GPS World

Category: Opinions

  • Out in Front: Dual Use, Single Front

    As it was in the beginning, now and always, and to the ages of ages — or at least into the conceivable near future: GPS was, is, and shall be a dual-use system.

    Why, then, reading through the March 15 report of the Technical Working Group (TWG) to the FCC on LightSquared/GPS interference, do we find no mention at all of military receivers?

    Presumably DoD and the GPS Directorate are both concerned and active on a separate front vis à vis the FCC, but what/how/when? Would it not be beneficial for the dual uses to present a united front in some way, or at least to collaborate to some extent? To observe, if nothing else, each other’s testing?

    It turns out there are separate LightSquared/GPS Industry Council and government testing structures, the latter under under the National Space-Based PNT Systems Engineering Forum (NPEF), which will include military receiver tests. Several government members of the TWG are also members of the NPEF. The Executive Secretariat to the NPEF is also a core member of the TWG.

    The two testing groups collaborate and try to be on the same page as to technical assumptions, test methodology, measures of effectiveness, and so on. They will observe and participate in each other’s tests as much as they can — with the exception of national security issues.

    Testing of the military receivers is not a part of the TWG primarily because of classification. Any discussion of vulnerabilities of military equipment is generally classified at least at the Secret level.

    Outside of the TWG, there have been direct meetings between LightSquared and the military officers leading the military receiver testing. The military have asked technical questions and LightSquared has answered them and provided examples of its hardware. LightSquared has flown technical experts to Colorado Springs to meet with HQ Air Force Space Command test leads.

    “To the maximum extent possible,” said Anthony Russo, director of the U.S. National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, “we’ll invite LightSquared to review test plans and make inputs on test methodology, but we do anticipate that some of the end results will be classified and therefore have to be conveyed separately to the FCC.”

    “There is certainly good collaboration between the LightSquared-led TWG and the independent federal testing activities I directed under the NPEF charter. LightSquared has been extremely cooperative in supporting this,” he added.

    In addition to classification issues, there are other reasons to do independent federal testing. LightSquared is focusing on the potential in-band overload issue, while the GPS community is concerned about any potential interference scenario — including out-of-band emission issues that LightSquared is not looking at.

    Russo anticipates at least two reports will go to the FCC in June: “One from LightSquared where we make inputs, but have no official say on what they conclude; and one from me, based on NPEF results, submitted through the PNT EXCOM to the FCC. I expect the latter report to be at the Secret level, although we may be able to do a redacted version for LightSquared and the general public.”

  • Webinar Brief – A Closer Look at L5: The Future of High-Precision GNSS

    Yesterday I conducted a webinar titled “A Closer Look at L5: The Future of High-Precision GNSS.” Preparing for it was quite interesting, so I thought I’d share some of the slides I produced (and had produced) for the webinar. I think you’ll find them interesting.

    The webinar was focused on discussing the value of the new L5 civilan frequency for GPS/GNSS receivers. An interesting challenge in preparing for the webinar was my attempt at estimating what a satellite constellation of satellites (GPS and others) broadcasting at least L1 and L5 would look like four or five years from now. The point of it was to illustrate that a useful constellation of satellites broadcasting L1 and L5 (as well as L2C) is potentially only four to five years away.

    In that timeframe, there are potentially 30 satellites that would be healthy and broadcasting navigation signals on the L1 and L5 frequencies that we can use. How is that possible?

    Both GPS and Europe’s Galileo support the new L5 civil frequency (as well as L1). The U.S. has already launched one of the new GPS model IIF satellites. The IIF is currently healthy and broadcasting three civil frequencies; L1 C/A, L2C and L5. There are 11 more of the IIF satellites being built. It’s estimated that all 11 will have been launched into their orbits by ~2015. On the other hand, the first 18 Galileo satellites have been contracted to be built, and it’s estimated that the 18 will be launched into their orbits by ~2015. The Galileo satellites are designed to support L1 and L5 (as well as others). That’s a total of 30 satellites broadcasting L1 and L5.

    In an ideal world and in the best interest of the civilian user community, the Americans and Europeans would coordinate orbits planes/slots of the 30 satellites so they would be in an optimal configuration (steady # of visible satellites, reasonable PDOP) for the user community. But, I seriously doubt that’s going to happen.

    So, the next best thing is to attempt to estimate what an “uncoordinated” constellation of 30 GPS/Galileo satellites would look like in 2015 (assuming the launch schedules hold). Fortunately, our friends at the Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA) have already mapped out the orbit plane/slot data for the 18 satellites. Without that data, none of these projections would have been possible.

    GPS was a little tougher to estimate. The U.S. Air Force doesn’t have (or at least they don’t share) a long-range plan for where the next 11 IIF satellites are going to be inserted in the GPS constellation. They look out one satellite at a time. That’s understandable because the health of the GPS constellation changes over time. However, the U.S. Air Force does present a “watch list” of the weaker satellites in the constellation so we have some idea of where the new ones are going to be placed.

    Once we compiled the information from the Galileo folks and our projections on where the next 11 IIF GPS satellites will be inserted, we were able to come up with some interesting plots I’d like to share with you.

    All of the following satellite visibility plots are based on my location in Portland, Oregon, USA, and with a 15º elevation mask. Using a 15º elevation mask is pretty conservative so the plots are pretty conservative if you’re working in an open-sky environment like in agriculture.

    The first plot is of the 12 GPS IIF satellites only. You can see there’s an average of about three IIF satellites in view between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. Thanks to Analytical Graphics, Inc. for help generate the following plots.

     

     

    The next plot is of the 18 Galileo satellites. You can see there’s an average of 4-5 Galileo satellites in view between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.

     

     

    The next plot is of both the 12 GPS IIF satellites and the 18 Galileo satellites. You can see there’s an average of 8 GPS IIF and Galileo satellites in view between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.

     

     

    Finally, the last plot is of the 12 GPS IIF satellites, 18 Galileo satellites, and the 19 remaining legacy GPS satellites (broadcasting L1 and L2). You can see there’s an average of 12 GPS IIF, Galileo, and legacy GPS satellites in view between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.

     

    For a different perspective, here are 3D orbit plots of the 18 Galileo satellites and the 12 GPS IIF satellites.

    3D orbit plot of 18 Galileo satellites

     

    3D orbit plot of 12 GPS IIF satellites

    There are several more plots similar to these in my webinar for different locations around the world including London, Rio de Janeiro, New Dehli, Perth, and Bangkok. In the webinar presentation, I also provide more details about the benefits of L5. You can view a recording of the webinar by registering here. After registering, you’ll receive an e-mail with instructions on how to view the webinar.

    Thanks, and see you next time.

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

  • A Look at the Rugged Handheld Algiz 7

    The warfighters have spoken. My correspondence lately has been full of questions about tablet and handheld computers. My sources at AT&T and Verizon tell me that the number of iPads in Iraq and Afghanistan have doubled in the last year alone. The problem is that Apple iPads and iPhones, for all their ubiquity, are not rugged in any sense of the word. Enter Handheld US with the Algiz 7.

    Algiz-7-on-snowy-ground-W

    The warfighters have spoken. My correspondence lately has been full of questions about tablet and handheld computers. Out of every 10 letters or emails, seven contain comments or questions about tablet type or handheld computers.

    Ever since the Apple iPad came bursting onto the portable computer scene, everyone else has been trying to produce a competitor. Now that the iPad 2 has bowed, everyone is once again behind the eight ball and struggling to catch up.

    My sources at AT&T and Verizon tell me that the number of iPads in Iraq and Afghanistan have doubled in the last year alone. Skype calls are the most frequent way our warfighters stay in touch with their loved ones. Viewing those you care about on a high-definition 10-inch color screen beats a MARS call any day!

    The problem, of course, is that Apple iPads and iPhones for all their ubiquity are not rugged in any sense of the word. You can make them more rugged with the excellent line of Otterbox cases I have reviewed in the past, but the fact remains that the iPad and iPhone are still not built from the ground up to be a rugged computing device, no matter how badly we think we treat them in our day-to-day work and commuting environment.

    The Swedes at the Gates

    Enter Handheld US, an affiliate of Handheld Group AB, a Swedish firm located in Lidkoping, which is a thriving metropolis of about 30,000 hardy inhabitants. Not surprisingly Handheld Group AB and Handheld US specialize in rugged handheld computers, like the Algiz 7, that are designed and built from the ground up for the rugged outdoors, for first responders, and for the military war zone environment.

    ROE – Rules of Engagement

    As many of my regular readers know, I review rugged military-compatible handheld computers on a regular basis. As with all the rugged computers I review, I put them through a series of torture tests. The ones that fail you never hear about, because I have a policy of never writing a bad review. Why should I waste my time and yours? After all, we both want to know about products that work as advertised, right? I know I do and be assured, BLUF, bottom line up front, the Algiz 7 lives up to its reputation as a rugged handheld or tablet computer that from all reports functions well in rugged military theaters such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Warfighters

    Several of our warfighters are currently using the Algiz 7 as well as many of the other Handheld US derivatives, many of them from companies such as Trimble that are repackaged and resold by Handheld US. To date it has been my experience that as a first responder or warfighter you cannot go wrong with any of the rugged Handheld US computers I have had the pleasure to review.

    Torture Tests

    As far as my torture tests are concerned, they usually involve lots of water, snow banks, and freezing temperatures, with some mud and ice thrown in for good measure, along with a few drops from several feet onto hard frozen ground. When I looked up Handheld Group AB and found their location in Sweden, it immediately became clear that the Handheld Group AB folks can test their computers the way I do almost any day of the week for a large portion of the year, just by stepping out their front door. Even so, I assiduously ran the Algiz 7 through all the torture tests and it survived admirably. Plus unlike many of the nearly sea-level tests in Sweden, my tests are performed at about 7,000 feet above sea level or higher, more closely resembling the altitudes in parts of Afghanistan.

    Specifications

    The word Algiz can mean many things, but is usually translated as “elk,” and that is a rugged animal. I see them occasionally in my backyard and they certainly survive in some rugged environments in the Rocky Mountains, so the name is fitting. The Algiz 7 certainly sounds better than the Elk 7.

    The Algiz 7 is a rugged handheld Windows 7 computer with integrated GPS capability perfect for today’s warfighters in many respects.

    We have been batting the word “rugged” around for some time, and now might be a good time to define exactly what rugged means. I have told you about my unofficial tests that are based on some of the MilSpec (military specifications) standards and their readily available definitions. However, it is interesting to see how Handheld defines rugged. Handheld defines rugged in its literature as pertaining to environmental specifications, of which the three most common and useful are:

    • Temperature range,
    • MIL-STD-810F/G
    • IP

    Fortunately for users, these specifications are almost always prominently listed on the product data sheet, but what the heck do they really mean? How do they translate into real-world requirements, especially in battlefield conditions?

    The temperature specification defines the operational temperature range of the unit. Working with a unit above or below this specification may well cause the unit to fail when you need it most.

    I have defined MIL-STD-810F/G several times in the past, but for all the first-timers, it is a standard issued by the United States Army’s Developmental Test Command. The standard consists of a series of various environmental tests to prove that equipment qualified to the standard will survive in the field. The MIL-STDs (military standards) were originally designed specifically to test military equipment, but are now used to test a wide range of both military and civilian products, including mobile computers with GPS capabilities.

    Certainly the letters IP stand for many things in our high-tech world today, but here it stands for Ingress Protection, and an IP rating is used to specify the level of environmental protection of electrical equipment against solids and liquids. In other words, it tells us what amount of a certain size of solids or liquids can get inside the Algiz 7 enclosure and possibly damage the device. For those of you who must know, it is defined by international standard IEC 60529.

    The MIL-STD Testing Methods

    If you look it up, you will find that MIL-STD-810F/G comprises about 24 laboratory test methods that cover a wide range of environments, from the ability to perform at high altitude (method 500.4 and one I know well) to the ability to survive ballistic shock (method 522). No mobile computer has ever, to my knowledge, been tested to all 24 methods; many of the tests just do not apply to mobile computing, but generally speaking, the more methods tested (and passed), the more rugged the unit.

    The most rugged handheld GPS/computer devices (like the Handheld Nautiz X7, which I reviewed in GPS World in April 2010) have been tested on average to between 8 and 10 MIL-STD-810F methods. So when you are evaluating a data or specification sheet, pay close attention to the testing methods that apply to your specific situation. If you are a warfighter in Afghanistan and will be routinely working near or over 10,000 feet of elevation, make sure the unit has been tested to the MIL-STD method that covers that altitude.
    If you are going to be working in rapidly changing temperatures, make sure the unit has been tested for temperature extremes and temperature shock. Several of the units I have tested and you have not read about, in one of my columns at least, failed both the temperature and thermal shock tests.

    The IP Definitions: What Level Do You Need?

    IP ratings are routinely displayed as a two-digit number. The first digit reflects the level of protection against dust (think Afghanistan and Iraq). The second digit reflects the level of protection against liquids, most frequently water or snow (think the mountains of Afghanistan).

    Technically speaking, the dust specification has seven different levels, level 0 to level 6, and the water specification has nine different levels, level 0 to level 8. But practically speaking, rugged computers all must have at least a dust protection level of 5 and water protection level of at least 4 or they are simply not rugged in my book. Beware, because there are some computers that list themselves as being rugged that do not meet these minimum IP specifications. I, for one, would be wary of them in adverse environments. Be warned: At the operational ends of the scale, the IP levels can make a huge difference in a device’s ability to operate in severe environments and to a device’s overall longevity. For example, a dust level of 5 means that some dust may get into the device, whereas a level 6 device is completely sealed and dust proof.

    For example, an IP65-rated device, such as the Algiz 7, is totally dust proof and is capable of surviving rain showers and dust storms, but not total immersion in water. This device would be an excellent choice in either a very dusty or dirty environment or one where it may be possible to drop the unit in the occasional snow bank. Currently both AORs (areas of responsibility) for our warfighters come to mind. For more complete IP definitions see the Handheld-provided list below:

    Ingress Protection
    First digit = protection against dust:
    0: No protection
    1: Protection against solids up to 50 mm
    2: Protection against solids up to 12 mm
    3: Protection against solids up to 2.5 mm
    4: Protection against solids up to 1 mm
    5: Protection against dust; limited ingress
    6: Totally protected against dust

    Second digit = protection against water:
    0: No protection
    1: Protected against dripping water
    2: Protected against dripping water (tilted)
    3: Protected against water spray
    4: Protected against splashing water
    5: Protected against water jets
    6: Protected against a nozzle under pressure
    7: Protected against immersion (1 meter for 30 min)
    8: Protected against submersion (at depth, under pressure)

    Rugged Computers for Tough Environments

    If you are aware of your requirements, then knowing what the specifications of a particular device are and what they mean can provide invaluable information about how a unit will function in the field and over the long term. So, use the specifications to help you pick out the best unit for your situation. The bottom line for most warfighters is that a rugged computer, even though it may cost a little more up front, is guaranteed to be the most cost effective in the long run and will most probably be there when you need it, such as when your life depends on it. We know that is especially true of rugged computers with built-in GPS capabilities such as the Algiz 7.

    I hope, like me, you found the Handheld MIL-STD definitions and explanations helpful, but the question is how does the Algiz 7 really measure up? Handheld defines the Algiz 7 as super-rugged and ultra-mobile, but is that just hyperbole and marketing? Certainly the reports from warfighters that are currently using the Algiz 7 on the battlefield seem to defend the Handled description, but let’s check the specifications.

    The Algiz 7 sports a seven inch high definition (1024×600) resolution sunlight visible TFT LCD (thin film transistor liquid crystal display) touch color screen in a body that is 5.56″ (144 mm) x 9.5″ (242 mm) x 1.57″ (40 mm) and it weighs in at 2.42 lb (1.1 kg). But how does it measure up to those MIL-STD specifications we mentioned as being the definition of rugged?

    Operating: -9.4 °F to 140 °F (-23 °C to 60 °C), MIL-STD-810G
    Storage: -40 °F to 158 °F (-40 °C to 70 °C) MIL-STD-810G
    Drop: MIL-STD-810G 4ft Drop, Free to Concrete; 26 drops from 4 ft (1.22 m) MIL-STD-810G
    Vibration: MIL-STD-810G
    Sand & dust: IP65, MIL-STD-810G
    Water: IP65, MIL-STD-810G
    Humidity: MIL-STD-810G, 90% RH temp cycle 0 °C/70 °C
    Altitude: 15.000 ft (4572 m) at 73 °F (5 °C)

    As I said, I tend to be tough on equipment that I test, but even I did not drop it 26 times onto a concrete hard surface from a height of four feet. While I have been known to take a unit to the top of Pikes Peak, at a mere 14,100 feet, the temperatures rarely gets to 73 degrees Fahrenheit on top. In fact it is more like 7-10 degrees, and so I may have exceeded the MIL-STD specifications of the unit but with no noticeable affects.

    Visibility

    I can certainly vouch that the screen is viewable from almost all angles, and it is viewable in bright sun and reflected snow light. It is also viewable while wearing polarized sunglasses, which is a specification you may not see listed, but is critically important in snow country and one for which I always test. In many situations, polarized lenses do funny things to specially treated computer screens. I have seen computer screens that were just not visible or totally disappeared when viewed through polarized lenses. However, the Algiz 7 screen was easily visible, and if you are wearing heavy winter or work gloves, the attached stylus works well. Without gloves your finger is still generally the best stylus, but the screen on the Algiz 7 is capable of clearly portraying very tiny linkable objects, and at those times a stylus is more accurate than even our God-given digits.

    More Specifications

    The rest of the specifications for the Algiz 7 are as follows:

    Processor/memory: Intel Ultra Low Power Atom Z530 1.6 GHz processor (w/ US15W Chipset), 2 GB DDR2 RAM

    Data Storage/Disk: 64 GB SSD solid state hard drive

    Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

    Screen: 7″ widescreen 1024×600 resolution TFT LCD MaxView sunlight readable resistive touchscreen display

    Keyboard/Keypad:

    10 keys:

    • Power key

    • Menu key (Controls Brightness, Volume, Battery Status, WiFi& BT On/Off, and 3G On/Off)

    • 4+1 Navigation/directional keys (Left, Right, Up, Down, Center for Enter)

    • 3x user programmable hotkey buttons that control up to 6 functions

    • On-screen QWERTY soft keyboard

    Battery: Hot-swappable Dual Li-Polymer Battery Pack, 2600 mAh each, support minimum 6 hours operation

    Connections:

    2 x USB 2.0 port (one fully waterproof, even when the latch is open)
    1 x 9-pin serial RS-232 port (fully waterproof, even when the latch is open)
    1x LAN
    1 x DC power port
    Input: 120-240 VAC, 50-60 Hz, 12 VDC Output
    Docking Connector (Contact Pin Type)
    1 x 4 pin docking
    Audio Out
    1 x Microphone
    Audio Integrated (one speaker)
    Fully Gobi™ 2000 PCIe module-ready

    Communication:

    Wireless LAN 802.11 b/g/n
    PAN: Integrated Bluetooth v.2.0 + EDR Compliant
    Integrated GPS Mediatek, WAAS/EGNOS capable
    WWAN (Optional) Gobi 2000 ready, supporting the following RF bands:
    • HSDPA/UMTS 800/850/900/1900/2100 MHz
    • Quad-band EDGE/GPRS/GSM – 850/900/1800/1900 MHz
    • Dual-band EV-DO/CDMA – 800/1900 MHz

    Camera: 2 Megapixel Camera + LED light

    Using the Algiz 7

    I will have to admit that the first time I saw the Algiz 7, I did not think it looked like a very rugged computing device, when in fact it may be one of the most rugged devices I have ever tested. Do not let appearances fool you; this is one very rugged mobile computing device.

    Light, Camera, Action

    For the warfighter and the first responders, the 2-megapixel forward-facing color camera and the LED light work extremely well. The LED light is very bright and not something you want to have flash or activate if you are working in a clandestine or stealth environment. But when you need it, it is extremely bright and works well. In an emergency it also works well as a flashlight.

    Skype and Batteries

    I ran Skype on the device with no problems. I once did a single battery hot swap and in the process did not drop the Skype call. I must admit I was impressed. As for battery life, the claimed six hours is a legitimate claim. I saw some days with five-plus hours under intensive work, and some days with seven-plus hours under a lighter load, so the six-hour battery life is the real deal. The dual Lithium Polymer batteries are very light and easy to swap out. For extended operations you will want a couple of spare batteries, and since they are hot swappable you will not lose one byte of data. For those of you with lots of sensors and accessories or the need for an even longer battery life, there is an extended life battery that provides 10-12 hours of service.

    Ports

    The ports on the Algiz 7 are extensive and all worked well for me. If there is a minor , I would say it is the number of USB 2.0 ports, as there was a time when I had a printer, full-sized keyboard, and some optional sensors connected and was looking for more USB ports. I simply used a USB port multiplier and that worked well, but this is obviously not ideal, especially if your USB devices draw power from the USB port. For most users this may never be a problem, but when you are testing a unit you like to push it to the limit.

    Communications

    The communications options are also quite extensive. As I said, I used Skype because that is what I had readily available. However, you can use 3G data and communications plans from several carriers as well. And since Verizon and AT&T both have extensive data networks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are tons of Wi-Fi sites, communications should never be a problem with the Algiz 7. You can take good-quality photos with the onboard 2-megapixel camera and quickly transfer them using 3G or Wi-Fi communications. Note: As I write this, certification of the Algiz 7 with the Verizon 3G network is still in the works but should be completed any day now.

    GPS

    The Algiz 7 has an integrated MediaTek GPS chipset, which is the same chipset that Garmin uses in many of its products. The Algiz 7 GPS is WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) and EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) capable. Adding the WAAS/EGNOS capability does make a considerable difference where availability, accuracy, and integrity issues are concerned. To most WAAS-enabled GPS devices, the GEO WAAS (Geosynchronous Orbit) signal due to geometry can be the apparent geometric equivalent of three additional GPS satellites in MEO (Medium Earth Orbit). WAAS of course is only available in the geographical area in and around the United States and EGNOS is only available in the European theater.

    I ran numerous navigation applications, and all the programs I tested found and integrated with the MediaTek GPS chipset output without problems. I tried several different maps and coordinate systems on the Algiz 7 without any significant issues. Not all coordinate and grid systems come as standard fare on the Algiz 7 but they can be found, downloaded, and used without issue.

    All in all, I was very impressed with the Algiz 7 as a handheld GPS capable device. Our warfighters should have no problems downloading and utilizing military maps and grid systems on the device. Google maps worked extremely well.

    Versatility

    While testing the Algiz 7 in the field, I once washed my muddy fingerprints off the screen with a handful of snow and then wiped it with a towel. I never feared I would cause any damage or lose any data because the 10 buttons on the face of the device are all covered and yet are clearly marked and readable. It is difficult to push a button by mistake. It never happened in the several weeks I was testing the device, and that is a big plus for our warfighters, who must frequently put the unit aside and come back to it later, say after a small engagement with the enemy.

    So the bottom line is that I am impressed with the Algiz 7, as I am with all the Handheld US products I have tested. I hope more warfighters and military procurement offices give it a shot. They won’t be disappointed.

    Until next time, happy navigating.

  • Beyond Hyper-Local and Location Enhanced

    Be all you can be. Being location enabled or “hyper local” isn’t enough. Mobile applications are also trying to increase discoverability, push into Group-On couponing territory, and proactively deliver more relevant recommendations to users. Loopt announced limited-time and perishable inventory deals to users within proximity. Google has introduced an “open now” filter to local mobile search to find nearby businesses that are open. Not content to focused on their core check-in business (“I am the proud mayor of Barney’s Beanery”), foursquare is now recommending places near you, based on previous check-in activities, user profiles, and what your friends like. On the foursquare blog, Dennis Crowley suggests “You’ll be surprised by what you get when searching for really specific things, like ‘’80s music,’ ‘fireplaces,’ ‘pancakes,’ ‘bratwurst,’ and ‘romantic’.” Evenings with Crowley must be, well, surprising. Very.

    Mass geo shopping. It is large-scale and geo-specific and, most interestingly, it comes from a carrier. AT&T and Placecast together launched ShopAlerts. AT&T subscribers can opt in and receive offers, rewards, and coupons based on each individual’s geolocation. AT&T will create geofences (virtual geographic perimeters) around retailers, events, or geographic areas to optimize relevancy. This isn’t so different than what some of the location-enabled social network applications (Booyah!, foursquare, Loopt) are doing, but it is significant because of the scale and reach that a carrier brings.

    Making money? Ever since Google offered free mobile navigation and others app providers followed suit, content providers have struggled to find ways to monetize their applications. Many have looked to mobile advertising for revenue. But mobile advertising hasn’t developed quite as fast as many predicted, although it is still a growing and big market. Apple’s iAD mobile advertising efforts have been a disappointment. Industry insiders say iAD fill rates have fallen to less than 10 percent and Apple has halved its minimum advertising purchase to $500,000.

    In-app money tree. Transactions that occur within an application are making big money for application developers. For both free and premium apps, in-app transactions now equal 49 percent of iPhone developer income and 29 percent of iPad revenue, according to analytics firm Disitmo. This is useful for the person who may buy a navigation app and wants to upgrade to real-time traffic. Now users don’t need to be referred outside the application to a website to make the transaction. Apple and Google both recently announced in-app subscription platforms. Apple has created a firestorm by demanding 30 percent of in-app subscription fees. Google takes 10 percent.

    How much for the sword? It is jaw dropping. In-app purchases of virtual goods is overtaking advertising in top categories on the Apple platform. Flurry Analytics reports that in certain Apple app categories, “During 2010 revenue increasingly shifts from advertising to virtual goods sales until reaching a proportion of more than 80 percent from virtual goods.” You may be asking, ‘What is a virtual good?’ A gamer may want a virtual lightsaber, mansion, or respect points to enhance the game experience. My advice is to spend the wad on respect points.

    By a smidge, the winner is… Android took over RIM’s long-time run as king of smartphones. Devices that run Google’s Android operating system have taken the lead in the U.S., according to new data from The Nielsen Company. Now Android is the front runner in the U.S. smartphone market with 29 percent share, with Apple’s iOS and Rim’s BlackBerry both at 27 percent. Windows lags at 10 percent, but watch Android’s lead fatten. The much-anticipated Verizon iPhone hasn’t had the impact on Apple sales once imagined. Nielsen also reports that subscribers between the ages of 25 and 34 account for 27 percent of all U.S. smartphone users across all platforms.

    Threat to GPS. You may be following the very serious interference issue that threatens the GPS signal. LightSquared is developing high wireless bandwidth capabilities (4G-LTE) for wireless operators. LightSquared received an unnervingly fast-tracked FCC conditional waiver that permits it to broadcast a new terrestrial broadband service from 1,500-watt terrestrial transmitters. This will be in the portion of the L Band that is immediately adjacent to the band used by GPS. The FCC waiver was required as LightSquared’s FCC license only extended to dual-mode phones, but LightSquared wants to offer the option of terrestrial-only, hence the waiver. According to industry experts, the LightSquared terrestrial broadband signal is about 1 billion times the received power of the GPS signal on Earth. This may result in wide-scale GPS interference and jamming worldwide. As a result of ensuing uproar, a working group conducted by LightSquared and the U.S GPS Industry Council was formed to study the issue.

    Upward bound. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has had his hands full in the fight of network neutrality and the creation of a national broadband plan. Now there are rumors, not quiet ones either, that he may be nominated by President Obama to be the next Secretary of Commerce.

    Next stop, Orlando for CTIA.

  • I’m Buying A New RTK Receiver. What Should I get?

    In light of this weeks webinar, A Closer Look at L5: The Future of High-Precision GNSS, and spurred by an email from a reader about how to sift through all the GPS/GNSS receiver choices, following are my thoughts if you’re looking to purchase an RTK receiver today.

    First of all, an email from a reader succinctly sums up the challenge:

    I currently utilize static GPS / GLONASS receivers in my day to day operations and I am looking at buying a couple more receivers (an RTK setup). To be honest, I am totally confused as to what technology I should buy.
    Specifically, I don’t know whether or not it is worth buying receivers that have L2C and L5 capabilities. It seems that vendors are not very well educated on what these options can do for you, and how many satellites are up and running that provide these signals. It is my understanding that L2C is simply a civilian code that is carried on the L2 frequency, and that it provides an almanac and atmospheric correction information. I don’t even know if receiving L2C will help me as a surveyor, or if it is more designed for autonomous use in navigation. It sounds like L5 will be of great advantage once the constellation has enough SVs that broadcast it.  It also seems like Galileo will be extremely helpful for surveyors, but who knows when that will be available. Basically, I don’t want to spend thousands of extra dollars for “bells and whistles” that are not yet operational from a practical standpoint, and that won’t be in the near future.

     

    He’s right. There are a lot of moving parts these days in the world of GPS/GNSS. Not only are GPS/GNSS receivers steadily improving (better, smaller, faster, cheaper), but the GNSS themselves (GPS, GLONASS, SBAS) are changing too. Making a decision of which “bells and whistles” to pay for and which ones to pass up is not so easy.

    Let’s break it down and see if we can clear things up.

    It used to be that when looking to purchase a dual frequency GPS receiver, the choice was simple because RTK receivers came in one flavor, L1/L2.

    Do I want RTK (real-time centimeter positioning) or am I satisfied with post-processing the GPS data?

    Either way you went, it was an straight-forward decision.

    Today, that is not the case. If you choose RTK, there are many options available:

    -GPS L1 or GPS L1/L2?

    -add GLONASS?

    -add L2C?

    -add L5?

    -add Galileo?

    The pricing of these options can be substantial. The reader’s letter goes on…

     

    I have a vendor that is pushing an L2C capable receiver on me for more money than a standard dual frequency dual constellation receiver.  The other option is to spend about $13K more and get the L2C, L5, and Galileo ready receiver.

    If you look at what the manufacturer’s are offering for GPS/GNSS RTK receivers, it seems there are generally four choices:

    1. GPS L1

    2. GPS L1/L2

    3. GPS L1/L2 + GLONASS

    4. GPS L1/L2 + GLONASS + L2C + L5 + Galileo

     

    GPS L1

    longer initialization (issue when working around trees)

    short baseline length

    Really should have the same base/rover receiver (SBAS), not really suited for RTK Network usage.

     

    GPS L1/L2

    Legacy, proven technology.

    Upside…less expensive, entry level dual frequency RTK

    Downside…GPS “brownouts”, susecptible to semi-codeless sunset

     

    GPS L1/L2 + GLONASS

    Eliminates the GPS “brownout” problem.

    Increased cost, although some manufacturers include it.

    Doesn’t support future signals

    Suscpetible to semi-codeless sunset.

     

    GPS L1/L2 + GLONASS + L2C + L5 + Galileo

    Eliminates the GPS “brownout” problem.

    Ready for future signals

    downside…future singals aren’t available yet.

    Increased cost

     

  • With Record Crowd, Mobile World Congress Market Emphasis Shifts

    The recent Mobile World Congress in Barcelona had a record 60,000 attendees. Many industry companies were either exhibiting or attending to kick tires to see how the international location-based services market is faring. Industry observers are saying the focus of the trade show has gone from European-centric markets to a broader view, particularly as new technology and standards evolve and mature.

     

    The recent Mobile World Congress in Barcelona proved that the market for location-based services is on a worldwide stage — and not sequestered to certain regions. Clay Babcock, Rand McNally director of advanced navigation technology, says the Mountain World Congress traditionally focused on European markets.

    “The MWC, and the 3GSM show that preceded it, were primarily European affairs that highlighted the latest hardware in the GSM world. While the shining stars came from places like Espoo, Finland, and Stockholm Sweden, even the second-tier players were European, with Bosch, Siemens, Alcetel, Sendo, and Phillips all making phones for the growing market,” he said. “For the most part, the North American and Asian players sat on the sidelines. A possible exception was Motorola, who had two brief moments in the sun with their Startac and then Razr phones. Asian companies seemed content to make phones for the proprietary Japanese and Korean markets.”

    Several technology events have changed the market—and the key part of the shift has been the dominant role that software, ecosystems, and the well-used line of ‘user experience’ now plays a major part in the world of mobile telephony, Babcock said.

    “And with it, the center of the mobile world has moved to the west coast of the United States. The rise of the Apple iOS, Google Android–and now a lesser degree Microsoft WM7–has created new opportunities for many, but has also caught some big players off guard,” he said. “Nokia, for all its brilliance in making hardware, has been forced to drop its long-in-the-tooth Symbian OS in favor of WM7. This has angered many in the installed user base, but they miss the point. Nokia had to make a move, and a move to Android would have been a fatal step.”

    Babcock contends that with Microsoft, Nokia at least gets an OS partner that they can look upon as equals. “That was never going to happen with Google. The state of affairs is so dire at Nokia that for the second year in a row, they failed to display at the show,” he said.

    Missing at MWC is Apple, which Babcock says never comes anyway–and says that absence opened the door wide for Android. “The Android booth was a buzz of activity and excitement. Following a theme with other large booths at the show, a large section of the floor space was dedicated to partners’ applications and solutions,” he said. “The show is really all about software.”

    As GPS World reported, the Nielsen Company said that Android appears to be pulling ahead of RIM Blackberry and Apple iOS in the market share battle for smartphone operating systems. But an analysis by manufacturer shows Research in Motion and Apple to be the winners compared to other device makers since they are the only ones creating and selling smartphones with their respective operating systems.

    Location Just a Feature?

    As for location-based services, they are maturing, becoming ubiquitous in the hardware, Babcock said. “Companies are starting to understand that location is a feature, not a business. This will affect business models that were once designed as end-user plays,” he said. “Everybody still can get paid, but maybe not by entities you first thought would pay.”

    Babcock said that while the focus was on software at MWC, there was brilliant hardware on display. “The new Samsung Galaxy S II features a dual core 1-GigHz CPU and 4.3 inch super AMOLED display. Motorola, who like Sony-Ericsson is thriving after switching to Android, announced a new phone with an array of amazing accessories, one that turns the phone into a mini-laptop,” he said.

    Babcock said that, even on his cab ride to the airport to return home, there was a poster for a mobile taxi application that would locate customers and dispatch a car to their location — and let them know the estimated time of arrival. “Neat, maybe not earth-shattering, but the platforms it supported were Android, iOS and Research in Motion. The new world of phone operating systems, were found in the back of a Barcelona taxi,” he said.

    A number of such LBS industry companies as Navteq, ALK Technologies, deCarta and other entities had large presences or meeting rooms at MWC. Show organizers say the crowd topped out at 60,000, which was significantly higher than in 2010 or 2009. Like the Consumer Electronics Show in January, it appears that trade show attendance is up for the first time since 2008. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues for this month’s CTIA in Orlando.

    Foursquare Expands Language Capability

    In other MWC news, Dennis Crowley, CEO and co-founder of Foursquare, delivered a mini-keynote at the trade show about “Making Apps Smarter Through Location/Localization.” The company has made rapid expansion throughout the past year—and now has check-ins from nearly 200 countries.

    Foursquare recently announced that its service is available in French, Italian, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Users can update Foursquare on their Blackberry, iPhone, or Android, to switch to the default language of the device.

    In other LBS news:

    • TCS said that U.S. Cellular has extended its agreement to offer the company’s Your Navigator service on BREW phones. Your Navigator is an LBS application for GPS-enabled mobile phone, offering personal navigation and real-time, turn-by-turn visual and audio directions. TCS, which has worked with U.S. Cellular since 2007, signed a two-year software licensing agreement extension.

  • Granite Countertops and GIS

    By Art Kalinski, GISP

    In the early 1990s when ArcView 2 hit the street, I was at the ESRI Users’ Conference in Palm Springs. I was walking through the poster session area and saw a map that changed my thinking about GIS. In this sea of parcel maps, land use maps, and road network displays I saw a map that “tweaked” my head. It was a map of the human circulatory system that someone did using ArcView 2 – Network Analyst. Network Analyst doesn’t care if the network is an eight-lane-wide interstate or a two-millimenter blood vessel. A network is a network.

    That stuck with me and I’ve always enjoyed seeing people think out of the box with regard to spatial technology. This week I saw an example that reminded how far and how broad geospatial technology has come. I use the broad term “geospatial” since I see GIS and computer-aided design merging into the broad world of BIM and geospatial technology. (See my BIM, Son of CAD and GIS article, August 2008).

    I’ve been building a mountain cabin that is near completion, needing granite counter tops for the kitchen. Over the years my wife and I had granite tops installed in two other homes, so we were familiar with the process. Since granite is very heavy and difficult to modify on-site, careful measurements are needed. The finished stone, which is fabricated at the factory, has to fit perfectly. Previously, I saw the measurements made by craftsmen fabricating plywood templates, which were then taken back to the shop for actual stone cutting. It was a tedious two-man process as 4-inch strips of thin plywood were cut and glued to form a rigid template.

    But things have changed. This time one technician showed up carrying a tripod and small steel box with a computer in it. It was quickly apparent that this was a digitizing device that permitted the technician not only to measure the counter quickly and precisely, but the digital file was then used back at the shop to drive the computerized high-pressure water saw to cut the granite. This reduced what used to be hours of work to minutes.

    The digitizer, a Proliner manufactured by Prodim International, was fascinating in its elegant simplicity. Shown here measuring a reception desk, the Proliner principle was a simple process of measuring with a wire. It has a measuring head that rotates in three dimensions with a wire that can be stretched out for several yards. At the end of the wire is a metal measuring stylus. With this measuring stylus a user simply marks the relevant points. The device senses the angle of the wire and length of extension. Simple internal geometric calculations convert these points into a digital CAD file. With the Proliner, a user can measure straight, curved, or complex 3D shapes quickly and with an accuracy of 0.5 millimeter.

    I saw examples on the company website of the device being used to measure complex manufacturing projects such convex auto glass, spiral staircase railings, even canvas boat canopies that went straight from measurement to xy plotter/cutters that cut the fabric for a perfect fit. Users can measure any object in horizontal, vertical, or slanting position.The digital drawing can then be fed directly into any CNC-machine or plotter, and the production runs in minutes. In the GIS community, we are doing a similar type of automated measurement using GPS/laser technology to collect field data. At the 2010 ESRI User Conference is saw a demonstration of the TruPulse 360 laser rangefinder with a built-in compass and GPS manufactured by Laser Technology, Inc.

    A user can measure the slope distance, inclination, and azimuth to anything, and position any remote feature with just one shot. This unique laser can be pitched or rolled in any direction, and it will still measure the correct azimuth within one degree. Here is just a partial list of measuring applications in use for this technology:

    • GIS map feature capture
    • Complex infrastructure inside facilities (ladders, agitator blades, etc.)
    • Outdoor river/stream monitoring
    • Waste water treatment
    • Stockpile height
    • Molten metal level
    • Positioning and detection
    • Overhead crane
    • Crane avoidance
    • Distance between vehicles (mounted in vehicle)
    • Steel slab detection and positioning
    • Pipe/tree length cutting system
    • Camera focusing
    • Surveillance detection and camera focusing
    • Vehicle profiling
    • Fixed point traffic monitor (speed, profiling, length, DBC)
    • Truck loading system
    • Parking garage system (open spots, illegal parking)
    • Bridge height clearance
    • Ship docking
    • Targeting systems
    • In-flight refueling

    How does the less sophisticated Proliner get the interest of a GIS professional? Both devices use angle and distance to measure and define points, one with a laser and one with a wire. But what got my attention is “heads down digitizing.” I’ll bet that a lot of you don’t know that the term “heads up digitizing” came from the unused term “heads down digitizing.”

    When I started working in GIS everyone was taking their paper maps and getting them into a GIS by digitizing the maps using a digitizing table. This was a table that had a wire grid array imbedded in the table. A user traced the paper map features with a mouse-looking device called a puck. The puck sensed its position based on the underlying grid and sent the digital translation to the GIS computer.

    Many of you have never used a digitizing table because by the mid ’90s digital ortho-photography became practical and dominant. Map creation quickly transitioned to digitizing features on an image displayed on a computer screen in a “heads up” position rather than slouched over a table “heads down.” In fact the transition has been so complete that very few GIS operations now have the heavy and bulky digitizing tables in their inventory.

    With the kind of accuracy I saw with the Proliner I thought that it might be a way to digitize old paper maps. I called the Proliner USA rep in Florida who indicated that this had been done by several users. So I confirmed that the small tripod-mounted box can be used to trace and digitize paper maps. What would you do if by chance you needed to get an old historic paper map into your GIS? One option could be to call a local granite shop and ask to borrow their Proliner.

  • LightSquared Saga, and Recent Solar Activity

    This week I’m following up on my article from a couple of weeks ago about the potential effects of LightSquared’s plans. As a user of high-precision GPS receivers (particularly GPS L1 sub-meter, but also dual-frequency), you should be particularly concerned about this issue. I’ll tell you why. Also, I have a note on recent the solar activity.

    LightSquared

    The reasons you should be concerned about LightSquared’s plans are two-fold:

    1. Consumer GPS receivers and professional-grade GPS receivers designed for higher performance (mapping, surveying, etc.) aren’t necessarily designed the same way. High-performance GPS receivers use a wider bandwidth radio design.

    For example, the GPS L1 frequency is 1575.42 MHz. Many high-performance GPS receivers use a wide bandwidth radio that scans +/- 20 MHz from 1575.42 MHz. That equates to a range of 1555 MHz to 1595 MHz. LightSquared’s frequency spectrum is 1525 MHz to 1559 MHz. Clearly, there’s overlap, which is another word for interference. On top of that, LightSquared plans on a broadcast strength of 1,500 watts from a tower located down the street. The GPS broadcast signal strength is about 30 watts from a satellite located some 19,000 kilometers away in outer space. Who’s going to win that battle?

    I’m not an aerospace engineer or an RF (radiofrequency) engineer, but I don’t think it takes one to see the potential impact of LightSquared’s service on high-performance GPS receivers. At the very least, it warrants an in-depth technical study.

     

    2. Neither the policymakers nor LightSquared know about or understand the user community of high-performance GPS receivers comprised of hundreds of thousands of high-end GPS receivers. They think the GPS user community is comprised of auto navigation and mobile-phone users. They don’t understand that we are the infrastructure people. We use GPS in a way that they don’t understand, but is so critical to our infrastructure. It’s not their fault, but you can’t assume they know, so it’s up to us to inform them. You have to speak up.

    Here’s a perfect example. Click on the following link to view a report presented by LightSquared last week in Taipei, Taiwan, at a 3GPP conference.

    “Final Report on Overload Characteristics of GPS Receivers in Proximity to LightSquared’s L-band Terrestrial Base Stations (BTS) and User Equipment (UE)”

    The best part about this report is the following statement from the Executive Summary:

    “Although results have been provided to date of a limited number of devices (6), LightSquared proposes to close the study at this stage as a more comprehensive study, covering a wider variety of GPS receivers than those involved in cellular applications, has now been initiated under the auspices of the FCC [2].  This study will be conducted by a cross-industry group led by LightSquared and USGPSIC, the reports of the study having complete public visibility.”

     

    Granted, I understand the Taipei conference was focused on the impact of LightSquared’s plan on mobile phones using GPS, but if this is the extent of their testing, it’s alarming. Furthermore, it’s relatively easy to acquire and operate an inexpensive consumer GPS receiver. Can you picture LightSquared attempting to test a sub-meter GPS L1 receiver or a RTK setup? GPS, GLONASS, SBAS, DGPS, real-time, post-processing, and the myriad of receivers on the market need to be tested. Although it’s likely not possible to test all equipment on the market, it’s not prudent to leave anything to chance. If, one year from now, you wake up and find out your $10,000 RTK receiver doesn’t work like it used to, it will be too late to do much about it. It takes very little time to voice your concern now to your elected officials so the appropriate attention is given to high-precision users.

    The good news is that Trimble Navigation is involved, along with the Federal Aviation Administration, with the U.S. GPS Industry Council and will be working closely with LightSquared in a Technical Working Group to better understand the impact that LightSquared’s system would have on GPS. Trimble and the FAA aren’t the only parties involved in the working group, but they are the parties that understand the needs of the high-precision user.

    The Technical Working Group’s first report is due March 15, 2011. Time is short, so don’t delay.

    Use these guidelines to take action. It is a call to action from Dr. Joe Paiva, veteran of surveying since the 1980s with whom many of you are familiar.

     

    Solar Activity

    As you’ve probably heard, we’re entering the next solar cycle, which is due to peak in May 2013.
    I want to periodically touch on this subject as the solar activity is going to increase over the next few years, and if the solar activity (geomagnetic storms, not sunspots) is severe enough, it will have an effect on GPS accuracy and tracking. Regardless of what you’ve heard in the mainstream media in recent months, the last event serious enough to affect GPS operations was in December 2006. That’s not to say that things aren’t heating up.
    But the recent activity does highlight the fact that “the Sun has become, somewhat suddenly, more eruptive,” according to Joe Kunches, of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “We’ve been fortunate so far, in that the terrestrial effects — and impacts to GPS — have been very minimal. The most obvious sign of this has been the brilliant auroras up north.”
    “The video shows a large prominence eruption — billions of tons of plasma being strewn off the Sun. Some of it is drawn by gravity and rains back to the surface — the rest of it escapes. It’s the blown-away plasma that forms the coronal mass ejections that, when properly pointed, go by the Earth and cause problems for GPS,” said Kunches.
    Click on the following image to view a 15-second video of a solar flare that occured on February 24, 2011.
    Credit: NASA/GSFC/SDO

    From NASA:

    When a rather large-sized (M 3.6 class) flare occurred near the edge of the Sun, it blew out a gorgeous, waving mass of erupting plasma that swirled and twisted over a 90-minute period (Feb. 24, 2011). This event was captured in extreme ultraviolet light by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft . Some of the material blew out into space and other portions fell back to the surface. Because SDO images are super-HD, we can zoom in on the action and still see exquisite details. And using a cadence of a frame taken every 24 seconds, the sense of motion is, by all appearances, seamless. Sit back and enjoy the jaw-droppi
    ng solar show.

     

    March 17, 2011 Webinar: A Closer Look at L5: The Future of High-Precision GNSS

    Last year, the first GPS IIF satellite was launched. It became the first GPS satellite to broadcast the new L5 civilian signal/frequency. At 1176 MHz, it is further separated from L1 and L2 and located in the protected Aeronautical Radionavigation Services band, so there is no possibility of commercial interference like we see today with the LightSquared controversy. The availability of GPS L5 will usher in a new era of inexpensive, accurate GNSS receivers and will be the future of high-precision GNSS receivers, and quite possibly single-frequency receivers. I will also discuss the international support of L5 from other GNSS in development such as Galileo, Compass, QZSS, as well as SBAS (WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS).

    I’ll be presenting some interesting new material in the webinar such as graphics illustrating how many satellites (GPS and others) are projected to be broadcasting L1 and L5 just four years from now. It will be well worth 60 minutes of your time.

     

    Thanks, and see you next time.

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

     

  • Out in Front: Act Now to Protect GPS Signal

    This guest editorial addresses a subject of paramount importance to the GNSS industry, to the U.S. national infrastructure, and to the global GNSS community. I urge you to take immediate action by contacting U.S. government representatives, indicated at the end of this article.

    — Alan Cameron, editor-in-chief

     

    Guest Editorial by Joe Paiva

    GPS has become a key component of the U.S. national infrastructure, the driver of a significant part of the civilian economies of the world, and the enabler of millions of professional precision uses and consumer benefits.The viability of the GPS signal is now threatened — ironically by what appears to be a misguided attempt to increase accessibility to broadband by creating a needless zero-sum result for customers who want both services.

    The threat is real and immediate. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a conditional waiver to LightSquared, a company engaged in developing 4G-LTE (long-term evolution) cellular networks for wholesale-only basis commerce with its business partners.

    LightSquared Scheme. LightSquared acquired a company providing a combined space-based and ancillary land-based service using the L-band radiofrequency. The FCC conditional waiver, granted to LightSquared on January 26 of this year, allows it to broadcast a new terrestrial broadband service from 1,500-watt terrestrial transmitters — 40,000 of which will eventually be installed by LightSquared — in the portion of L Band (1525 MHz–1559 MHz) immediately adjacent to the 1559–1610 MHz band used by GPS.

    Instead of offering dual-mode handsets exclusively as required by their FCC license, retailers purchasing this combined service can choose to offer terrestrial mobile phones only, which was the change in license terms that LightSquared was seeking via waiver. This change amounts to a de facto reallocation of Lightsquared’s spectrum use from space to terrestrial wireless. In fact, the new broadband service is planned to operate in urban areas, and the space service will operate outside these areas.

    The LightSquared terrestrial broadband signal is about 1 billion times the received power of the GPS signal on Earth. Members of the GPS industry have been conducting experiments and analyses, and these figures come from those very early studies. Soon, we may experience GPS interference — jamming — on an almost unimaginable scale and to a geographical extent that could create widespread havoc.

    Threats. The GPS system works so well that we often forget the complexity behind it and take for granted the service we use daily. One reason GPS works so well and is seldom defeated is that the signals broadcast by the satellites can be received under a wide variety of conditions on Earth. Historically, the FCC and the International Telecommunications Union, understanding potential interference issues, intentionally planned uses of adjacent swaths of the L-band so that satellite-based transmissions, relatively low-power, would be natural neighbors, so as to cause as little disturbance as possible to radio-navigation uses. This dedicated purposing of the bands and the resulting environment of negligible interference is one reason that GPS has become reliable and its use ubiquitous.

    Long-time observers of the GPS scene will remember how civilians, and especially potential international users, initially had uncertainty about the U.S. Department of Defense’s statements that the service would be free and not subject to any restrictions in one’s ability to receive and use the broadcast signals. This uncertainty was due primarily to the implementation of Selective Availability (SA), which intentionally degraded the available accuracy of the GPS signal. SA was permanently removed in 2000 by President Clinton’s 1996 Presidential Decision Directive.

    Many factors have enabled users and potential users to see GPS as a reliable, consistent technology that provides significant increases in productivity, efficiency, precision, continuing innovation, and many other benefits. These factors include the reliability of the overall GPS technology, improvements in receivers and in successive next-generation satellites, advances in differential and relative positioning, dynamic applications, and real-time kinematic solutions. And, just as importantly: stable, predictable U.S. policy.

    Investments. Now, by virtue of this unusual FCC action, uncertainty has been thrown into the viability of the hundreds of millions of GPS receivers in use today. Much research and development work is being done on improving receiver performance and taking advantage of improvements planned for the satellites. The most dollars go towards devising new applications, products, and services that improve the quality life of millions of Americans, create new companies, markets, and jobs. These dollars are also being spent by government agencies, not just the Department of Defense, but very visibly by Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Energy, Homeland Security and Transportation. More than likely, the remaining departments either have active programs that are using or considering using GPS or are positively affected by others’ use of GPS.

    That’s just the executive branch. Other parts of the federal government, as well as state and local governments, do research on GPS technology and applications and actively use GPS to improve the lives of citizens, increasing work and recreation, efficiency, and safety. In many local government settings, there is active cooperation to improve delivery of services by having governmental and non-governmental organizations collaborate around the simple fact of accurate position being available through GPS, with significant cost savings in current lean budgets.

    It is inexplicable that another part of the government would be so cavalier in rapidly and uncharacteristically granting a waiver that clearly endangers the whole system. And only after granting the waiver, which must act at least as a yellow light for LightSquared’s mobilization plans, comes the requirement for a study — to be headed by LightSquared — to determine impacts and mitigation of interference with the GPS signals.

    Why Fast Track? The FCC grant of a reallocation of spectrum use from space to terrestrial on a fast-track waiver did not follow the standard FCC rule-making process for reallocation of spectrum use. The standard regulatory approach allows sufficient time for robust public comment by all potentially affected parties, including the conduct of interference studies and the introduction of comments on interference results in the public record. Instead, the FCC order granting the waiver to LightSquared has mandated what appears to be fast-track GPS interference research.

    Currently, the proposed LightSquared terrestrial broadband service does not have an installed user base. In contrast, the installed GPS user base represents a broad and diverse range of use representing hundreds of millions of users established over 30 years.

    The final Working Group report is due to the FCC on June 15, 2011. The FCC order requires the GPS community to participate “in good faith” in this study effort. In response, the U.S. GPS Industry Council and others are working on this interference study to protect GPS operations under these extraordinary regulatory conditions.

    A further problem created by the FCC conditional waiver is that LightSquared is able to move ahead with its infrastructure development, assuming that viable solutions to the jamming issue will be found. For many GPS users, theoretical fixes are not likely to prove viable.

    Negative Impacts. Preliminary research done by member companies of the USGIC already has been reported in GPS World. The research indicates that LightSquared’s 1,500-watt terrest
    rial transmitters will result in a signal 90 dB stronger than GPS over the coverage area; this amounts to signal strength 1 billion times stronger than GPS. There is more to the research, all done with GPS simulators and signal generators (see env-gpsworld-integration.kinsta.cloud/data for test results).

    Clearly the jamming level will vary with geography. We don’t yet know LightSquared’s broadcast-tower siting plan. But it is clear that if LightSquared is allowed to broadcast terrestrially on the mobile satellite system (MSS) band, dedicated until now to signals compatible with satellite transmissions, there is a substantial danger that millions of GPS receivers will be adversely affected.

    Some obvious impacts are loss of operational viability of businesses involved in aviation, surveying, agriculture, engineering and construction, vehicle navigation, mariners, transportation, public safety and homeland security, disaster management, utilities, mapping, and scientific research. Several of these involve safety-of-life issues, which are at risk of being jammed.

    Keep in mind that GPS was envisioned as a system for space and time. Its longest life as a useful contributor to society has been as a time standard. Countless networks, whether for computing, broadcasting, power generation — even, ironically, cell phones — are synchronized using the most precise signal practically available. Fixed GPS receiving stations for time reference may be able to be designed to withstand some interference from high-power broadcasting on adjacent frequencies, but nobody has tried so far.

    Any hypothetical fixes for GPS beg a more fundamental question: Why should Lightsquared, a new entrant with no existing business, be allowed to shift the burden of mitigating interference created by its operations to millions of consumers, government agencies, and businesses who have invested in GPS over the last 30 years?

    Keep in mind that other users of the MSS band will also be affected. Many commercial and governmental uses of the very band that LightSquared will occupy with its terrestrial transmitters may also be jeopardized.

    We must also remember that the FCC has its own agenda, to implement its National Broadband Plan. What is truly difficult to comprehend is that broadband and GPS will serve the same mobile user.

    Action Needed. Please act now.

    • Write to your representatives in Congress, and to your professional and trade associations.
    • If you are an expert on radio or spectrum or GPS or whatever else is pertinent, make your comments, do your research if possible, and publish your results with all due speed.
    • Petition the FCC to turn the yellow light to red, while other paths to achieving LightSquared’s and the FCC’s goals are investigated.
    • Do not forget the Administration: the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) represents the president and the Administration as official co-regulator with the FCC of the spectrum where GPS operates. In the recent FCC Order, NTIA must review the report on results of the FCC-mandated interference study.
    • Specifically, ask Congress to demand that the FCC include specific language to protect GPS use in the final FCC Order to LightSquared after the interference study is completed.
    • Ask the Secretary of Commerce and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to inform the NTIA Administrator to urge the FCC chairman to take this same action to protect GPS in the final FCC Order.
    • Contact the FCC chairman directly and urge this same action.
    • Finally, help develop user and beneficiary awareness of the grave danger being posed to GPS and make your elected and congressional representatives aware of the impact that interference with GPS would have on your work.

    The large-scale disruption of the GPS service mustn’t be on our hands due to inaction.

    Points of Contact

    Send messages to FCC chairman, commissioners, and NTIA:

    • Edward.Lazarus at fcc.gov (Chairman Genachowski’s office
    • John.Giusti at fcc.gov (Comm. Copps’ office)
    • Angela.Giancarlo at fcc.gov (Comm. McDowell’s office)
    • Louis.Peraertz at fcc.gov (Comm. Clyburn’s office)
    • Charles.Mathias at fcc.gov (Comm. Baker’s office)
    • lstrickling at ntia.doc.gov (asst. secretary for communications and information, NTIA)

    International readers may contact the U.S. State Department, clorere at state.gov. For further contacts, see env-gpsworld-integration.kinsta.cloud/actnow.

    Joseph Paiva is a consultant to the geomatics industry, with background in private engineering, surveying and mapping consulting, and as developer and general manager for two geomatics products corporations.

     

    High-Precision Users

    High-performance L1 receivers (sub-meter) have a wide-bandwidth RF front-end to improve performance, about 20 MHz, compared to a consumer receiver that typically has a front-end bandwidth of 2 MHz. GPS World contributing editor for survey and GIS Eric Gakstatter discusses this aspect of the issue in his recent e-mail newsletter column at env-gpsworld-integration.kinsta.cloud/l2high.

  • Expert Advice: Positioning Protocol for Next-Gen Cell Phones

    Expert Advice: Positioning Protocol for Next-Gen Cell Phones

    Lauri_Wirola
    Lauri Wirola, Nokia Services Location

    by Lauri Wirola, Nokia Services Location

    As cell phones move into the next generation called Long-Term Evolution (LTE), also sometimes called 4G, and the methods of wireless transmission change, so too must the methods of providing location information over those new wireless interfaces. LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) and Secure User Plane Location (SUPL) 2.0 and 3.0 are the key players in this new picture.

    Cellular industry location standards first appeared in the late 1990s, with the 3rd Generation Partnership (3GPP) Radio Resource Location Services Protocol (RRLP) Technical Specification (TS) 44.031 positioning protocol for GSM networks. Today RRLP is the de facto standardized protocol to carry, for instance, GNSS assistance data to GNSS-enabled mobile devices.

    A major update of RRLP began in 2007, when RRLP Release 7 added support for assisted-Galileo, and Release 8 for the rest of the GNSS including GLONASS, modernized GPS, QZSS, and the various SBASs.

    RRLP Releases 7/8 set high expectations in terms of performance improvements. The initial idea was to go beyond the native capabilities of GNSSs to achieve tangible accuracy, time-to-first-fix (TTFF), and availability improvements. Contributors proposed introducing local ionosphere and troposphere models as well as carrier-phase-based relative positioning — in cell phones!

    However, legacy implementations, architecture limitations, and the lack of a business case hindered this development. In the end, RRLP support was limited more or less to the native assistance data types such as global Klobuchar and NeQuick models for the ionosphere. The same approach was also mapped to 3GPP TS 25.331 Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol, which defines the positioning procedures and assistance data delivery for Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA) — that is, wideband code-division multiple-access (WCDMA) and time-division synchronous CDMA networks.

    Long-Term Evolution Networks

    A fresh push for location services in 3GPP started in 2009 for LTE Release 9 technologies. LTE is sometimes called 4G, but to be precise only a further evolution of LTE, called LTE Advanced (LTE-A), will be 4G, together with WiMAX evolution 802.16m.

    The starting point for LTE location services work was to enable similar positioning capabilities in the LTE networks as are present in GSM, UTRA, and CDMA networks. This meant that there was a need to define assisted-GNSS positioning as well as introduce positioning methods, such as enhanced cell ID (ECID) and hyperbolic time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) methods for non-GNSS devices, hybrid use, and for GNSS-denied environments. The underlying driver of all this work was the U.S. Federal Communications Commision (FCC) Wireless E911 mandate.

    LTE Location Architecture

    LTE location architecture is shown in Figure 1. The evolved serving mobile location center (E-SMLC) is the server component in charge of positioning activities. The mobility management entity (MME) gives the positioning request to E-SMLC, which then controls the user equipment (UE, the LTE device to be positioned) and, possibly, LTE base stations (eNodeBs), to perform positioning.

    Figure1-W
    Figure 1. Long-Term Evolution (LTE) location architecture.

    LTE Positioning Protocol. The actual positioning and assistance protocol between E-SMLC and UE is called LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP). In overview, LPP consists of three independent elementary procedures: capability exchange, assistance data exchange, and location information exchange, which refers to both measurement and position. The associated messaging is shown in Figure 2. In addition to the six message types shown, there are LPP Error and LPP Abort messages to handle abnormal situations.

    Figure 2. LPP elementary procedures and messages. In LPP terminology, “target” is the end user device to be positioned.
    Figure 2. LPP elementary procedures and messages. In LPP terminology, “target” is the end user device to be positioned.

    Figure 3 shows a sample positioning session using all the procedures. Assume that the server has received a location request for a given target (UE) and that the server can exchange messages with the UE — that is, lower protocol layers can provide the transport for the LPP-level messages. The first transaction of the location session is the capability exchange (LPP Request/Provide Capabilities). This information exchange makes the server aware of the UE positioning capabilities (GNSS support, supported cellular network measurements). Based on this information, the server can make a decision on the positioning method to be used, based on both UE capabilities and the requested quality-of-position (response time, accuracy).

    Figure 3. Example of a typical LPP positioning session.
    Figure 3. Example of a typical LPP positioning session.

    The actual location information request is carried in LPP Request Location Information message: whether position or measurements are requested and/or allowed and, for instance, which GNSSs are allowed to be used. It also carries other reporting instructions such as periodicity and required response time.

    Having received this message, the target begins its positioning activities. In a typical scenario, this activity triggers a request for the assistance data. For instance, if the server requests the GNSS-based position, and the target does not have the latest ephemerides, the target will request those with the LPP Request/Provide Assistance Data mechanism (transaction 3). Having received the ephemerides, the target can position itself quickly, without needing the data broadcasts from the satellites, and report the location information back to the server in LPP Provide Location Information message. Other supporting information, such as reference location, reference time and ionosphere model, may also be provided to the target.

    Figures 4 and 6 summarize the contents of LPP Provide Location Information and LPP Provide Assistance Data messages, respectively, in the gray boxes. The LPP Provide Location Information contents can be roughly divided into four categories: one category for each positioning method (assisted GNSS, observed TDOA, and ECID) and one category for providing the location estimate. In the A-GNSS category, the UE, based on the server commands, either reports the raw code and carrier-phase measurements (UE-assisted mode) or information regarding the provided PVT estimate (OTDOA and ECID function only in UE-assisted mode in LPP).

    Figure 4. LPP/LPPe Provide Location Information content. 3GPP LPP shown in gray; OMA LPP Extensions shown in green. (Click too enlarge.)
    Figure 4. LPP/LPPe Provide Location Information content. 3GPP LPP shown in gray; OMA LPP Extensions shown in green. (Click too enlarge.)

    The LPP Provide Assistance Data reflects the same structure and categorization. Similarly, to Provide Location Information message, one can see in the assistance data message GNSS-specific assistance as well as OTDOA-specific assistance. However, there is no ECID-specific assistance due to it being available only in UE-assisted fashion. For OTDOA there is assistance, but only to assist the UE in the measurement process, not for positioning purposes — for instance, eNodeB positions cannot be transferred in the assistance data.

    User Plane and Applications. RRLP, RRC, and LPP are natively control-plane positioning protocols. This means that they are transported in the inner workings of cellular networks and are practically invisible to end users. In the control pla
    ne, their main purpose is to reliably provide the emergency-call positioning capability. However, there is obviously demand for positioning services for location-based end-user applications. To address this, in 2003 the Open Mobile Alliance started to work with Secure User Plane Location (SUPL) 1.0 protocol that brings the same location capabilities to user plane (application domain) over IP-networks as RRLP/RRC/LPP bring to control plane. One design principle of SUPL was not to re-invent the wheel; thus RRLP/RRC/LPP are being re-used in the user plane domain for positioning. OMA SUPL specifies a bearer protocol that carries a 3GPP-defined positioning protocol and provides security, authentication, privacy, and charging mechanisms. SUPL 1.0 is already commercially deployed, and SUPL 2.0 is now being deployed globally.

    Figure 5 shows the OMA SUPL 2.0 protocol stack, which illustrates the re-use of 3GPP positioning protocols over IP networks. The security is provided by the standard transport layer security (TLS), and the user plane location protocol (ULP) is the wrapper for the 3GPP positioning protocols. The vast majority of SUPL 2.0 deployments will use RRLP as the positioning protocol. SUPL 3.0, currently being defined, will no longer support RRLP/RRC; LPP will gradually replace RRLP as the dominant standardized positioning protocol.

    Figure 5. OMA SUPL 2.0 and 3.0 protocol stacks. TIA-801 is the 3GPP2-defined positioning protocol for the CDMA networks. Note that ULP 1.0 (not shown) supports RRLP, RRC, and TIA-801.
    Figure 5. OMA SUPL 2.0 and 3.0 protocol stacks. TIA-801 is the 3GPP2-defined positioning protocol for the CDMA networks. Note that ULP 1.0 (not shown) supports RRLP, RRC, and TIA-801.
    Figure 6. Assistance data content of LPP and LPP Extension. 3GPP LPP shown in gray; OMA LPP Extensions shown in green. (Click too enlarge.)
    Figure 6. Assistance data content of LPP and LPP Extension. 3GPP LPP shown in gray; OMA LPP Extensions shown in green. (Click too enlarge.)

    LPP Extensions

    From the beginning, it was clear that the contents of the LPP would largely reflect that of the RRLP and would be limited to the native capabilities in the GNSS domain, and in other positioning methods to the methods strictly needed to fulfill the emergency-call positioning requirements. For example, in the GNSS domain the ionosphere models are limited to the (global) broadcast models as obtained from GPS, QZSS, and Galileo; there is no support for local ionosphere models. Other potential performance improvements including troposphere models and pressure-based altitude assistance are not in the scope of the 3GPP LPP work. Furthermore, a plethora of other positioning methods ranging from GSM- and WCDMA-based positioning (ECID, hyperbolic TDOA methods) to utilizing WLAN and short-range nodes such as Bluetooth are beyond the scope of current LPP development.

    During the LPP Release 9 work, the industry was at a crossroads. On one hand, it was known that the 3GPP-defined LPP would become the de facto standardized protocol to do basic positioning not only in the LTE control plane, but also in IP networks over SUPL 2.0 and 3.0. On the other hand, it was also known that it would lack some key features including WLAN-based positioning, which would essentially force vendors to introduce proprietary protocols to augment LPP. Further, a serious drawback for use of LPP in the IP-network domain is that it does not support GSM- and UTRA-specific positioning methods (ECID, OTDOA). Thus, LPP could not completely replace legacy positioning protocols, including RRLP.

    These considerations led to discussion of introducing extension hooks in LPP messages, so that the bodies external to 3GPP could extend the LPP feature set. In 2009, Qualcomm contributed extension containers to the LPP messages, and the way was open to start work on OMA LPP Extensions Release 1.0 in 2010.

    The mandate of the OMA LPP Extensions (LPPe) is to build on top of the 3GPP LPP, re-using its procedures and data types as far as possible. This means that the message types are fixed; new messages cannot be defined, only extensions to existing ones can be formulated. Whenever possible, OMA should re-use information elements from 3GPP LPP to avoid duplicate definitions, compatibility, and maintenance issues. LPPe is supported in SUPL 3.0, which will be the primary transport protocol of LPPe.

    Procedure Extensions. OMA LPP Extensions Release 1.0 not only defines new positioning methods and assistance data types, but also defines new procedures for improved performance. These include the following:

    ◾ Capability exchange and location-information exchange reversed mode, illustrated in Figure 7, with the LPPe Request/Provide Capabilities/Location Information messages flowing in the opposite directions as compared to Figure 2. This reversed mode is only allowed in the context of LPPe. In the context of assistance data support, capabilities in the reversed case refer to the assistance data that the server can provide, as opposed to the assistance data the target can utilize in normal mode-capability exchange.

    Figure 7. LPPe reversed mode for capability and location information exchange.
    Figure 7. LPPe reversed mode for capability and location information exchange.

    The interpretation of reversed mode for location information exchange is somewhat more delicate. When the UE sends LPPe Request Location Information to the server, the UE does not request the server position, but the UE position. In the request the UE may define the quality-of-position, which then guides the positioning method selection by the server.

    • Periodic assistance data is a completely new feature to the assistance-data protocols. Periodic assistance can be used with selected assistance-data types that require updates at short intervals. Such data types include short-term real-time ionosphere correction from GNSS networks and carrier phase — assistance for high-accuracy relative positioning. The periodic assistance procedure also includes the possibility for the target and server to update the periodic session-control parameters (duration, rate of delivery) intra-session. This control is carried in the common part of the LPPe Request/Provide Assistance Data message (Figure 6).
    • Periodic location information reporting is included in 3GPP LPP, but the similar capability in the OMA LPPe is specifically designed for continuous measurements including continuous carrier-phase measurements for high-accuracy purposes. The 3GPP LPP does specify periodic measurements, but in such a way that, say, the GNSS measurement engine can be powered off between measurement deliveries, which is obviously unacceptable in the view of carrier-phase-based relative high-accuracy GNSS. The periodic location information procedure also includes the possibility for the target and server to update the periodic session-control parameters (duration, rate of delivery) intra-session. This control is carried in the common part of the LPPe Request/Provide Location Information message as shown in Figure 4.
    • Segmented assistance-data transfer procedure allows for partitioning a large assistance-data delivery into smaller segments as well as resuming such a segmented session after an active-inactive-active cycle in the LPPe session. This control is carried in the common part of the LPPe Request/Provide Assistance Data message as shown in Figure 6.
    • Measurement scheduling/windowing allows the server to request measurements (GNSS, ECID, TDOA) to be made within a certain time window that can be expressed in terms of GNSS time or cellular network time. This control is carried in the common part of the LPPe Request/Provide Location Information message as shown in Figure 4.

    Extensions. OMA LPPe introduces several enhancements for various positioning methods as well as completely new methods:

    • Additions in the A-GNSS domain include local atmosphere models. In 3GPP LPP, the models are limited to ionosphere ones and therein to the broadcast types as in GPS, Galileo, and QZSS broadcasts. The OMA LPPe introduces a localized Klobuchar model, which allows for presenting the delay corrections in the well-known Klobuchar model, but for a limited-validity area and time for more accurate delay compensation. In addition, ionosphere storm warnings can be carried to the UE at the chosen resolution. This information allows UE to deduce the reason for high measurement residuals.

    Troposphere models have not previously been in the scope of the standardized assistance protocols. The troposphere model in LPPe carries the hydrostatic and wet zenith delays, their change rates in the height dimension for approximating the zenith delays at the UE altitude, Niel mapping functions for hydrostatic and wet components, and composite spatial gradients. Alternatively, the surface meteorological parameters (pressure, temperature) can be carried to the UE, and the calculation of the troposphere delay is left for the UE.

    Another troposphere model is the altitude-pressure relationship for the UEs with a barometer. This altitude assistance increases availability by introducing an independent source of altitude information.

    Whereas the 3GPP LPP carries the ephemerides, almanacs, signals supported by the satellites, and the GLONASS frequency mappings, OMA LPPe introduces satellite mechanical informational, differential code biases, and new navigation models. The mechanical information consists of mass, effective reflectivity-area, and phase-center offsets for the in-UE orbit prediction purposes. In the navigation model domain, the additions include SP3-type orbit representation and the orbit/clock model degradation models for improved error modeling. Practically all the new assistance data types support precise-point positioning approaches for future GNSS services.

    Lastly, one of the major LPPe A-GNSS features is the continuous carrier-phase (CCP) assistance for real-time kinematic applications. The CCP data format supports straightforward mapping from RTCM 10403.1 to ensure interoperability. The LPPe CCP mechanism utilizes the LPPe-level periodic assistance data procedure and supports multiple reference stations as well as mobility, that is, changes in the set of active reference stations on-the-fly.

    • To enable the use of LPP/LPPe in all the networks, the legacy hyperbolic methods E-OTD and OTDOA-IPDL for GSM and UTRA networks, respectively, are supported, and the data content are copy/pastes from RRLP and RRC to ensure interoperability. Support for UE-based LTE OTDOA is also included.
    • A major part of LPPe specification is devoted to the various ECID methods. These cover GSM, UTRA, LTE, and WLAN networks both in UE-assisted and UE-based modes.
    • In LPPe terminology, the short-range nodes (SRNs) refer to Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low-Energy, and near-field communication (NFC) tags, which are considered separately from the primary communications networks (cellular networks and WLAN). Similarly to the ECID methods, the SRNs can be used for positioning in either UE-assisted or UE-based modes. In the UE-based mode, in which the SRN locations need to be carried to the UE, the philosophy is that the SRNs are logically arranged into groups – one group of SRNs can be the set of SRNs in one building or in one floor in the building. The assistance data is considered in the units of these groups in conjunction with the group data version that allows for handling situations, in which the arrangement of the SRNs in the building changes, and the data in the UE needs to be refreshed.
    • Finally, no single positioning and assistance protocol can address all needs. Thus, both LPPe assistance data exchange and LPPe location information exchange include black-box containers for vendors and operators to carry their own proprietary assistance data and location information in a standardized framework. The benefit of this approach is that the same standardized protocol framework used in commercial deployments can be used for rapid prototyping and providing differentiating positioning performance, without the need for defining proprietary protocols from scratch.

    Conclusion

    The framework introduced by 3GPP LPP and extended in LPPe brings long-sought convergence in the control- and user-plane positioning protocols. This ensures that in the user-plane domain, the dominant domain for positioning services in consumer LBS, vendors can utilize exactly the same protocol as in the control plane. This reduces implementation, testing, and deployments costs, and will make the LPP/LPPe the de facto standardized positioning protocol in the mobile domain.

    Lauri Wirola has a Ph.D. in electrophysics from Tampere University of Technology in Finland. He manages indoor positioning activities at Nokia Services Location.