this unit and highly recommend it. As usual with Trimble equipment, I am going to hate to send it back. If you are currently using the Ranger 3, drop me a line and let me know how you are using it and how you like it.

Until next time, Happy Navigating.
August 10, 2011
Google Buys The Dealmap, Is Social Shopping Market LBS Driver?

Once again, it looks as if Google is taking a giant leap into location-based services with its recent acquisition of The Dealmap. Is this deal a signal that LBS market viability may be tied to the social shopping market? The market is potentially huge, with two big players and a third, Google, quickly developing. But is this the market that will propel LBS to the next level? One analyst says yes…and no.

Technology giant Google is once more trying to corner more of the social shopping market by buying The Dealmap, a 15-month-old company that offers its own location-based daily deal service.

Menlo Park, Calif.-based The Dealmap collects data from hundreds of sources and arranges deals by location, on its website and a smartphone application. The start-up, founded last year, has 15 employees and 2 million users, according to published reports.

Google tried to buy Groupon for as much as $6 billion last year, and decided to launch its own service, Google Offers, in Portland. Google’s service has since expanded to New York and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Google has made many moves into the location business in the last two years. It is trying to grab a large share of the European traffic market by offering real-time services in 13 European companies. Google shook up the navigation market with free navigation service for Android phones in 2009.

At least one analyst said he was intrigued by the acquisition, of which financial details were not disclosed. Mike Dobson, TeleMapics president, said that The Dealmap acts as a deal aggregator and cross-channel distributor for national in-store deals from brand retailers, restaurant chains, and other businesses; local daily deals (from Groupon, Living Social, and more than 200 other sources); and what The Dealmap calls “store window” deals from individual local businesses.

In a recent presentation that The Dealmap made at the Kelsey Deal3D Conference, the company claimed to have grown in its first year to 2 million-plus cross-channel users, including more than 1 million mobile users, said Dobson, who authors a location blog. The volume of monthly deal searches on its network was more than 75 million and the monthly network reach was estimated at 85 million, he said.

The Dealmap and others (Borrell Associates, Needham and Company, and Groupon) have predicted that the projected size of the local daily deal market will be sized at $10 billion by 2015, while the online local ad revenue will be $32 billion by 2013, Dobson said. “The Dealmap claims that its deals provide more than $10 million in savings each day, although it is less clear what earnings it creates in the way of margin/profit for distributors, such as, well, Dealmap,” he said.

Dobson said that the “deal supplier” market appears to be dominated by top sites. Eighty percent of the local deal inventory nationwide is dominated by 20 sources, 69 percent by 10 sources, and 40 percent by two sources, Groupon and Living Social, he said. “The Dealmap claims that its daily ad inventory is supplied at a modest 6.25 deals per source, while half the deal supply sources offer only one-to-two deals a day,” he said.

“Perhaps more disconcerting is the fact that 69 percent of deal suppliers have a presence in from two to nine markets, while 19 percent cover only a single market. Only 4 percent of The Dealmap’s suppliers have a national footprint, which the company defines as 25 or more markets, Dobson said. “While this could suggest that the deal market is inherently local, I think it suggests that local suppliers add the ‘long tail’ that is appended in local markets to the offerings of Groupon and Living Social. In other words, the market appears to be close to a duopoly at a national scope, with numerous smaller players operating as regional and local suppliers. My conclusion is that the market for local deals from individual local suppliers is quite small, and that the major force of deals in all markets are national chains who wish to present deals to draw local users to their shops.”

Dobson says the reason he makes this distinction is that it does not appear likely that “deal-based advertising” is going to be the replacement for local newspaper advertising, or a real-time Yellow pages, at least not as currently configured.

“The Dealmap indicates that in a sample taken from Chicago for one day of deals, the inventory from the two leading providers was split one-quarter each for fitness spas and shopping, while attractions and dining evenly split the last quarter of the pie,” Dobson said. “When all deal suppliers were added, salons and services deals added 10 percent each to the mix, while dental deals (3 percent) and hotel deals (5 percent) rounded out the categories. Who knew that people looking for social shopping deals were looking for an athletic workout and liked to meet in spas, followed by a good meal and a visit to an attraction?”

According to The Dealmap, more than 50 percent of deals searched for nationwide by consumers are related to dining, followed by shopping at 20 percent, while attractions, bars, spas, travel and “things to do” to ranked in the single digits. On mobile devices the search profile is somewhat different, with dining at 40 percent, shopping at 30 percent, spas and travel each at 12 percent, “things to do” at 4 percent (a 5-percent loss compared to deal-search in general), and bars at a measly 1 percent (a 3-percent drop compared to deal-search in general), Dobson said.

“I am not sure how others perceive the message that can be found in the numbers above, but I think it might be hard to find a long-term growth business here. Google acquired The Dealmap because Google needs to buttress its local advertising empire, but clearly this is a small-potatoes business,” Dobson said. “Yes, I understand that Groupon walked away from a $6-billion-dollar offer from Google, but I suspect that they already regret their bristliness during the negotiations. I guess this shows that just because you can market deals, does not mean that you know how to negotiate one for yourself.”

What’s the Big Deal for LBS?

Dobson said that the big deal may be for the LBS industry. “It appears to me that the concept of ‘location’ is in the process of occupying its rightful place in a variety of industries that are clearly location-centric, and were location-centric before any of us thought of using the term location-based services to describe those business services that had a location component,” he said. “Perhaps the only thing that has changed for these industries is that the consumerization of GPS and the inclusion of its functionality in phones, laptops, PNDs, and other navigation devices have allowed these businesses to pinpoint the location of consumers and provide relevant services to mobile users.”

While The Dealmap certainly fits within Dobson’s notion of LBS, he suspects that the company sees itself in the deal-distribution business and has forward integrated into location services to expand its deal-distribution capacity. “Google almost certainly did not acquire The Dealmap because the company had a new, unique, and proprietary location technology. Instead, they acquired The Dealmap for the company’s distribution strength (its distribution network and deal-distribution applications) and their knowledge of how Groupon and Living Social operate,” he said. “It seems to me that the one trend that continues in LBS is that service businesses require strong distribution channels and few companies in this space have capabilities in this respect. For this reason, the action in LBS will continue to be acquisitions by companies who already have the distribution, but need the know-how that will allow them to leverage location as a method of increasing their distribution capability. In short, ours is a market segment in which companies need to innovate, out-perform, and pray that they get noticed by the industry leaders in other market segments.”

There are no potential Google or Facebook success stories in our midst, Dobson said “Our task is to build location engines, use them to solve common but ubiquitous problems involving location — and hope that our efforts get us to the finish line before anyone else,” he said.

August 9, 2011