GPS World

Category: Opinions

  • Out in Front: A Pawn in Their Game

    Maybe we got played. But we put up a good fight. We really had no option to do anything but fight. So we did, and we’re still fighting the LightSquared attack on the GPS signal. It’s not over yet, not by a long shot.

    Suspicions now creep in that the attack may have been a feint, that the company never really intended to do what it threatened: broadcast a very powerful signal from ground towers, on a frequency immediately adjacent to the GPS signal. LightSquared had its eye on another prize instead.

    Here’s what I have heard, independently from two people who follow the telecommunications industry for a living. Party number one:

    “These guys have b..ls.

    Off the record, their business plan is a 100 percent swap.

    So the more GPS gets irritated by their b..ls..t and says get out of the L-band, the more LS like it.

    Tell your friends to recommend that LS use their other [lower] spectrum.

    Now that’s what they don’t want.

    The trade is 40 MHz of new terrestrial spectrum.”

    Party number two, a Wall Street contact, said the same, implying a direct interaction with top-level LightSquared personnel as its source.

    Somewhere in the very early going, back in December of last year, I read a similar speculation, but gave it little credence because it seemed too good to be true. I’m still wary.

    But such deceit seems consistent with the sly and manipulative behavior that LightSquared has evidenced to date, on top of the near-total lack of any engineering or scientific case for its power play on spectrum. Time and again, company spokespersons made their case on legalistic and rule-making grounds, abetted by no less a person than the FCC chair. Any technical language or justification they used was transparently, almost laughably, unfounded.

    That’s the way government works, unfortunately. The laws of man are held above the laws of physics — even when it comes to rewriting the previous laws of man, which, it turns out, had some logic. The MSS spectrum, about which all this furor has raged, turns out to stand for Mobile Satellite Service spectrum. If the LightSquared signal were held to its license, it would broadcast from satellites, with a small provision for ancillary ground broadcast.

    Even with the Technical Working Group’s strong repudiation of both the LightSquared proposal and the FCC’s conditional waiver, and the stern-jawed joint letter from the Departments of Defense and Transportation, we are far from safe. I have seen too many government boards — local, state, and federal — fly in the face of evidence, to believe that facts rule.

    It ain’t over till the statuesque lady sings.

  • Letters to the Editor

    Help Exposing

    Thanks for all your help in exposing the LightSquared fiasco. GPS World played a significant role in bringing the issue to the GNSS community and by exposing the ineptness (or was it venality?) of the FCC. I know there were many people involved in the effort to scientifically document the effects of jamming of GPS by the LightSquared signal, something obvious to any RF engineer. But like all government decisions, the politics and the economics always take precedence in decision making. The battle isn’t over yet but I hope the FCC will do what is best for the billion GPS/GNSS users worldwide and keep LightSquared and anyone else from interfering with our vital national resource. Your efforts and those of others like the GPS Industry Council will continue to play a key role in protecting GPS from intentional interference.

    — Len Jacobson
    Global Systems and Marketing Inc.
    Long Beach, California
    (and on GPS World’s Advisory Board.)

    Daughter of Time

    A terrific think piece, or call-to-action (Out in Front, July issue). I hope it galvanizes many to write, and write again. I am convinced of the urgency and importance of the situation.

    Your earlier column “Tech and Techer” (Out in Front, February) also struck a chord with me and no doubt with many readers of a certain age (and others, of course). It seems many folks now have little patience with the printed word. No doubt the ability to acquire new knowledge (which has a kind of lawlessness to it) is hampered when we are unwilling to take the time to absorb information in a slow and possibly nonproductive way. So many great inventions happened by accident.

    As you suggest, the Internet is a double-edged sword and GNSS is, too, for the shortcuts of everyday life (not for the professional). Still, these are wonderful inventions and here to stay. The good news is folks are aware of the dangers.

    — Jo Joslyn
    Villanova, Pennsylvania

    Bundling Pal

    You wrote “Genachowski has a long-term and reportedly close relationship with President Obama, who appointed him to the FCC chairmanship.” Researching another topic, I came across this:

    “In March 2009, Obama appointed $500,000 bundler and law school pal Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency.”

    A bundler in politics turns out to be someone who solicits and then gathers a number of smaller donations to a candidate, and turns them in as a large handful of individual checks. It’s quite legal, but I understand that it does preserve the anonymity of individual donors.

    I always enjoy your editorial pieces, and I trust the industry will eventually be able to push LightSquared off their frequencies — or at least off the high-band one. But clearly it won’t be without a major struggle — there’s too much money at stake.

    — Adrian Lucas
    former commercial pilot, Canada

  • Expert Advice: Who Won?

    Logan Scott
    Logan Scott

    By Logan Scott

    Thousands of man hours and millions of dollars later, we finally have the 975-page GPS Technical Working Group (TWG) report, confirming what five minutes of back-of-the-envelope calculation predicted. Hooray for our side, good job GPS Industry Council; we’ve won the war and the foe is vanquished, never to brighten our skies again.

    Well, maybe. LightSquared is now bypassing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and submitting technical papers directly to the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Working Party that handles mobile satellite services (MSS) and radio determination satellite service (RDSS spectrum) and orbits (ITU-R WP 4C).

    A few comments to all participants:

    To the FCC: Quoting from the National Legal and Policy Center’s February 2, 2011, rather damning letter to U.S. House members Darrel Issa and Edolphus Towns: It is “the special responsibility of federal agencies to not only avoid conflicts of interest, but to avoid even the appearance of conflicts.” Integrity counts. It shouldn’t require congressional intervention for the FCC to do the right thing. An abbreviated,  10-day comment period ending the Monday after Thanksgiving on a ruling of this magnitude and one which would have severely damaged national infrastructure if left unopposed? What were you thinking?

    After wiping the egg out of your eyes, you also might look around your organization and discover you have engineers. They’re the ones who use terms like bandwidth, compression point, and interference. They can tell you things about engineering issues. Your engineers are actually quite good and know what they are talking about. Use them. Listen to them. Maybe even put some on commissioners’ staff. A B.S. degree shouldn’t be a disqualification for helping to set national policy on technical matters.

    To Department of Homeland Security (DHS): GPS is critical infrastructure and needs to be designated as such. If anything, this exercise has demonstrated how easily we could lose the benefits of GPS. LightSquared was not even targeting GPS, but if implemented as originally planned, its system would have damaged diverse areas of critical infrastructure; both civil and military. As a nation, we are entirely capable of shooting ourselves in the foot; no terrorists needed. We have no backup to GPS; protect it.

    To LightSquared: You have a great system concept, but there are sound engineering reasons why the bands adjacent to GPS were designated for space-to-Earth mobile satellite services (MSS). Separation between GPS and high-power systems is essential, particularly with the current state of the art in GPS. Claims that you have been working with the GPS industry for the last eight years and that we gave “the green light to those plans” (June 30, 2011, Recommendation of LightSquared Subsidiary LLC, page 16) do not ring true. Even the most casual analysis of your plans shows significant harmful interference to GPS.

    Some further observations on your recommendations: Trying to game the system and redefine what constitutes harmful interference (1dB versus 6 dB) is probably not a great idea given the GPS system navigates our airplanes and provides E911 capabilities. We routinely use up all of our margins and then some. A 6-dB hit is a big hit on position robustness.

    Similarly, don’t play games with statistical propagation modeling. Your proposed Walfish-Ikegami line of sight (WI-LOS) models are wholly inappropriate for low-altitude aircraft using GPS for precision approach and landing. They are based on LOS street-canyon measurements made in the city of Stockholm and are not intended for handsets more than 10 feet off the ground. Two-ray models accounting for ground reflections show LightSquared signals at levels 6 dB above free space predictions several miles out (Figure 1). Live-sky testing at Holloman and Las Vegas showed “above free-space” levels even for some ground mobile users (June 15, 2011, National Public Safety Telecommunications Council [NPSTC] filing with the FCC, page 7, Item 3). Coverage models are not appropriate as safety-of-life models.

    Upzoning the entire 1.6-GHz MSS band is not likely any time soon, at least in the United States. Figure out what you can do with less spectrum and less power in the low end of the S-E MSS allocation or find other spectrum; maybe pay for it like other cellular operators did. Don’t forget E-S interference, there are dragons there as well. Develop a transition plan and expect to pay for it.

    Figure 1. LightSquared propagation models can underestimate interference by more than a factor of 100 (>20 dB). (Click to enlarge.)
    Figure 1. LightSquared propagation models can underestimate interference by more than a factor of 100 (>20 dB). (Click to enlarge.)

    To the GPS Industry: We have long lived in a world of clean, unobstructed spectrum — and it has been wonderful. At this June’s JNC2011 conference, Air Force General Kevin McLaughlin (U.S. Strategic Command) noted that space is increasingly “congested, competitive, and contested.” The same can be said for radio spectrum. LightSquared is trying to make good use of ~68 MHz of largely fallow spectrum straddling ours to provide a valuable and sorely needed wireless data service.

    There is no successful business model in providing MSS services only. Motorola and Loral/Qualcomm proved that with their Iridium and Globalstar MSS systems. Both original ventures ended in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. LightSquared is the third or fourth incarnation of Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV), which ended in bankruptcy. The core business problem is that MSS is expensive to deploy, provides very little capacity (bits/sec/Hz/km2), and these systems offer poor building penetration. Upzoned for terrestrial services (that is, cellular or ancillary terrestrial component, ATC), LightSquared’s spectrum allocation is worth about $15 billion for the license alone at current auction prices, and that’s for only the United States. With spectrum growing increasingly scarce and valuable, we in the GPS industry should expect, and be prepared for, the day when this spectrum is repurposed. It is not my intent to be an apologist for LightSquared, merely to illuminate the fact that this is potentially very valuable spectrum and it is not going to be MSS forever, especially if someone offers to pay for it.

    LightSquared was stopped, at least temporarily, by regulatory constraints applicable only within the United States. In effect, the GPS industry lobbied for a 34-MHz guard band and won — maybe. This is not a sustainable position. LightSquared may yet prevail on the international stage and/or in a diminished capability. Also, be aware that in parts of the world interference now makes GPS unusable, for example, Balkan ports and parts of Africa.

    We in the GPS industry can and must take steps to improve our ability to operate in congested spectrum. The TWG report showed enormous variations in receiver resistance to out-of-band LightSquared interference. Using a 1-dB C/No degradation criteria, in FAA-certified aviation receivers there was 26 dB of variation in LightSquared signal rejection (Table 3.1.1, page 42). In high-precision receivers, more than 30 dB of variation was seen (Table 10, page 243). Against LightSquared F5L (the lower frequency, 5-MHz-wide LightSquared signal, 1526.3–1531.3 MHz) modulation, high-precision receivers showed more than 70 dB variation in susceptibility to LightSquared interference (TWG Appendix H.1.1.10, Figure 38). Clearly, there are good ways to build a receiver, and bad ways. We need to do better.

    Next

    Among the steps to consider:

    • Narrow front-end bandwidths. If you don’t want to be affected by out-of-band jamming, don’t let it in. This is antijamming (AJ) 101. The corollary of course is that most AJ techniques degrade position accuracy, and so it is with filtering. The C/A code is about 2-MHz wide but there are good anti-multipath motivations for using a wider bandwidth. GPS satellites have roughly a 28 to 32 MHz transmission bandwidth. Beyond that, there is nothing except interference. Filter accordingly and don’t forget: antenna selection plays an important role in determining overall receiver frequency selectivity.
    • Higher 1-dB compression point. Consider designing for a higher 1-dB compression point, particularly if you must use a wider bandwidth front end, say for phase linearity in precision survey receivers or for multipath rejection or for military signals. This also improves IP3 and mitigates intermodulation effects. IP3 is the third-order intercept point of an amplifier and is one of the more important parameters in describing the linear range of an amplifier. Low IP3 leads to higher intermodulation distortion, a process wherein two out-of-band signals can mix with each other in the GPS receiver to produce a third frequency within the GPS band. Yes, higher compression points lead to slightly higher power consumption, but out-of-band signal tolerance improves greatly when combined with downstream filtering. In the longer term, consider adaptive equalization methods.
    • Use L2C and L5 signals. Currently, nine satellites on orbit broadcast L2C and one broadcasts L5, with another IIF successfully launched July 16. One major reason precision receivers fare poorly against interference is that they require wide front ends to implement codeless and semi-codeless modes to measure L2 carrier phase for widelane ambiguity resolution. Wide bandwidths are also needed to precisely measure L1 pseudorange, again for ambiguity determination. Using L2C/L5 mitigates the need for wide-bandwidth front ends and at the same time creates signal diversity in carrier-phase tracking.
    • Report interference. One of the most stunning shortcomings in many GPS receivers, both civil and military, is their inability (or unwillingness) to report jamming and spoofing. In my work with DHS on the National Risk Estimate, one recurring theme across industry sectors is how confusing it is when GPS gets jammed. GPS is often deeply integrated with other systems to the point where it becomes invisible until it fails, and then its failure causes weird failure modes in dependant systems. For example, mobile satellite communication systems can fail if the GPS position is wrong; the antenna gets pointed the wrong way. A simple “I am jammed” alert would go a long ways towards diagnosing problems and taking corrective actions. This is as true for LightSquared signals as it is for personal privacy devices.
    • Integrity Monitoring. If you are lucky, interference causes a signals outage. Some interference types can capture receiver tracking loops and yield false positions. The effects of out-of-band interference on tracking are not well understood. Constantly checking for signal integrity and navigation integrity (for example, receiver-autonomous integrity monitoring) can detect many adverse results without imposing a significant burden on the GPS receiver. The algorithms are well documented. Use them.

    Winston Churchill is famously quoted as saying: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing — after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” At this point, I think we are still looking at some of the other possibilities and I wouldn’t count the LightSquared situation as a victory for anyone just yet. There is still ample opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but by taking a proactive stance, both politically and technically, we can improve our chances.

    Also, a nice pair of wellies might be a good investment; it’s a big barnyard.

    Logan Scott has more than 32 years of military and civil GPS systems engineering experience. At Texas Instruments, he pioneered approaches for building high-performance, jamming-resistant digital receivers. While at Omnipoint, a cellular carrier, he developed cross-system interference mitigation strategies. He holds 33 U.S. patents.

  • LightSquared: Comments I Submitted to the FCC

    Okay, folks, this is where the rubber meets the road. The FCC public comment period ends this Saturday (July 30). If you use GPS at all, it would be very wise to submit your comments today. Don’t expect the FCC to make a rational decision. There’s a lot of money and political influence in LightSquared’s camp and those can dwarf engineering/technical arguments even if they are overwhleming. The best weapon the GPS user community has is sheer numbers, but we aren’t showing up!

    To date (July 27), only 1,896 comments have been submitted. That’s not even close to being enough to get the FCC’s attention, and many of those are aviation and geocaching. Also, you see the politically connected comments (chiefs of police, mayors, state legislators, etc.) are largely in support of LightSquared. That’s because LightSquared is mobilizing its political influence machine.

    Submitting your comments to the FCC only takes five minutes. You don’t need to write an essay. Here’s what you need to make the FCC aware of:

    1. What you (or the organization you work for) use GPS for.
    2. How much (approximately) your organization has invested in GPS equipment/software.
    3. How much your organization (business or public entity) depends on GPS.
    4. How it would affect your organization (business or public entity) if GPS was interfered with.

    If you are worried about not getting approval in time from your department, etc, just keep your comments generic and don’t mention your organization name. The value is the story you tell about how important GPS is to you and your organization, not the specific names.

    I suggest composing your comments in a word processor (Word, WordPad, Notepad, etc.) first, then copy/paste to the FCC form so you don’t lose your work in case something goes sideways with the FCC website while you are typing.

    Here are simple instructions to submit your comments:

    1. Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here.
    2. Type in the following information:
    • Proceeding Number: 11-109
    • Name of Filer: Enter your name
    • Address Line 1: Enter your street address
    • City: Enter your city
    • State: Enter your state
    • Zip: Enter your zip code
    • Type in or paste your brief comments: Copy/paste your comments

    That’s it. Five minutes and you’re done.

    DO NOT assume the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NITA) or other organizations that have submitted comments will save the day. They are interested in only protecting their own turf, not yours. I still hear people saying, “The FCC will never let this happen because the Department of Defense or DOT will stop them.” If that was the case, this would have stopped months ago. The further along this goes, the more the following statement rings true (that I wrote back in May):

    “The military is going to be accommodated in the name of national security. The aviation industry is going to be accommodated in the name of safety-of-life. The auto navigation industry is going to be accommodated because they are high-profile. The high-precision user is going to be thrown under the bus because we are the most difficult to accommodate (technically) and don’t have a high profile nor are perceived as significant enough to accommodate.”

     

    LightSquared’s latest proposal is to begin using its lower frequency spectrum (1526-1536MHz) first. The departments of Defense, Transportation, and NTIA may bite on this as a compromise for LightSquared’s “good faith effort.” LightSquared says this new plan will accomodate all but 0.5% of GPS receivers. To the FCC, it appears like LightSquared is bending over backwards because they’ve accommodated 99.5% of all GPS receivers. If you didn’t know any better, you’d be impressed, too! The problem for you is that the remaining 0.5% of the GPS receivers are your RTK and high-precision GPS receivers that you’ve spent tens of thousands of your money to purchase! LightSquared’s solution is to have you purchase new equipment.

    If you’re interested in reading my comments to the FCC, the following is what I’m submitting to the FCC today. Feel free to copy/paste parts you agree with and incorporate them into your comments if you choose.

     

    July 27, 2011

    Eric Gakstatter
    Editor – GPS World magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
    Editor – Geospatial Solutions
    High-precision GPS Consultant
    PO Box 663
    West Linn, OR 97068

     

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street SW
    Washington, DC  20554
    Re: IB Docket No. 11-109

     

    Dear Ms. Dortch,

    I have serious concerns about LightSquared’s proposal for a nationwide 4G LTE system. I’m afraid that neither LightSquared nor the FCC fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s proposed system on GPS receivers, America’s small businesses, and America’s economy.

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

    Hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS receivers in the U.S. are used across many market segments including civil/environmental engineering, construction, land surveying, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), agriculture, forestry, road/rail/airport, hydrography, environmental, water/gas/electric/oil/telecom utilities, mining, bridge/dam monitoring, emergency management, defense & intelligence, higher education, and all levels of Fed/State/Local government.

    To illustrate, allow me to describe some examples of how high-precision GPS is being used.

    In road construction, high-precision GPS offers a 5-to-1 efficiency advantage over legacy construction equipment. Can you imagine the delays if road construction projects took five times longer to complete? California’s Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) currently has 846 construction projects ongoing with construction costs of ~$10.5 billion. High-precision GPS receivers are a critical component of these projects. Projects such as the widening project pictured below, are completed way ahead of schedule. For this reason, CALTRANS has invested in 250 high-precision GPS receivers valued at ~$5 million (~$20,000 per receiver).

    CALTRANS Highway 101 project widened the route from four to six lanes to extend the carpool lane for two and a half miles and upgrade a congested interchange in Santa Rosa, six months ahead of schedule

     

    It’s not just large, high-precision GPS receiver deployments that matter. GPS also keeps the public safe.

    In Florida, the 5.5 mile Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning Tampa Bay has five high-precision GPS
    receivers permanently mounted on it so engineers can monitor the health of the structure. On an annual basis, more than 18 million vehicles travel over the bridge. High-precision GPS is a core technology that ensures the safety of those 18 million vehicles.

    The structural integrity of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge over Tampa Bay is continuously monitored by high-precision GPS receivers, ensuring the safety of more than 18 million vehicles per year

    It’s not just thousands of public entities that are invested in high-precision GPS technology. Tens of thousands of U.S. small businesses rely on high-precision GPS technology in their daily operations.

    A small land surveying firm owner in Virginia says:

    “I have relied on GPS for survey grade data for at least 15 years. We use GPS every day for all projects. If GPS becomes unavailable or unreliable it will just about put us out of business. Our $500,000 investment would become worthless.”

     

    A four-person agricultural drainage firm owner states:

    “I am president of a small business that relies solely on high accuracy GPS. We do GPS Ag drainage (I and three other employees) we set a base on site all over the state because close proximity RTK correction is the only way to get the vertical accuracy required to do what we do.  Any GPS interference immediately closes my business and puts four people out of work.”

     

    Another small land surveying firm says:

    “High-precision GPS allows us to obtain measurements between monuments which are miles apart to control land boundaries … in a couple of hours that 20 years ago would required 20 to 30 hours of field crew time. The change in technology comes with our investment of approximately $100,000 which is very significant for a small firm like ours. If we are to wake up here in the next year and find our equipment useless for high-precision GPS, the effects would be devastating to us and our clients in both private development and public infrastructure.”

     

    Finally, high-precision GPS users rely on a complex infrastructure of 7,000+ high-precision, fixed-mount GPS base stations deployed nationwide. The infrastructure began with a few receivers in the early 1990s and has been built upon over the past 18 years by the GPS user community volunteering time, money, equipment, and expertise. It would be impossible to replace all of these receivers since the ownership is so disparate. Many are publicly owned and the rest are commercially owned by businesses and used by people in all the market segments I listed above. To illustrate, one such network consisting of more than 875 high-precision GPS receivers is located in the western United States managed by UNAVCO, a university-governed consortium which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    UNAVCO uses this massive network of high-precision GPS receivers to, among other things, monitor the earth’s crustal plate movement (think earthquake montoring).

    Each dot represents a permanently-mounted high-precision GPS receiver that continuously monitors the Earth’s crustal plate movement

     

    Another type of high-precision GPS network is called an RTK network. It delivers real-time, high-precision corrections to engineers, surveyors, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialists, construction specialists, and others. This particular network, owned by Keystone Precision Instruments, consists of 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers and delivers high-precision GPS corrections to users in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.

    Like the UNAVCO network, the Keystone Precision Instrument RTK Network is a multi-million dollar investment in high-precision GPS infrastructure.

     
    Keystone Precision Instruments’ RTK Network diagram showing 178 fixed-mount, high-precision GPS receivers that provide high-precision GPS corrections to high-precision GPS users in the northeastern U.S.

     

    Recommendations

    I’m grateful for this 30-day public comment period as I think it will give the FCC and LightSquared a new perspective on the impact that disrupting high-precision GPS receivers would have on the GPS user community and America’s economy.

    Although I’m in favor of a nationwide 4G LTE system, I’m opposed to LightSquared’s proposed plan for the following reasons:

    1. The GPS user community knew this was coming and chose to do nothing. This is false. Contrary to what LightSquared asserts, the GPS user community did not know anything about this potential interference until November 2010. LightSquared and the FCC incorrectly assumed that communicating/negotiating with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) was the equivalent of communicating/negotiating with the GPS user community. That is a false assumption. The USGIC does not communicate directly with the GPS user community and never has. That’s not its role. I’ve been personally involved in the high-precision GPS industry for 20+ years and writing a monthly newsletter on high-precision GPS technology for GPS World magazine for the past five years. I attend almost every major GPS conference and high-precision GPS market segment conference in the U.S. and some abroad. The first I’d heard about the LightSquared interference issue was November 2010.

    Furthermore, there is a clear precedent already set that demonstrates how to handle a case very similar to the current LightSquared situation. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force proposed to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian L1/L2 high-precision GPS receiver in existence. It was the first time in history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the impact of the LightSquared system.

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

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

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

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

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

    2. The FCC needs to consider future GPS signals as well as satellite signals from other satellite navigation systems. The FCC needs to investigate the effect of the LightSquared system on the future GPS L1C signal as well as GLONASS L1 (Russia), Galileo L1 (Europe), and Compass L1 (Chinese) to understand the effect on receivers of today and of the future. GPS L1C, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 all use wider bandwidth than today’s GPS L1, which makes them even more susceptible to interference from LightSquared’s system.

    L1 and L5 are the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and Compass signals of the future. Those signals will drive hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue because they will bring high-precision accuracy to our everyday lives, which is something only available on very expensive GPS receivers today.

    Again, precedence has been set. Look at what happened to GPS navigation after Selective Availability (SA) was turned off in May 2000. Overnight, GPS accuracy improved from 100 meters to 10 meters, and subsequently the multi-billion dollar market for GPS automobile navigation devices was launched. Companies like TomTom grew from zero revenue to multi-billion dollar corporations.

    The same is expected to happen again when mainstream GPS accuracy improves from 10 meters to well under a meter using the L1 and L5 signals, but that will only occur if the GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 signals are protected. Some say that L2 can be used instead of L1 in the future. While that’s true for GPS, L1 and L5 have become the international standard while L2 is not supported by the international community.

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

    The consequence of LightSquared mobile devices interfering with GPS L1, GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, and Compass L1 is hard to imagine and might be worse than interference from the 40,000 LightSquared towers. Although the LightSquared mobile devices are much lower power (2-3 watts vs. 1,500 watts), LightSquared has announced they intend to deploy more than 250 million mobile devices, which could behave like portable GPS jammers.

    Please pay attention this important technical issue that many have chose to ignore.

    4. LightSquared needs to permanently abandon using the upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial broadcasting. The idea of LightSquared using its licensed upper frequency spectrum (1545-1555 MHz) for terrestrial purpose needs to be permanently abandoned. It’s clear from the test results that this causes widespread GPS interference no matter which class of GPS is used.

    Finally, I would like to emphasize that the GPS user community should bear no cost as a result of any interference from LightSquared’s system. The GPS user community was blindsided in November 2010. While you can debate whether about the communication between the FCC, MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared, and the U.S. GPS Industry Council, no case can be made that the GPS user community knew of MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared’s intentions earlier than late last year, yet the FCC and LightSquared expect the GPS user community to bear the cost of interference caused by LightSquared’s system?

    Furthermore, far too little testing has been completed in order to fully understand the impact of LightSquared’s system on GPS receivers. Yes, we have a rough idea of the scale of interference from the test reports submitted in June 2011, but the devil is in the details.

    Even if LightSquared only uses the licensed lower spectrum (1526-1536 MHz), as it has proposed as an alternative, the number of high-precision receivers affected would be at least 200,000 at an estimated replacement cost of $10,000 per unit which equates to a total equipment replacement cost of $2 billion dollars. That does not include the cost of removal/installation, lost productivity, required software upgrades, and training. Does the FCC expect the GPS user community to bear that cost?

    For the above reasons, I recommend that the FCC deny LightSquared’s request to proceed and encourage them to use spectrum outside of the MSS band. The resources expended by federal/state/local governments and private corporations to vet LightSquared’s proposal to use the MSS band has run into the tens of millions of dollars, if not more than a one hundred million dollars. I’m afraid the cost of further vetting will double or triple the expenditure as well as result in tremendous opportunity cost as significant resources are expended by public and commercial entities to continue this debate.

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

    Sincerely,

    /S/ Eric Gakstatter

    Eric Gakstatter
    Principal – Discovery Management Group LLC
    Editor – GPS World Magazine Survey Scene enewsletter
    Editor – Geospatial Solutions
    PO Box 663
    West Linn, OR 97068
    Thanks, and see you next time.
    Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

  • GPS and GNSS Cannot Count on Good Sense in Government

    You’ve got to put some in yourself, to get some out.

    Don’t expect the FCC to make a rational decision in the Lightsquared versus GPS case. As clear as the conclusions may seem to an engineering mind examining the Technical Working Group’s report on the subject, the Federal Communications Commission does not maintain engineering minds at its top level. That’s the level that makes the decisions, and it is driven by money and politics in equal measure. The only things that will get the FCC’s attention are legislators and strong opposition from citizens.

    Comments in the FCC docket so far come largely from the surveying and agriculture communities. The rest of the GNSS industry has not shown up. Individuals count, too, not just companies. Here’s how to make your voice heard, and why. Time’s a-wastin’.

    HERE’S HOW.

    The FCC will accept public comments on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.

    Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS.

    Follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. First, click “Submit a Filing.” Once the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding Number" enter 11-109. You’ll then be required to enter identifying information into the form and add your comments. In completing the transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.

    Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments that state LightSquared’s operations and GPS are fundamentally incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may wish to add that the FCC’s own Technical Working Group tasked with investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and Transportation, all agree on this.

    It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital, resource for a wide range of users — not just yourself or your industry sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.

    AND HOW.

    Whether or not you file a comment by the July 30 deadline (that’s THIS Saturday), I urge you to immediately write on the same subject to both your U.S. senators and to your congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    To find your U.S. senator, go to this website and enter your state in the pull-down menu.  You’ll get name, e-mail, phone, and mailing address.

    To find your representative in the House, go to this website and proceed similarly.

    GNSS community members in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere may write to the U.S. State Department representative tasked in this matter: clorere @ state.gov.

    I submit that GPS needs your help, now. If the mothership goes down, the case for other GNSS only becomes more difficult, not less so. And similar attacks may soon be mounted against GNSS internationally, if encouraged by success on this front.

    NOW, WHY.

    Some troubling trends that I hope will stir you to action:

    

Troubling Trend Number One. The test results, conclusions, and recommendations of several comprehensive studies, conducted by a combination of industry, government, and independent organizations (NPEF, TWG, RTCA) over a period of months, are currently being questioned, downplayed, dismissed, and/or ignored by FCC and NTIA, while at the same time ad hoc, wild-eyed claims by LightSquared with no substantiation in either fact or test data appear to have attained the same status as gospel truth with these august bodies.

    Troubling Trend Number Two. The so-called solution proposed by LightSquared claims to eliminate interference to "99.5 percent" of GPS receivers — although nowhere is this solution supported with any factual basis or evidence whatsoever.  
    When unsubstantiated claims are made in the public arena, one can surmise either or both of two things:

    1. Those making the claims are confident that no one is awake enough or cares enough to examine the claims carefully.
    2. Those making the claims are confident that they have some sort of fix in with the decisive powers — so it doesn’t matter what kind of case they make, as long as there is the semblance of one, transparent or not.

    Upsetting Trend Number Three. As to the applications and importance of the "0.5 percent" remaining receivers, we may well ask: How many users and beneficiaries of these "0.5 percent" are there?  You know and I know that this number, a wild guess at that, represents the high-precision receivers for which no LightSquared so-called solution will work. The beneficiaries of GPS use in survey, construction, and agriculture certainly number in the hundreds of billions, if not higher.  

    Ask your better half: Does only 0.5 percent of the U.S. population eat? 

    Alarming Trend Number Four. LightSquared blandly maintains that it has been around for 10 years or more, and people believe this statement. 

    Fact: LightSquared bought the assets of a company called SkyTerra, which had great difficulty making its business case work and was thus extremely ripe for acquisition at an attractive price. SkyTerra descended in similar fashion from another company, MSV (Mobile Satellite Ventures), which also had great difficulty making its business case work and was also extremely ripe for acquisition at an attractive price.

    Thus, LightSquared’s ancestral history is turbulent. This page gives a fairly good summary of a key episode.   

    LightSquared says that in 2002 and 2003 it was "operating under a different name."  No, those were different companies.  Where were the LightSquared executives back then?  Working for other companies, that’s where. Hard to be the same company with a different name, different address, and completely different personnel.

    If they can’t tell you honestly who they are, how can you trust anything they say?
     
    Nowhere on the LightSquared web site does the company mention its heritage or link to MSV and/or SkyTerra.  Instead, it continually speaks about its new vision and how new and novel it is in the world of broadband.



    Bald-faced Lying Trend Number Five. LightSquared says that its business plan has been consistent throughout the period from 2002 (the MSV and SkyTerra era) to the present, and people in power at the FCC nod their heads.

    No. Not the case. False statement. Lie.

    SkyTerra and MSV had business plans that used the "ancillary terrestrial component" (ATC) as the regulators intended, as a gap-filler, with its primary service being provided by satellite.  ATC signals could not interfere with satellite signals without undercutting the company’s primary service.  This worked for GPS as well.  

    SkyTerra and MSV went out of business trying to make their business plans work while complying with the ATC requirements.  

    Enter LightSquared in 2010, with the new broadband vision and the new business plan to — hold fo
    r it now — flout ATC requirements, ignore them, demolish them, waive them out of existence, all with the FCC’s willing cooperation.

    The LightSquared waiver request of November 2010 upset the heretofore fundamental foundation for even considering ATC in L-band. LightSquared does not provide a primary satellite service, but instead is a terrestrial service — completely different from the business plans of the predecessor companies, and completely at odds with the original intended use of L-band for ATC. 



    Smelling a Rat in the Smokehouse Trend Number Six. The FCC continues to back LightSquared, to the point of ignoring positions put forward very strongly by top-ranking officials in the U.S Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Transportation, other U.S. government agencies, Congress, industry and public groups.

    Part of this is “because they can."  The FCC is a so-called independent agency.  However, it is part of the administrative arm of U.S. government, under the direction, appointments, and pleasure of the White House. There are Congressional investigations of FCC contact with the White House (Representative Issa) and on contact with LightSquared (Senator Grassley).  

    There are numerous reports in various quarters of other close ties between Administration officials and LightSquared.



    In that regard, I commend to you these two articles:


    Big payday for U.S. ambassador with stake in go-go wireless Internet firm
    
By John Aloysius Farrell and Fred Schulte. July 22, 2011
    

Donald Gips, the top Obama aide who became ambassador to South Africa, cashed in his stock options for LightSquared, a new wireless Internet firm, for as much as $500,000 ten days after the company won a favorable decision from the Federal Communications Commission, newly released documents show.

 Gips, a friend and major campaign fundraiser of President Obama, was the White House personnel chief until being appointed ambassador to South Africa in 2009.



    That’s half a million dollars, people. 

    Full story.

    Politically-connected LightSquared pushes wireless Internet plan despite GPS concerns
    LightSquared’s ties to Obama’s supporters and the administration’s policy interests run deep. Several major Democratic campaign contributors and longtime Obama supporters have held investments in the company and its affiliates during its tangled decade of existence.

    

Obama installed one of his biggest fundraisers, Julius Genachowski, a campaign “bundler” and broadband cheerleader, as chairman of the FCC, which granted LightSquared a special waiver to operate.



    “The more that’s revealed, the more questions there are,” said U.S. Sentor Charles Grassley."Without transparency, the public can’t know whose interests the FCC is pursuing and so can’t trust the agency’s work. The FCC should comply with my request for information to uphold the public’s trust.”

    Full story.
     

  • Consumer Time on Mobile Apps Surpasses Time on Web

    The world is spinning in a new direction. Consumers are spending more time on mobile apps than on the web. In June, mobile app use overtook both mobile and desktop web, as measured by apps analytic firm Flurry. Consumers spent an average of 81 minutes per day on mobile apps, and 74 minutes on the web. App use was measured on Apple’s iOS, Android, Blackberry, and J2ME platforms, and web use was measured on the open web, mobile web, and Facebook.

    Last year, the numbers told a different story. In 2010 iOS was popular, but Android was yet to skyrocket onto the market. Web time led with 64 daily usage minutes; mobile app time lagged at 43 minutes. What are consumers doing with their apps in 2011? Having fun, or more likely, wasting time. Games and social networking categories captured the significant majority of app usage. Consumers spent nearly half their time playing games, and a third were connecting with social networking apps. Together, these two categories account for 79 percent of consumers’ total mobile app time.

    Mapping Apple. Last month I wrote that rumors of Apple’s imminent release of its own mapping database was proven wrong by its renewal of Google maps. This doesn’t mean Google isn’t hard at work on it. MacRumors reports that there are legal disclaimers found in iOS 5 in a new section called “Map Data.” A diverse list of licenses appear from third parties that provide mapping data and services. Included are CoreLogic, Getchee, Increment P Corp, Localeze, MapData Sciences, DMTI, TomTom, Urban Mapping, and Waze. Urban Mapping provides in-depth neighborhood data and Waze offers crowd-sourced real-time map and traffic data.

    Foursquare is set to start making money. Foursquare made its name as a location-based check-in community that awards mayoralships and other rewards for visiting stores and restaurants. Users share recommendations for venues. If you wondered how the company was going to bring in revenue, here’s the dope. Foursquare will team with LivingSocial and Gilt Groupe to offer location-targeted daily coupon offers, its biggest move yet to harness its consumer buzz into a long-term revenue model.

    Foursquare will leverage its location-tracking capabilities and customer data to offer deals. The depth of Foursquare’s consumer database is extensive and should give the company insight into individual perspectives and behaviors, and provide an edge in targeting offers that will grab a high conversion rate.

    LightSquared causes GPS interference. “LightSquared should not be permitted to use the L-Band spectrum for a densely-deployed, non-integrated terrestrial-only network. Such a network would cause unacceptable interference to GPS operations, wiping out an installed base of over 500 million units used in a wide array of public safety, aviation, industrial and consumer applications.” So reads the technical working group’s final report to the FCC. The group concluded that no mitigation techniques, such as using filters on GPS receivers, were considered because they don’t exist and therefore cannot be tested. The FCC is currently holding a comment period and eventually the commission will make a decision about LightSquared band use.

    Continuing to press its case, LightSquared presented the FCC with a plan to mitigate interference with GPS by using Inmarsat’s lower spectrum band, enabling reduced power of base stations by more than 50 percent. However, the working group indicated testing of this lower channel does not eliminate harmful interference to GPS receivers.

    LightSquared has argued that the issue is with GPS receivers, not their proposed system: “Despite the commercial GPS device industry’s best record to rewrite the record and obfuscate the nature of the problem, the simple fact remains that GPS receivers do not adequately reject base-station transmissions in the adjacent band.” Jim Kirkland of Trimble and the Coalition to Save our GPS responded that GPS receivers were designed against satellite transmissions with an ancillary terrestrial component, consistent with LightSquared’s initial design, but not later changes.

    Despite mounting concern of GPS interference, LightSquared recently snared $265 million in financing for its LTE network. This year LightSquared raised a total of $2.3 billion and appears close to a Sprint deal. Does LightSquared have a viable “Plan B”?

    Action-based ads. A bit more than a third of mobile ad campaigns ask subscribers to click to call, click to map, click to download, or click to SMS, reports mobile advertiser, Jumptap. The remaining ads usually invite users to a website, and aren’t as immediately actionable. Mobile ad engagement peaks at mid-day, and click through rates are at the lowest during morning commute and initial workday hours.

    Moment of Zen. When asked about the stealth in which FourSquare just raised $50 million, CEO Dennis Crowley opined, “Loose Tweets sink companies.”

  • LightSquared: 1, High-Precision GPS: 0

    At stake is the high-precision GPS industry as we know it. If LightSquared’s current proposal is approved by the FCC, it will render tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of GPS receivers obsolete starting as early as next year. The FCC is accepting public comments until July 30 and replies to those comments until August 15. After the public comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time. Last weekend, I spoke alongside LightSquared and the Coalition to Save Our GPS in a two-hour panel discussion at the Esri Survey Summit in San Diego. Here’s my report.

     

    Last weekend, I attended the Esri Survey Summit in San Diego. This year was different in that it was combined with the ACSM (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) annual conference. Part of the conference Plenary on Saturday were 30-minute presentations by LightSquared and the Coalition to Save Our GPS. The following morning (Sunday), there was a two-hour discussion panel on the LightSquared/GPS interference issue, in which I participated.

    At stake is the high-precision GPS industry as we know it. If LightSquared’s current proposal is approved by the FCC, it will render tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of GPS receivers obsolete starting as early as next year. The FCC is accepting public comments until July 30 (see also instructions at the bottom of this column) and replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.

    The FCC is clearly biased on the LightSquared/GPS issue favoring LightSquared. There’s a lot of pressure to push the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which includes improving Americans’ accessibility to high-speed wireless connectivity to the Internet. After only 2 ½ weeks on the job, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Rick Kaplan stated earlier this month that “We need to make sure we aren’t locking out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission,” obviously referring to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.

    The LightSquared propaganda machine has been effective in bending the ear of technically-challenged policymakers into believing GPS receivers are using LightSquared’s spectrum without permission, and that GPS receiver designers have known this issue was coming since as early as 1995. Both statements, of course, are not true as I’ve written before, as has GPS World editor Alan Cameron (see LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record), and as published on the Coalition to Save Our GPS website.

    Last weekend’s Survey Summit was perhaps the best opportunity to date for land surveyors and other high-precision GPS users to speak out and let LightSquared and our policymakers know how crucial high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers are to their operations. The discussion content was very good and our industry clearly made its points, but it was all for naught.

    Esri got LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeffrey Carlisle to fly in from Washington D.C. to speak at the plenary and then participate in the discussion panel along with myself, moderator John Matonich (NSPS), Dr. Javad Ashjaee (JAVAD GNSS), Dr. Joe Paiva (consultant), Curt Sumner (ACSM), and Peter Large (Coalition to Save Our GPS). However, it was a lost opportunity. Only fifty or so people attended the discussion panel, and I’m sure Mr. Carlisle flew back to Washington D.C. to report that the high-precision GPS users just rolled over, and they are not nearly the roadblock that might have been anticipated.

    LightSquared: 1, High-Precision GPS Users: 0

    A few key points from the discussion panel I think are worth noting:

    It’s a joke, but LightSquared is probably going to win the argument that the “GPS industry knew this was coming.” It is going to win not because it is correct, but because Jeff Carlisle was an FCC employee for several years and knows which buttons to push at the FCC, where to find documents that are publicly available — but not reasonably accessible to the general public, in my opinion — and how to misrepresent them.

    Who is the “GPS industry” that LightSquared and the FCC refer to?

    When LightSquared and the FCC refer to the “GPS industry,” they certainly are not referring to the GPS user community (you and I), which is expected to bear a huge financial burden (you and I will need to buy new GPS equipment) if the LightSquared proposal is approved.

    In nearly all of its documents, LightSquared refers to discussions and agreements with the U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC). I have a problem with this, and so should you. The USGIC is a sort of chamber of commerce for GPS manufacturers. If you perform a Google search for the U.S. GPS Industry Council, you won’t find a website, you won’t find a listing of council members, nor will you find much other information about it.

    The USGIC, in other words, does not maintain a high public profile.  To be fair, it is an industry council, not a user council.

    To be further fair, the Industry Council did negotiate an agreement several years ago with a former version of LightSquared (under different ownership then) and with the FCC, along certain business terms and technical parameters. That agreement did not harm GPS users in any way; in fact, it contained some inherent protections for GPS users. The current version of LightSquared has completely changed both its business plan and those technical parameters — turned them on their heads, as a matter of fact — but blithely continues to claim that this was all worked out and agreed to previously.

    Nevertheless, how has it come about that the USGIC was the negotiator with LightSquared and its predecessors for you and I regarding your GPS equipment when you’ve never met a USGIC representative, and never had a chance to provide comments before negotiations with LightSquared and its predecessors on such a critical issue?

    When I made a statement about this during our discussion panel, Jeff Carlisle called me a “fear-monger,” if I recall correctly, and he referred to my assertion that the USGIC is a chamber of commerce as “ridiculous.” I think he needs a little education.

    The analogy I used was that when Walmart wants to build a store in your town, it does not negotiate with the Chamber of Commerce, because the Chamber of Commerce does not represent the citizens. Walmart negotiates with the City Planning Department and City Planning Commission, which is comprised of citizens of the community, who are directly impacted and must bear the consequence of the development.

    The reason LightSquared is in this controversial and expensive predicament today is because it chose the incorrect organization to negotiate with.  Perhaps on purpose, so it could maintain later that it had negotiated with someone.

    This is not virgin territory. There is a clear precedent on this subject. Do you remember back in 2008 when the U.S. Air Force (GPS stewards) wanted to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique that is used by virtually every civilian dual frequency GPS receiver in existence? It was the first time in GPS history that an action would render several hundred thousand high-precision GPS receivers obsolete, a scale which is very similar to the effect that the LightSquared system would have on high-precision GPS receivers today.

    Do you recall an industry coalition being formed to fight it? Do you recall an industry outcry? Do you recall a technical working group being formed to test the effects on receivers if semicodeless was not supported?

    The answer is no.

    Why is that
    ?

    The answer is very simple. The U.S. Air Force, to its credit, did a fantastic job of communicating with the GPS user community along with the Department of Commerce. It issued public statements describing the impact the action would have on GPS receivers. It held a public comment period. The following statement from its website succinctly summarizes its approach:

    “The Office of Space Commercialization worked hard to raise awareness of the size and significance of the high-end GPS user community, which was poorly understood within the government. The Office collected industry information to quantify the installed base of codeless/semi-codeless GPS equipment, estimate its economic value, and determine an acceptable time frame for its replacement. The Office also issued a request for public comments to receive broad stakeholder feedback.”

    In other words, it did its homework. At the end of the day, the U.S. Air Force set a date of December 31, 2020 to discontinue supporting the semicodeless technique. It correctly determined that 12 years is about the correct amount of time that would allow a smooth transition with a manageable financial impact to the GPS user community. Users would naturally upgrade their equipment during that period.

    Imagine if the U.S. Air Force had set a period of one year to transition away from using the semicodeless technique. That action would have destroyed the high-precision GPS user community, and the continued adoption of high-precision GPS technology would have been set back for years. Fortunately, it did its homework.

    LightSquared, on the other hand, either didn’t do its homework or intentionally kept quiet in order to fly under the radar and push its initiative through before the GPS user community (and others) knew what was happening.

    During the discussion panel, I wanted to (and I think I did) make three points very clear:

    1. The high-precision GPS user community did not know this was coming, period.
    2. There was a precedent already set that clearly illustrated how to successfully communicate to the high-precision GPS user community when an action is proposed that would effectively render hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS receivers obsolete.
    3. The high-precision GPS user community should not bear any cost related to LightSquared implementing its system.

    That said, I’m not saying “no” to LightSquared.

    I get the 4G wireless broadband argument that LightSquared and the U.S. National Broadband Plan make. I want high-speed internet on my smartphone too. I want my phone to work in elevators and elevator-like environments that LightSquared promises. I think this might be a boost to the economy.

    While I’m not saying “no” to LightSquared, I’m saying “no” to LightSquared’s proposal at this moment. There are still waaaaay too many unknown issues to be understood and resolved.

    A few of them are:

    • Even using the lower frequency spectrum in its new proposal (1526-1536MHz), at least tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of your high-precision receivers will need to be replaced. Who will bear that cost?
    • More testing is needed to understand exactly what the effect of using only the lower frequency spectrum will have on all types of GPS receivers. That was not LightSquared’s original roll-out plan and therefore wasn’t tested extensively to determine its affect on GPS receivers.
    • The idea of using the upper frequency (1545-1555MHz) for high-powered terrestrial broadcast needs to be permanently abandoned.
    • The effect on GLONASS L1, Galileo L1, Compass L1, and GPS L1C need to be extensively tested to understand the effect on GNSS receivers of today and of the future. Galileo L1, Compass L1 and GPS L1C all use wider bandwidth than today’s GPS L1 C/A, which makes them even more susceptible to interference from LightSquared’s system.
    • A serious effort needs to be made to understand the effect of LightSquared’s mobile devices on GPS/GNSS receivers. LightSquared’s mobile devices will operate in the 1626.5-1660.5MHz frequency spectrum, above the GPS L1 spectrum and GLONASS L1 (~1597-1605MHz). It’s been reported that Inmarsat devices (using LightSquared’s 1626.5-1660.5MHz mobile device spectrum) do not fare well around Iridium phones (1616-1626.5MHz), which is very close to GLONASS L1.

    We have to be very careful and test these scenarios because once the plug is pulled, you can’t suck the water back out of the drain. There’s no turning back. Also, the FCC doesn’t have a solid history of making good decisions in the wireless arena. In the words of noted wireless industry guru Andrew Seybold (BlackBerry, HP, AT&T, Motorola):

    “The history of wireless is littered with examples where the FCC acted on a request by a vendor, approved the deployment of a system, and later learned that the new system created interference to other services.”

    In fact, Mr. Seybold writes that LightSquared shouldn’t be permitted to move forward at all. On July 6, 2011, he published the following:

    “Okay, I admit it. I don’t believe LightSquared should be permitted to use what was supposed to be satellite spectrum for a terrestrial broadband network. Not only that, I don’t believe LightSquared has a sound business plan. Building more than 40,000 cell sites, maintaining them, and reselling the bandwidth to others who want to sell it to its customers, does not pencil out in my book. The margins will be too slim, especially given the fact that prices for both voice and broadband services keep falling in the United States so margins will continue to be squeezed. But apart from a faulty business plan, the main reason I am opposed to LightSquared’s plan to build this network is that if there is the slightest chance it will interfere with GPS receivers, it simply should not be permitted to be built.”

     

    To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.

     

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

     

  • A Tale of Two Symposia

    Defense PNT Newsletter, July 2011

    It is not the best of times as we have been at war for ten years without significant upgrades to the military GPS user equipment supplied to our valiant warfighters. It is not the worst of times as war inexorably draws to a close; now of course come a few military GPS upgrades for which the warfighters have been clamoring for ten years.

    Space and CyberSpace Warfare Symposium

    The warfighter clamoring has been accomplished for all to hear in warfighter panels at symposia such as I had the honor to attend in Colorado during the month of June. Ski season was still in full swing in selected portions of the Rocky Mountains (it sometimes lingers through July), and many warfighters took advantage of the situation to spend some time on the slopes with their families or play a round of high-altitude golf during the sixth Annual Space and Cyberspace Warfare Symposium held in beautiful Keystone, Colorado, June 14-16, 2011. This symposium, which is sponsored by the Lance P. Sijan Chapter of the Air Force Association, usually attracts about 300+ warfighters and senior decision-makers to the Rocky Mountains to spend time networking and sharing facts and perspectives concerning the war first-hand from warfighters of every description.

    In just six years, Kevin Estrem, the current Lance Sijan Chapter president, and his staff have made this the place to be for space and cyberspace warriors as well as the wannabees in the month of June. According to Kevin, the Lance P. Sijan Chapter is one of the largest and most active and award-winning chapters in the AFA, and when you experience the top-flight event they put on for the space and cyberspace warriors every year, it is easy to see why they win so many awards. Timely topics, great venue, great speakers, incredible attention to detail, tremendous service, and an extraordinary venue — how can it not be a great symposium?

    Warfighters Run the Gamut

    At this space and cyberspace symposium you will see warfighters from across the Department of Defense (DoD) wearing four stars and warfighters with one stripe. The great thing is all are heard and have the opportunity to interact in an incredibly relaxing and collegial atmosphere.

    You can opt to play golf with other warfighters, as I mentioned, or exchange thoughts and opinions over the wonderful meals provided by the Keystone Conference Center. Or many, like yours truly, prefer to ride their mountain bikes or just jog along the roaring and cascading Snake River. This year, due to the abundant rainfall in the mountains, the sinuous Snake was running close to flood stage but was contained within its banks, if barely, and that just made it all the most exciting and vociferous. What a sound and what a thrill to ride just inches away from that huge winding and cascading volume of icy cold mountain water. Imagine if you will all the fury of Mother Nature contained in that narrow channel. Breathtaking!

    The high mountain backdrop for the Keystone Space and Cyberspace Warfighter Symposium can be both exciting and relaxing at the same time, while still affording everyone opportunities to express their viewpoints in a unique atmosphere. A truly inspiring venue for this type of gathering with more than 100,000 square feet of meeting exhibit and function space.

    Nation’s Senior Space Warfighters

    The four-star guest and evening banquet speaker at this year’s event was General William L. Shelton (USAF), the Commander of Air Force Space Command. As such General Shelton is officially responsible for organizing, equipping, training, and maintaining mission-ready space and cyberspace forces and capabilities for North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and other combatant commands around the globe. As the senior space warfighter, General Shelton oversees U.S. Air Force network operations; manages a global network of satellite command and control (C2), communications, missile warning, and space launch facilities; and is responsible for space system development and acquisition. He leads more than 46,000 space and cyber professionals, assigned to 88 locations worldwide and deployed to an additional 35 global locations. So you might say he possesses unparalleled qualifications to be the senior warfighter at this year’s warfare symposium.

    You might even get the idea that General Shelton likes Colorado, since he began his Air Force career there in 1972 at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) and this is his forth assignment to Colorado since that time. But for our purposes in GPS World, one of his most telling Colorado assignments was from August 1990 to June 1992, when he served as the Commander of the 2nd Space Operations Squadron (the folks who fly and maintain the GPS constellation among other things) at Falcon (now Schriever) Air Force Base, Colorado. In fact when I have the opportunity to speak to the space operators at Schriever AFB these days, my old stomping grounds, I quickly remind them that where General Shelton is concerned, almost any topic you broach concerning space operations, especially GPS, he can truthfully say, “Been there…done that,” and he has not the T-shirt, but the stars to prove it.

    General Shelton’s Vice Commander, Lt. General Michael Basla (USAF), a lifelong communicator, was also a speaker and attendee again this year. Indeed, Mike has been a regular at this seminal warfighter event since he arrived in Colorado Springs at Peterson AFB. General Basla really knows how to stir up a crowd and he did not disappoint. While both General’s Shelton and Basla had important things to say, it was more important for the warfighters to see them there in person. The presence of the nation’s two senior space warfighters at a symposium for warfighters meant a lot to these brave young men and women, and it showed. All week long I heard the warfighters talking about meeting and getting to hear General Shelton and General Basla speak. A few even hoped to be able to speak to them privately, and they were not disappointed.

    General officers do not of course vie to win popularity contests, but if either General Shelton or General Basla were running for public office this year, and the warfighters had their say, the generals would win by a landslide after their presentations and their presence at Keystone.

    General Jerome O’Malley Award

    The General Jerome F. O’Malley Distinguished Space Leadership Award was awarded to Brigadier General David D. Thompson, the Director of Air, Space and Cyberspace Operations for Air Force Space Command. Mrs. Sharon O’Malley Berg was on hand to present the award and speak about her famous father who many credit for originating the idea of and laying the groundwork for Air Force Space Command.

    Warfighter Panel

    Nothing Earth-shattering came out of this year’s conference, and that’s probably a good thing, but the highlight had to be the warfighter panels. The young warfighters were exceptional this year; their stories were both heartwarming and heartrending. It is incredible the feats our young warfighters accomplish, whether they are in an F-16 Fighting Falcon or infiltrating Taliban positions as Special Operators on the ground, always in harm’s way. There are space and cyberspace warfighters supporting all the warfighter missions, as space operators in CONUS (Continental U.S.), in the
    ater at command positions, and in theater with the Special Operators; heck, as many of us discovered many of them are the Special Operators. I could not have been prouder, and everyone else felt the same way, as was demonstrated by the thundering applause and standing ovation each panel received. If you have never been to one of these events you can justify it by the warfighting panels alone. It is something you will always remember — bravery has that effect.

    Memorable

    I attend a great many symposia and numerous conferences every year. Sometimes, unfortunately, the venues tend to blend together and you may not even know in what city you are located. However, few if any come close to the ambiance and connectedness of the warfighter symposium at Keystone. You will never mistake it for any other location. The facilities at the Keystone Hotel and Convention Center are first class, and the staff treat the warfighters with special care. More than one of the warfighter panel members, who had just arrived back home from theater, commented that he and his family (yes, the symposium sponsors paid for him to have his family with him) felt like they were in a five-star resort, and it was a much-needed vacation and time together with his family. Many of the warfighters also commented on the extraordinary level of service and the excellent cuisine. For that they have the fantastic magician Angela Andrews, the director of Conference Services and Catering, and her excellent staff at the Keystone Convention Center to thank. Angela and her staff oversee every detail and you do feel pampered. Another distinct advantage of a small but personal and service-oriented symposium in the Rocky Mountains. The cuisine is five-star quality and they have their own pastry chef, which is immediately evident the first morning you partake of the incredible breakfast pastries and treats. Don’t tell my wife, but I’m quite sure I had more than one every morning. It generates a genuine desire to have breakfast for lunch, and breakfast for dinner, if you catch my drift!

    Now, I ask you, don’t our warfighters deserve this kind of treatment? From a dark, dank, dangerous, and stinking goat-infested cave in the mountains of Afghanistan, with enemies on every side, to the Keystone Hotel in the beautiful Rocky Mountains where everyone is your friend and supporter. Frankly, it doesn’t seem like too much to me; it just simply seems like the right thing to do. Join us next year won’t you? June 2012, and if you dare, bring your mountain bike.

    Joint Navigation Conference (ION-JNC)

    Actually, the real name of this conference is a mouthful: The Joint Services Data Exchange (JSDE) and The Institute of Navigation (ION) Annual Joint Navigation Conference (JNC) — or just JNC for short.

    For our purposes, the difference between this conference or symposium and the previous warfighter symposium is that papers, presentations, and demonstrations are given by GPS, GIS, and GNSS experts from around the globe on our favorite topics, things to do with positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT).

    There are numerous exhibits and an exhibit hall, which will suck you in and never let you go if you allow it to, but only because the exhibits are so interesting. There are of course plenary and general sessions, but basically everyone comes for the individual papers, the research, the camaraderie, the networking, the technical expertise, and the of course the warfighter panels. Indeed, the warfighter panels at this conference are held at the SECRET level each year in a secure location and are limited to citizens of the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada. This year the classified events were held in Colorado Springs at Fort Carson, Colorado, one of five military installations in the Colorado Springs area. More on the warfighter panels later.

    JNC Venue

    This year the JNC ran June 27-30 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in the Springs, and as I said the classified sessions were held at a separate and secure location.

    The accommodations at the Crowne Plaza were barely adequate this year because no one knew the conference would grow so much in popularity. But then when your conference is in demand, attendance will grow, and attendance at the classified sessions alone this year doubled from 300-600 attendees. So the normally unflappable Lisa Beaty that I know and respect at ION and her excellent staff were caught a bit off guard. People typically travel from all over the globe to attend JNC, and this year was no exception. As the numbers mounted, Lisa had a choice between restricting attendance and limiting papers or opening the gates and hoping for the best. The latter choice was the correct one, of course, and in the end it all worked out fine. Some sessions were standing room only and the hotel could not accommodate everyone, but there are numerous excellent hotels in the vicinity. There may have been room for a few more exhibits, but if it grows by as much next year the space may well be maxed out. Such is the price of popularity, and who knows? There may be some hidden space no one noticed. I am sure they will have it all sorted out by next year.

    There were few senior officers present this year, although they have frequently been there in the past. But again this is more of a technical and warfighter exchange than it is a policy meeting. Frankly, the people that needed to be there were there, although a few more stars might increase the draw for some potential attendees. Sure, just what Lisa needs right now, a bigger draw! Stars or no stars, if you are a technical PNT geek, this is the conference/symposium for you.

    While the presentations generally ran the gamut from good to great (we are generally speaking about engineers here after all), the information exchange and networking that went on were phenomenal to see. There are numerous subject-matter tracks to follow, and only you can decide where you need to be when, but fortunately there are plenty of readily identifiable JNC staff members around to help you find your way.

    Presentations

    As far as presentations go, the presenters have a stop-light system to help them stay within time limits and ION is ruthless about enforcing it. After all, why wait all day for your favorite presentations just to have them canceled because someone was long winded? This will never happen at JNC. Stars, bars, stripes, mister, or doctor — you have your allotted time for sound and fury on stage and then the hook. It is all very politely accomplished of course, and no one gets the bum rush, but that red light blinking in your face lets you know your allotted time has come to an end. I sincerely wish more conferences ran with this much precision and efficiency. Lisa and her staff are to be congratulated for their Teutonic punctiliousness.

    FOUO

    I wish I could relate more concerning the excellent FOUO papers; however, ever since 9/11, many JNC presentations have been conducted at the FOUO or For Official Use Only level. Frankly that means that, since this is an international magazine, I cannot relate details of the various presentations. I know some publications blithely ignore that restriction, at their own peril, but you won’t catch me making that mistake. For ION members the papers will be published online at the ION site, and of course you are always free to attend and hear them in person, which is what I hope you will do next year. The presentations are well worthwhile, take my word for it. You can of course peruse the agenda and paper topics at the ION website. When they are posted you should be able to download a cleared version of some of the papers. The papers cover the gamut from an excellent GPS constellation update by Lt. Col. Jennifer Grant (USAF), the current Commander of the 2nd Space Operations Squadron, to something as esoteric as Al
    ternative Navigation Technologies (Natural Occurring Phenomena) chaired by my good friend and colleague James Doherty (Capt., USCG Retired) at the Institute for Defense Analysis. Jim is a former President of ION and former Commander of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) NAVCEN (Navigation Center), and for Jim the more esoteric the presentation the better. Jim was also the moderator and organizer of the excellent warfighter panel. He shared the panel duty this year with the immediate past ION President Mickel Miller.

    JNC Warfighter Panel

    While there is indeed something for everyone at JNC, again the highlight of the event was the final classified day, which included the warfighter panel. And since it was held at the SECRET level I can say almost nothing except that you should have been there. However, Jim Doherty did ask a question of the panel that relates directly to GPS — the question we have been asking of warfighters in this column for the last five years, “If you could have the perfect handheld GPS/communications device, what features would it have?” Not surprisingly, the answers have not changed. The consolidated answer was basically an iPhone-sized device with iPhone weight and battery life with embedded military (SAASM-enabled) PNT and communications capabilities with an Apple- or Garmin-like friendly operating system, and a color screen with maps and multiple grid coordinate systems displaying blue force tracked assets and networking capabilities. In other words, everything the current MUE (like the DAGR) does not do in an iPhone-sized device with an operating system someone could actually enjoy using. There were other specifics, of course, that I cannot go into in this venue. But there were no surprises. The warfighters’ needs have not changed and the DoD continues to not meet them. I thank Jim for asking the question.

    In the end the warfighters were simply phenomenal, and there was again thunderous applause, and the only standing ovation of the day, and possibly for the whole conference. If you are reading this in GPS World magazine, then this is not a conference you can afford to miss. I hope to see you in Colorado Springs next June at JNC 2012.

    Until next time, happy navigating.

  • Strategy Overhauls, Strong M2M, Privacy — and What More’s in Store

    It’s July, which means big news is slow to come by — and it is the opportunity to examine what will drive the location-based services market for the rest of 2011…and beyond. So far, consolidation is continuing, with Nokia combining digital mapping giant Navteq into a single LBS unit. In addition, strong entries into the machine-to-machine market include Iridium, while AT&T seeks to increase market share. Privacy issues were a big topic in the first part of the 2011, but will they hamper market growth the rest of the year?

     

    Nokia to Consolidate Navteq into Location-Based Services Unit

    In a move that looks like a strategy overhaul, Nokia plans to combine its Chicago-based Navteq digital mapping unit with its location-based services business. The new location and commerce division will be led by Michael Halbherr, who told LBS Insider in April that he was involved in Nokia’s $8.1 billion decision to acquire Navteq in 2007.

    Nokia had touted that it had a “hands-off” approach with Navteq, unlike competitor TomTom, which incorporated its Tele Atlas mapping unit so much that the TA brand is no longer visible.

    Halbherr told LBS Insider he predicted the demise of the portable navigation system early on, a market that competitor TomTom has been finding difficult recently. Navteq maps power Nokia’s Ovi Maps service for smartphones. Yahoo and Microsoft also incorporate Navteq digital mapping into their offerings.

     

    Privacy Legislation Looks For Consumer Consent

    New legislation aims to preclude such companies as Apple and Google from using customer’s location data without their consent. Senators Al Franken, D-Minn., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., co-sponsored the bill, called the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011.

    Franken honchoed a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law hearing that grilled Google and Apple executives in May. The uproar about consumer privacy arose in April at a California LBS application developers’ conference when companies indicated that customer’s privacy data was collected and shared.

    How this legislation, if passed, will affect the industry is not known. But it has raised eyebrows in several market sectors. Thilo Koslowski, Gartner vice president, told attendees at an automotive telematics conference last month that privacy is a big concern to auto makers who want to incorporate LBS-type of connectivity into their new vehicles. Koslowski went further when he said that not only do consumers not want social media in their vehicles, the privacy factor is not going away — and the industry needs to take notice of that.

    Iridium Forging Into M2M Markets

    Saying the machine-to-machine market constitutes its fastest growing segment, McLean, Va.-based Iridium Communications has partnered with several industry companies to grow beyond its government markets.

    “M2M in 2010 exploded for us in 2010, a real tipping point. In short, we reduced the size of the 9602 [short burst data] module to the size of matchbook, so the much lower price point allowed us to win a bunch of new programs,” said Patrick Shay, Iridium vice president and general manager for data services.

    Shay, an industry veteran who worked at Motorola, Rand McNally and Hughes Telematics, said that Iridium plans constellation enhancements in 2015. “It’s a one-for-one [satellite] replacement with backward compatibility and no service disruption,” he said.

    Such big M2M names as Kore Telematics, Digi International, and SkyBitz have become Iridium partners. Kore integrates satellite connectivity into its Prismpro unit.

    One Iridium partner, DeLorme, said it is rolling out a personal communicator this fall with two-way satellite messaging, SOS capabilities, remote tracking and Android smartphone interface so messages can be posted to Twitter or Facebook. The unit will go for $249.95 and have subscription fees starting at $9.95 a month.

    Editor’s Note: The August issue of GPS World will carry an article about Iridium certifying Cubic Global Tracking Solutions’ Global Sentinel System.

     

    AT&T Location Information Services Focusing on Enterprise Market

    AT&T Location Information Services is greatly expanding its location marketing, particularly in M2M, with its partners Loc-Aid Technologies and TechnoCom Corp. The company announced the partnerships at its developer summit in January.

    The company is focusing on the enterprise market because consumer location-based services have been a tough go for AT&T. The enterprise/M2M market has been a good one for AT&T and its network-based location systems, said John Booth, AT&T LIS senior product manager.

    The interoperability with the other carriers helps to grow the market, Booth said. “Historically, a customer had to work with one carrier and that limited them,” he said.

    Booth says there are benefits in using a network-based location solution because it prevents users from needing to download applications or use a specific platform in order to be located. The services are both device and network agnostic, he said.

    Loc-Aid is working with AT&T on its Location-as-a Service offering where businesses can access a customer’s location based on requirements or events. TechnoCom and AT&T are creating location and messaging products for the enterprise market.

    AT&T is working with Road America, a roadside assistance service provider, for a network-based application for location capability in the event of an accident or break down. The service, called LocateMe, is a cross-carrier offering that links to Road America’s 24-hour response centers.

    AT&T is working on integrating other location technology into its network service offerings, Booth said. “We are working on a number of applications besides assisted GPS [and cell ID] to include Wi-Fi and RFID. We want something that works in whatever the environment — airports or railroads,” he said.

    In addition to call center and transportation logistics, which is AT&T’s strong areas, emerging markets include fraud prevention and even truancy monitoring. “School districts get millions of dollars in funding based on student attendance. It’s a natural location market,” Booth said.

    In addition to the truancy monitoring market, regular parolees and bail bond holders constitute a huge potential market. AT&T estimates there are 5 million parolees nationwide and 7 million bail bond holders.

     

    Carriers Still Focal Point for LBS Implementation

    For years there have been arguments about who is driving the mobile information market for LBS: Is it the carriers? Auto manufacturers? New media companies such as Google? Despite all of the talk, companies still are trying to align themselves to offer the carriers’ capabilities to implement LBS.

    The recent Alcatel-Lucent partnership with Polaris Wireless and Thales Alenia Space is an example of companies tailoring E911 type of location capability and marketing for carriers. The three companies have partnered to pursue business with Tier 1 wireless operators in the United States and other regions, said Bhavin Shah, Polaris Wireless vice president of marketing and business development.

    “Alcatel-Lucent and Thales Alenia Space have a working relationship based on the former’s prior part-ownership of the latter. Alcatel-Lucent and Polaris Wireless have pursued a closer relationship based on shared interests in promoting their respective location solutions to wireless operators,” he said. “Recent developments and announcement of the partnership were triggered by impending Tier 1 LTE decisions,
    and the fact that the partnership enables a quicker time to market than ALU building a location solution on its own, and Polaris Wireless and Thales Alenia Space approaching Tier 1 operators directly without a larger infrastructure partner.”

    Alcatel-Lucent is the platform provider and direct interface with the customer (network operator). ALU provides all hardware, middleware, and conducts sales, support, operations, and billing. Polaris Wireless provides network-based location technology and network interfaces, including Polaris Wireless Location Signatures (Polaris WLSTM) and other location technology, such as Enhanced Cell-ID. Thales Alenia Space, with its expertise in satellite positioning, provides handset-based (GPS) location technology.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Out in Front: The Daughter of Time

    “Truth,” wrote Sir Francis Bacon, “is the daughter of time.”

    He meant that any account, repeated often enough by different people in different places, at different junctures, eventually becomes accepted as historical fact, or truth, by those with no direct knowledge of the matter.

    That’s why it is so important to repudiate and expose lies at every encounter. Never, ever let one pass. Even when it’s the same one that you dispelled yesterday — or thought you had taken care of. One thing about liars, they keep coming back. They don’t give up.

    Would you give up, if you had $20 billion at stake?

    I wrote an online column on this topic recently: “LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record.” These distortions were so blandly crafted that they were picked up and passed on by a number of other parties who should have known better, including at least one colleague of the press who writes for a wireless industry publication.

    Come to think of it, you do have $20 billion at stake — and much more. We all do. To the tune of more than $67.6 billion in direct economic benefits in the United States alone, provided by GPS. Or $96 billion per year in direct economic costs should GPS be disrupted. See the System news in this issue, “The Economics of Disruption,” for what you stand to lose.

    If you think the recent amendment to the 2012 Budget, cutting off FCC funds in this matter, should settle LightSquared hash, think again. The company is back with a new solution. Same as the old solution. Just with the pieces moved around. And it has taken its game up a notch, signaling intent to apply to the International Telecommunication Union for authority to broadcast powerful terrestrial signals all over the world.

    All over the world. Calculate the costs of that. For our international readers, this may mean trouble for GLONASS and Galileo too.

    Written to your congresspeople about this? Bravo if you have. Write again. They are not tired of hearing from you. There’s a lot they don’t know, that you do, particularly if you read the news accounts here and online. Forward links freely; they are information-laden and they are there for you to use.

    Not written to anyone yet? The headline of this column also served as the title of a novel by Josephine Tey, concerning Richard III, King of England. You know the evil hunchback murderer of Shakespeare’s play? We recall him as such because someone (his rival Henry VII) was particularly adept at lying and getting others, including Shakespeare, to repeat the lie — with none to dispute.

    GPS could become a forgotten hunchback of history. Act now.

  • Letters to the Editor: LightSquared Satellite Case Skimpy

    LightSquared Satellite Case Skimpy

    Thank you for the story “LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record.” One thing worth clarifying: you state, “It appears that the purpose of Lightsquared’s satellite service is, now, to provide ancillary service in remote areas not covered by the ubiquitous primary terrestrial network, or in the event that the terrestrial network is destroyed — exactly the opposite of what the FCC authorized and the GPS industry had understood and agreed to.”

    But even this can’t work unless they are going to limit the number of subscribers in remote areas. A 4G user will expect decent wireless data throughput, but the subscriber’s connection is shared with other users within a spotbeam covering a large area. All connections must fit within the bandwidth of the single beam.

    Cell networks get around this problem by frequency re-use, possible since each cell covers a small geographic region. The key characteristic of a cellular network is the ability to re-use frequencies to increase both coverage and capacity.

    Admittedly, the LightSquared satellite, SkyTerra-1, is a very sophisticated space vehicle with a record 500 spotbeams. However, it provides a maximum user data rate of 300–400 Kbps, quite a bit short of what you would expect from a 4G-LTE connection. And at 400 Kbps, a 20-MHz spotbeam could still support only 50 to 100 connections.

    Another problem with using the satellite link is that although they have managed to solve the problem of requiring a special user handset, the user will still have to be outdoors and in the open to communicate with the satellite. And it is a geostationary satellite, which means high latency — at least 1/4 second. Using this for voice would create user annoyance.

    LightSquared should stop using the word “ancillary” and stop pretending that their network has a significant satellite component. It is going to have to be all ground-based if they are to provide 4G connectivity. It’s really starting to sound like the satellite is just a way for LightSquared to meet their FCC requirement.

    — Mike Whitehead
    VP Technology, Hemisphere GPS
    [Ed: citations and some discussion ommitted for space; available on request.]

    On Eric Gakstatter’s Survey columns:

    Keep up the good work. I find your e-newsletter columns the best way to stay informed [on the LightSquared issue].

    — editor, survey magazine

    Sounding Off

    When someone comes onto the basketball court with a hockey stick, the referees should not negotiate rule changes. Anything that allows LSQ to proceed either on the high or low ends of their allocated spectrum will in the long run be a blow to PNT users and suppliers worldwide. While this may very well end up as a compromise to the detriment of us all, now is not the time to concede any ground. He who flinches, loses, and this is not the time for engineers to give ground. It will set a precedent that lawyers will use again to decimate the spectrum in the future.

    —Informed particpant