Tag: editorial

  • Out in Front: If We Only Know Then What We Don’t Know Now

    Alan Cameron

    Some of you have been asking questions, and while it is generally our business to provide answers, in this case I simply show these questions back to you, for instructive purposes.

    They come from the 2012 State of the Industry Survey, reported in the September issue. In that survey, we posed one question whose results were not reflected in that report. It was “What questions do you think it would be interesting and illuminating to ask in the 2013 State of the Industry Survey?”

    Herewith those questioning answers — er, those answering questions:

    What effect will the aging satellite system have, and what are you doing to plan for an alternative?

    Which industry is the most powerful to impose its technology standard? For example, it seems that any technology not compatible with mobiles or tablets is not alive anymore.

    What is the estimated financial impact that GNSS have, and how would it affect your life if we didn’t have them?

    With the technology of the GNSS equipment constantly improving, how important is it that the end user be a licensed professional?

    The prices of Chinese products — are they directly affecting your sales, or  are your customers taking these low prices as a starting point for negotiation?

    Should precision and accuracy be government regulated?

    What will be the next game changer for positioning? Will it be all encompassing like GPS? Or will there be multiple positioning options depending on your need? (indoors, urban corridor, dense veg., accuracy needs, and so on).

    How can the cost of modern survey equipment be subsidized for developing countries?

    How long will multi-chip solutions maintain dominance compared to separated solutions where technological development and cost reduction is even faster?

    How far away is a smartphone with differential GPS ability? [See “Real-Time Kinematic in Your Palm.”]

    What alternative tracking methodology will replace GPS/GNSS as the most common?

    What are the cost and practical barriers to innovating new consumer and business products? Are you willing to throw away existing products to distribute new products?

    How accurate is good enough?

    Is replacement of staff with technical skills a concern?

    Should the recent demonstration of commandeer-via-spoofing have been so widely publicized — or should that development have been classified?

    Have your customers expressed concern about GPS tracking and their privacy?

    What will it take to get RTK GNSS receiver manufacturers to standardize on one correction data format? What portion of revenues is invested in GNSS-related research and development at your company?

    What is the status of the National PNT Architecture jointly developed by the US DoD and DOT? Is it viable, or is it dead?

    The FCC director was on drugs the day they granted LightSquared bandwith — true or false?

    What would be the effect of a 1-hour, 1-day, or 1-week disruption in GPS be on your product? What is your backup system?

    What will be the long-term consequences of the CBOC patent issue? [Note that while a story on this page give a short-term answer, long-term consequences of intellectual property concepts are far from settled. — Ed.]

    Is there still room for a LightSquared type technology in the current broadband and spectrum governance environment?

    What kind of disaster will be required to get the U.S. government off the dime on an uncorrelated-failure alternative PNT system?

    Are commercial manufacturers considering offering more flexibility in their receiver designs (open-source GNSS). Open hardware is an interesting trend.

    What’s next after GPS III?

    Will the COMPASS system gain general acceptance in 2013-2014?

    Tell us more about the future.

    [That last was my favorite question, one after my own heart. For any other questions you may have, or any answers for that matter, or if you have even a clue, please write to me at [email protected]. I’m listening. — Ed.]

  • Out in Front: Happy Birthday, GNSS

     

    By Alan Cameron.

     

    It was thirty years ago today, Cheremisin taught the band to play. They’ve been going in and out of style, but they’re guaranteed to raise a smile. So may I introduce to you the constellation here for years, Vladimir Putin’s GLObal NAv Sat System!

    While in our booth at INTERGEO in Hanover last month, I heard Andrey Kupriyanov say it was GLONASS’s 30th birthday today, that particular today being October 12. “First satellites launched,” he recalled.

    “Then it is the 30th birthday of GNSS as well,” I replied. “First GPS, then GLONASS. One plus one equals two: GNSS.” Andrey Kupriyanov nodded agreement, then told me a bit about his involvement in the program back then.

    After graduating from the Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography in 1972, he obtained a Ph.D. in geodetic astronomy, taught for a while, then worked in the U.S.S.R. Ministry of the Merchant Marine, taking part in the development, testing, and application of new operational equipment for mid-Earth orbit satellites.

    We’re Vladimir Putin’s GLObal NAv Sat System, we hope that you enjoy our show. We’re Vladimir Putin’s GLObal NAv Sat System, sit back and let PNT flow.

    GLONASS achieved full operational status with 24 satellites in 1995, a year after GPS hit that milestone. The constellation subsequently declined to six operational satellites in 2001.

    Andrey Kuypriyanov kept busy, representing Ashtech, Magellan, and Thales Navigation in Russia, and participating in research involving GPS and GLONASS monitoring, interaction, and eventual interoperability.

    A recovering economy early this century enabled Russia to invest significantly in satnav again. Renewed launches and new spacecraft designs with longer lifetimes restored the constellation to full operational capability, with worldwide availability and greater accuracy.

    Vladimir Putin’s global, Vladimir Putin’s global, Vladimir Putin’s GLObal NAv Sat System!

    Andrey Kupriyanov is no longer the young man he once was (who among us is, really?) but he stays involved as executive director of the GLONASS-GNSS Forum and as NovAtel’s regional manager for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

    It’s wonderful to be here, it’s certainly a thrill. You’re such a lovely user group, we’d like to take you home with us, we’d love to take you home.

    Andrey Kupriyanov Olkgovich is of course only one of many, many long-laboring soldiers in the international GNSS brigade: engineers who made devices, product managers who carried them forth to market, users who embraced them. But on this 30th birthday of GNSS — we’re only just now hitting our stride, entering our golden years — let’s give him, and all of us, a rousing chorus.

    I don’t really want to stop the show, but I thought you might like to know, that the singer’s going to sing a song, and he wants you all to sing along. So let me introduce to you the one and only Kupriyanov, and Vladimir Putin’s GLObal NAv Sat System!

  • Out in Front: The Bronze Prize for Golden Success

    Alan Cameron
    Headshot: Alan Cameron, Publisher and Editor

    We have heard it before, in various fora and in various forms: the GPS program is a victim of its own success. Because the satellites are living so long, launches of new, modernized space vehicles get deferred. And deferred. And deferred. The U.S. Congress meanwhile, for whom “defer” is a code to live by, happily pounces on this as an excuse  to cut the GPS budget. And cut again the next year. And cut again.

    As my colleague Eric Gakstatter reported from the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) States and Local Government Subcommittee meeting, August 17, in Seattle:

    “Of the 12 Block IIF GPS satellites being built, two are in orbit with the first being launched in 2010 and the second one last year. A third is scheduled to launch later this year [On October 4, in fact, perhaps by the time you read this column —Ed]. That equates to one launch per year.

    “Clearly, this pace cannot continue or it would be 2022 before all 12 IIFs were in orbit. What’s the problem?

    “Part of the problem is that the legacy Block IIA model satellites have performed so well. In fact, one has been operational for 22 years. That’s an incrediblefeat for a satellite that was designed with an expected life of 7.5 years. Unfortunately for the IIF program — and for the high-precision user community — it means that Congress can defer a few hundred million dollars per year by delaying the IIF launches. In these budget-conscious economic times, it’s not difficult to understand the reasoning that if there are 31 operational GPS satellites in orbit, why spend $150–200 million to launch each GPS satellite when we don’t need it yet? But that won’t last for long. The many legacy GPS satellites are one component failure away from being unusable. That said, the word at the CGSIC meeting is that three IIF satellites will be launched in 2013.”

    An energetic online discussion sprang out of this column, with one reader exclaiming, “Finally someone stops arguing that the launch segment is the bottleneck. The budget segment is the actual bottleneck!”

    The point is well taken. Since inception of the system, the standard text is that GPS consists of three inter-related segments: space, ground, and user equipment. Actually, there is a fourth segment, every bit as important as the other three: the budget segment.

    It takes all four to deliver a PNT solution.

    Engineers across the GNSS community industriously modernize the space vehicles, the ground control systems, and make leaps and bounds in überupgradesof receivers, chips, antennas, software, and just about everything else you can think of. And this is not just for GPS, but for GLONASS, Galileo, Compass, and QZSS too.

    Meanwhile funding bodies grind along with the same ol’ same ol’.

    The nation needs a next-gen legislature.

  • Out in Front: Here’s My Vote

    By Alan Cameron

    Dear Senator _______________,

    Senator __________________,

    and Representative _____________,

    I write to you as my elected voice in government, regarding a current budget matter of critical importance to both U.S. national security and the U.S. economy. It may not be high on your list — yet — as its importance in both defense and infrastructure is not well understood. But I assure you that it is key to the future of this country, and in many ways to global stability and the global economy as well.

    I am talking about GPS. It works well now. It works fantastically well. But it is extremely vulnerable to sabotage, jamming, and spoofing (the intentional falsification of GPS signals). Remedies for and defenses against these weaknesses of the Global Positioning System have been proposed and will work if implemented — but they require some measure of funding support. That’s where you come in.

    Under the stewardship of the U.S. Air Force and its GPS Directorate, the constellation of now 31 orbiting satellites is undergoing a progressive modernization, upgrading, and adding new signals for even better service. The third generation of GPS, known as GPS III, is scheduled to begin coming online in 2014. That date has moved significantly to the right since it was first set, and may continue to get postponed, due to budget cuts made by your colleagues in the U.S. Congress.

    I believe such cuts, and the corresponding delays, are shortsighted.

    GPS III will be more robust than the current GPS II generation, for the benefit of our defense forces worldwide and the many segments of critical national infrastructure (telecommunications, finance, air safety, agriculture, freight, automobiles, and more) that depend on ultra-precise positioning, navigation, and timing provided by GPS to keep this country running.

    But even the planned improvements in GPS signals are not enough to forestall intentional harm to the system and to the many critical services it provides.

    If you are not already familiar with the downing of aircraft caused by spoofing the GPS signal, see this article. For expert testimony before Congress stemming from this incident and citing recommended measures, see “Taking It to the House.”

    For a very realistic possibility of future shock, see “Live Free or Die Hard,” a portrait of the nation under cyber attack.

    As I mentioned, there are strong countermeasures proposed to combat these threats to national security and the economy. But they do require money to implement. Not that much money, compared to many other items in the national budget. And very little money — almost none — compared to the damage that a prudent outlay would prevent.

    I would be glad to inform you further, provide technical underpinning to these assertions, and put you in contact with government officials who are of the same opinion as I am.

    A political act of will is needed to combat future disaster. I hope GPS can count on your support in the budget debates.

     

  • Out in Front: Live Free or Die Hard

    The 2007 action film of that name concerns a domestic criminal plot, disguised as a terrorist attack upon U.S. infrastructure: an Internet-based hack into Federal Bureau of Investigation computers, the transportation infrastructure, the stock market, national video broadcast channels, the utility power grid, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Defense nerve center. One of the film’s two heroes recognizes this as a fire sale, an attack upon the nation’s computer controls, an attack in which “everything must go.”

    Inspiration for the film came from a 1997 article in Wired magazine, “A Farewell to Arms,” written by John Carlin. “For those on the ramparts of the world’s sole superpower, the digital winds are blowing an icy chill through the triumphant glow of the post-Cold War,” the article begins. “Suddenly, the satellites over North America all go blind . . .” it envisions in mid-stride.

    As prescient as the 1997 article is, and as slam-bang inclusive of almost every bit of taken-for-granted infrastructure as the 2007 actioner tries to be, neither one mentions GPS. There’s no reason why they couldn’t — they just didn’t. We can remedy that right now, with the following imagined scenario.

    The placid mood of a lazy spring afternoon shatters at 4:53 p.m. Mountain Standard Time when the GPS constellation goes offline worldwide.

    Long reliant on GPS timing for load management, electrical grids begin to move out of synch. A minor problem in a southern Illinois sub-station quickly morphs into a cascading power outage that plunges the North American continent into darkness.

    The Pentagon command center detects a massive distributed denial of service attack underway on key areas of American military, utility, and aviation infrastructures. Air traffic flow systems are paralyzed, followed by train controls. Cellular networks collapse. Automatic cash machines and banking networks quickly roll down their shutters. All depended on GPS for positioning, navigation, timing, or all three; they simply cannot function without. Backups, long discussed but never deployed, can’t help.

    Computerized transfer of information grinds to a halt nationwide. Mayhem ensues. Riots break out in large cities. Police forces join the ranks of the newly crippled, and are forced to deal with unrest in the old-fashioned way: going out into the streets on foot.

    As a once-beautiful day descends into long dark night, confusion, desperation, and fear spread black wings across the world.

    The information has been lost.

    Doomsday scenarios go in and out of fashion. Lately they’re all the rage. I was startled by an April article in Smithsonian that led to my May editorial “That’s Denial.” But now I’m noticing these portents more and more.

    Every benefit brings its own drawback, every strength its own weakness. The principle applies not only to technology, but to every branch of human endeavor, of the natural adaptive world, even to the laws of physics. We little realize how totally reliant our civilization has become on very precise information. Without backups, defenses, mitigation, and safeguards, even a momentary loss of information can wreak catastrophic effects. Witness the recent Facebook Fumble, described by Chuck Shue of UrsaNav at the ION PLANS meeting:

    “On May 18, 2012 the ripple effect of two (2) extra milliseconds of delay required to calculate the opening price during the Facebook initial public stock offering produced damages to Facebook estimated from $40 million to $400 million — for one stock. Although not as widely known, Nanex reported that the timing glitch, probably from errors in routing software, also affected Apple, Intuit, Netflix, QualComm, Zynga, and other stocks.

    “What if this were the result of time spoofing, rather than simply a programming error?” he asked.

    This is the demonstrated effect of an accidental 2-millisecond delay, in one market of one sector of the national economy. In the case of a prolonged outage, a sustained attack by spoofing, jamming or other means, on the neural center of national infrastructure — that is, GPS — the mind staggers.

    We live by lightning-quick transmission and exchange of data. We may just die by it. The cloud touted as the ultimate warehouse, routing center, and solution to business challenges may dump acid rain on our picnic one day.

    Our world is driven by information flow in ways unfathomed just a few years ago — and don’t we love it? The technological and societal changes associated with computers, the Internet, Information-Age thinking, and all our neo-survival tools still manage to leave us extremely exposed.

    Benjamin Wash, who originated the GPS doomsday scenario at the beginning and many other thoughts throughout this column, wrote “The data sea upon which we sail grows exponentially vaster, and ever more complex and vulnerable, by the day. Our reliance on and need to gain information advantage intensifies as the world becomes more digitally integrated and competitive. Resource competition among nations is fierce, and those who control information exercise control over resources to a greater extent than in any time in our history.

    “Information access, flow, and aggregation enable the achievement of strategic and tactical advantage, but also the potential for mayhem. As an entity and as individuals, we cannot afford to be blind to this paradigm-altering reality: information drives the world.”

    Our correspondent had more to say concerning the Congressional melee — only be sure to call it, please, negotiation — over the defense budget. GPS, although not perceived by most to be at the center of this, does actually occupy that critical, key position because of the way it coordinates everything else.

    The proliferation of sophisticated electronic weaponry and technologies such as GPS jammers and spoofers, empirically evidenced in two articles in this issue, “Drone Hack” and “Going Up Against Time,” show just how vulnerable our golden standard is — and how saliently that vulnerability has emerged — in this information-based era.

    The GPS constellation and its associated signals are the primary source of PNT information, which increasingly drives all other information domains in the nation, not to mention for our overseas combatants and coalition allies. Over the coming decades, rapid technological advances will further remake whole sectors of the national infrastructure and national security.

    These improvements are contingent upon steady resource allocation within the Air Force. Future on-orbit systems, such as GPS III and its associated capability improvements, are under extreme budgetary pressure for their high cost. Some improved capabilities have already been shelved due to budget constraints, and more may follow. Key among these are strengthened defense of the system; only a few steps have been envisioned, and fewer taken. Many more mitigations, defenses, and backups must emerge from conceptualization into design, testing, and deployment.

    Technology’s complexity makes buy-in by policy makers difficult. Technical advances, both achieved and anticipated, are hard to defend in the budget battles on the Hill. But that’s our job, so step up.

    Let’s return briefly to the Carlin article. “For all the bustle, there’s no clear direction. For all the heat, there isn’t a great deal of light. For all the talk about new threats, there’s a reflexive grasp for old responses — what was good enough to beat the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein will be good enough to beat a bunch of hackers. Smarter hardware, says the Pentagon. Bigger ears, says the NSA. Better files, says the FBI.”

    Has anything changed since those words were written in 1997? Hardly.

    There are no easy answers in the coming knife fights over the defense budget. Vital technologies will vanish under the flailing and battledust of political striving for personal and party advantage.

    Decision makers must understand that information systems are the backbone of all we do — and that GPS drives more and more of those information technologies, through its micro-precise electronic timing.

    It’s our job to educate lawmakers and beancounters. A letter to your three Congresspeople is a simple yet effective educational tool.

    Live free or die hard.

  • Out in Front: The Quick Quid

    Maybe we should take it as validation, an acknowledgment of the worth, maturity, and promise of the GNSS industry, that profiteers show up trying to make a fast buck. A prompt pound, a quick quid.

    Or perhaps we should be angry at this violation of international trust, this grasping effort to monetize the free and open exchange of scientific ideas, this contravention of the very spirit and tradition of global navigation satellite systems and signals.

    For no sooner have we dispatched the LightSquared wolves from our doorstep than others come knocking, saying they are entitled to a fee for something that everyone else has always given away.

    See this editorial from my GNSS Design & Test newsletter for details and background on this controversy.

    Not enough has been made, over the last two and a half decades, of what is arguably the United States’ greatest foreign aid project of all time, a free and open gift to the world: the continuous provision of PNT signals everywhere, at no charge whatsoever to users or to manufacturers incorporating the signals in their offerings. Other GNSS providers have followed suit in being openhanded and largely aboveboard, starting with GLONASS, continuing with a few stutter steps through Galileo, and probably concluding in like fashion with Compass, not to mention QZSS and other regional augmentations.

    But now the United Kingdom’s military and/or a commercial spin-off and/or two scientists funded by same want to fence off an area of the open sky and say “This is ours and you must pay to use it.” Whether the two individuals acted on their own initiative, or were driven to signal-rustling by a strapped military looking to profit from someone else’s investment, or were prodded into adventurism by an overweening veep of sales and IP, we do not know at this point. Keep in mind, this is the same establishment that gave us the Charge of the Light Brigade.

    Was there a man dismay’d ?
    Not tho’ the soldier knew
    Some one had blunder’d:
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do & die.

    One British scientist wrote an open email letter, excerpted here, to members of the international GNSS community:

    “I would like to make it absolutely clear that this patent application has nothing to do with me whatsoever. I was required to work with both of the individuals named on the patent on other projects. However, I have never ever worked on GNSS signal design and certainly do not endorse their patent application in any way. I personally agree with those that consider this patent to be against the spirit of international cooperation under which the interoperable GNSS signals that we all need have been developed.

    “I’m sorry to take up your time. However, my reputation is important to me.”

    Would that others had thought of their reputations, not to mention the effect on the industry that nurtured them, no less the shackling of benefits to all humankind, before taking this step.

  • Out in Front: State of the Industry

    It’s not been done before, so we’re going to do it now.

    In the September issue of this magazine will appear the very first State of the Industry report. On the GNSS industry, of course. It will cover such topics as:

    The Global Economy and how it affects business in your sector. Customers’ availability of capital to invest is top-of-mind for most industry professionals, whether designers, manufacturers, integrators, suppliers/dealers, or end users.

    Industry Confidence in the road ahead. Is the prolonged recession over and are we on the road to recovery, or is it best to remain cautious and conservative? Just reading the stock market reports and the latest from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis or the G8 Summit doesn’t give the level of specific detail to GNSS that sound business navigation requires.

    Investment for Return. How are savvy marketers implementing their business outlook? Are they ramping up advertising, web presence, search-engine optimization, exhibits and shows, deep cultivation of existing or past customer base — any or all of these? Something new?

    Issues of Concern. To what extent do industry leaders take into account the following as well as further factors, and has their respective weightings of these changed since this time last year?

    • Pricing and competitive issues;
    • GNSS jamming, spoofing, other RF interference;
    • (Lack of) compatibility or interoperability of GNSSs: GPS, GLONASS, Compass, Galileo;
    • (Lack of) sufficient government funding for satellite system development or modernization;
    • (Lack of) R&D funding, whether government or private, driving application development for downstream markets, to encourage GNSS adoption.

    Watch for It. On July 1, the State of the Industry survey form will go live at env-gpsworld-integration.kinsta.cloud. We’ll collect input for about three weeks, and send ample notifications during that period. These will prominently feature the incentives for participating in the survey: entry into drawings for fab gear, likely to include one or more of the latest electronic wizard gizmos, a pair of tickets to GPS World’s Leadership Dinner in Nashville during ION-GNSS, a let’s-make-a-deal surprise, and the odd coffee-shop gift card.

    Participation in the survey is naturally open to all who participate in the GNSS industry, whether as givers or takers, suppliers or end users. A subscription to this magazine is not required — though a free subscription to the Digital Edition, if you do not already have one, will be encouraged at the end of the survey.

    Read It and Profit. The survey, complete with helpful infographics, will appear in the September issue and receive wide distribution at ION-GNSS, InterGeo, and other outlets.

  • Out in Front: That’s Denial

    By Alan Cameron with Logan Scott

    ‘We have virtually no defense against the cyber attacks that are targeting us now, and will be in the future.”

    Richard Clarke served three U.S. presidents as counter-terrorism czar. He wrote a fascinating — and terrorizing — article in the April issue of Smithsonian magazine, from which comes that quote. I posted it on my LinkedIn page and asked for input for this editorial.

    RF and signal-processing consultant Logan Scott, also an occasional author in these pages, sent in the following. I love it when people do my work for me.
    Scott writes that “Richard Clarke says about cyber-defense: ‘I think we’re living in the world of non-response. Where you know that there’s a problem, but you don’t do anything about it . . . . That’s denial.’

    “This certainly looks to be the case for GNSS. Looking into the future, if we continue our current civil GPS security policies, I think ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda’ will someday nicely summarize our feelings. GPS-derived time plays key roles in high-speed trading (~70% of all market transactions). GPS timing already synchronizes power-generation facilities, albeit not in the U.S. GPS-derived location plays a foundational role in air traffic control worldwide. Shipping containers and their cargo are routinely secured using GPS-derived location monitoring and geofencing.

    “So how do we secure civil GPS? Mostly, we don’t. Simple situation awareness regarding jamming and spoofing is not present in most GPS receivers. Instead, we plan on having the cavalry ride to the rescue should some problem occur. This will work about as well as it did for Custer at Little Bighorn. The battle will be over before the response is mounted; our response will be mainly forensic in nature. Basic, test-based performance standards are needed so non-expert users can select adequate receivers.

    “Even more fundamentally, we do not have the capability to authenticate and prove location to second parties. This could play a huge role in improving cybersecurity where one of the central problems is attribution. Knowing where the attack came from, we can add a layer to our defenses. ICS/SCADA commands from unauthorized locations could be rejected. Techniques for creating authenticatable location signatures are available, but due to funding shortsightedness, we continue to launch generation after generation of GPS satellite without these features. Supply-chain integrity could also be improved: in the future, parts could be stamped with their location and time of manufacture.

    “We still have the opportunity to change ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda’ to a more favorable ‘Veni, vidi, vici’ — but the window of opportunity is closing.”


    Letter to the Editor

    In your March editorial, “The Fire Next Time,” you ask for suggestions to protect against another LightSquared encroachment. The solution is remarkably simple. Just let the same bandwidth be used for space downlink as it was originally intended. That would be both innocuous to GPS receivers and, more importantly, stake the ground against future challenges like LightSquared.

    — Alan Browne
    Lorraine, Quebec

  • Out in Front: Independence: A National Value

    Following is a guest editorial by GPS World’s contributing editor for Defense, Don Jewell.

    Advanced low-frequency (LF) signals are back on the air in North America, with live testing of a wide-area precise-timing solution. Initial tests include a comprehensive pallet of signals, including eLoran, that are being evaluated for their ability to provide a robust, wide-area, wireless precise-timing alternative that can operate cooperatively with GPS, or during periods of GPS unavailability.

    The high-power, virtually jam-proof and spoof-proof LF signals operate independently of GPS and GNSS, and provide a Universal Coordinated Time reference, critical to many aspects of U.S. national infrastructure, on the order of tens of nanoseconds.

    Not only is this an independent timing backup, but the LF signals can also be used as pseudoranges mixed with GPS, or if enough transmitters are available, as a fully independent PNT network — in other words, a true backup PNT capability for safety-of-life navigation, for dispatching first responders, and for supporting critical national infrastructures.

    This is an extremely positive development, especially in light of the LightSquared debacle and the now better-understood vulnerabilities of the very low-power GPS signals.

    I hoped I would never have to type that word again, as a noun or a verb, but LightSquared did serve to point out a dire need and shortcoming in the U.S. PNT infrastructure. Fortunately, the proposed eLoran system appears to be on track to fill that need perfectly.

    For the first 32 years that GPS signals were broadcast, Loran-C served as a timing backup and a less accurate but viable navigation alternative. In 2010, the current U.S. administration unplugged Loran-C, against the recommendations of the Department of Transportation’s Positioning and Navigation (PosNav) Committee, the Department of Homeland Security Geospatial Committee, the DOT Undersecretary for Policy, and the DHS Deputy Undersecretary for Preparedness and National Protection.

    Long story short: non-technical people forced ill-advised technical decisions. 

    At that time, Loran-C was 80 percent of the way through a critical metamorphosis into a new digital version known as enhanced Loran or eLoran, with better, more reliable transmitters, smaller receivers, and a virtually jam-proof signal structure. Many likened eLoran to a strong ground-based GPS with coded signals for security. 

    Since then, the government has spent more money dismantling the legacy Loran-C infrastructure than it would have taken to complete the remaining 20 percent upgrade to eLoran. 

    Let’s hope the eLoran demonstrations continue successfully, and that a contract is forthcoming quickly before anyone forgets the LightSquared lessons learned — like we would ever let that happen.

    This is a win/win proposition.

  • Out in Front: The Fire Next Time

    By Alan Cameron

    We have turned back the LightSquared effort to establish a threatening beachhead adjacent to GPS spectrum bands. Having expended many millions, we can now return to our business, secure in having demonstrated both our rights and our rightness.

    No. We cannot afford to do that.

    Radio spectrum is today’s natural resource, vital to current ventures and even more essential to future business and national growth of all kinds. It is far too valuable to be taken for granted, and far too vulnerable to be left protected simply by the Plan A recently executed.

    We will see attempt upon attempt upon attempt to use closely neighboring frequencies in disturbing ways — and, I daresay, to dislodge GNSS from the bands it now holds, by redistributing, re-allocating, and/or redefining spectra.

    Digging in deeper will not answer. It is questionable even now whether the numbers of GPS installed user base or the dollars they represent were sufficient to turn back the LightSquared initiative. It may have been, purely and simply, the Pentagon and the FAA.

    At any rate, the millions of installed GPS users and billions of dollars in industry and infrastructure may soon be dwarfed by billions of potential users and gazillions in economic benefit that broadband or any other spectrum-driven enterprise may muster. The future is wide open, as they say. It moves fast.

    Two courses of action show promise; there may be more.

    • Participate actively, pro-actively, even aggressively — and certainly with no time to waste — in the effort to define receiver standards. The NTIA and PNT EXCOM will devise “standards for the development and procurement of GPS receivers to support their various mission requirements.” NTIA recognized “the importance that receiver standards could play as part of a forward-looking model for spectrum management even beyond the immediate issue of GPS.”

    Get on board, bring productive ideas, work them through the process as efficiently and cooperatively as possible. Then design new products accordingly. Regulatory agencies, national and international, will have little patience with broadened use of other bands, no matter how long high-precision receivers have been doing it. We have been put on notice.

    • Aid, encourage, design products for interoperable GNSS, not to mention modernized GPS, particularly L5. Seek touchpoints with Galileo, GLONASS, and Compass developers, operators, and manufacturers. The broader, more wide-laned the base, the more frequencies that users and equipment can draw on, the more stable will be their operations, and the less vulnerable to encroachment, interference, or downright exclusion.

    Perhaps you have thought of other ways to ensure GNSS viability in a future of increasing demands for spectrum. I would love to hear them, and share them with our readers.

  • Out in Front: When the Gavel Comes Down

    By Alan Cameron

    Perhaps you don’t track suspected criminals in your spare time, nor do you design or supply a GNSS product that does so. Still, the fresh Supreme Court ruling on GPS use for this purpose reverberates for you, in ways yet unknown. The most interesting part of the court’s ruling pops up in a somewhat open-ended “what if” comment concerning future issues that at least one justice thinks the court should address.

    GPS trackers are a form of search, and police must obtain a search warrant to use them, the court unanimously ruled. This comes as a setback to government and police agencies who increasingly rely on GPS surveillance. Justice Scalia said the government’s installation of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle’s movements constitutes a search and violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

    Justice Samuel Alito further said the court should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones. “If long-term monitoring can be accomplished without committing a technical trespass — suppose for example, that the federal government required or persuaded auto manufacturers to include a GPS tracking device in every car — the court’s theory would provide no protection,” Alito wrote.

    This, or its exact counterpart, has already occurred in cell phones: government-mandated location technology embedded in all devices, over a sliding timescale that comes to maturity, or full application, fairly soon.

    The words “no protection” in Justice Alito’s opinion appear to state that personal cell-phone records are open season to government investigators. Such has already been the case in a number of instances.

    Murkier than government use — if such a concept is conceivable — is commercial use of a consumer’s location data. In other words, privacy. This issue has been raised since GPS-enabled phones were first theorized, and since the very whisper of the first location-based service, but it has never been fully or adequately addressed by anyone in industry or government.The notion of “granting permission” to use one’s location data, in order to benefit from services thus provided, still seems unresolved to me.

    Presumably, we are all waiting around for a test case, such as that of the Jeep owner in the Supreme Court just now. With LBS poised — same as it ever was — on the brink of widespread acceptance, it might benefit everyone if such a case came sooner rather than later.

  • Out in Front: Big Bang Cheery

    By Alan Cameron

    A supersize bunch of pent-up GNSS just bust out all over. GLONASS is fully operational for the first time in more than 15 years. At least one Galileo in-orbit validation satellite broadcasts the new E1 and E5 signals, maybe both satellites by the time you read this. Compass has completed its regional navigation constellation. The first GPS III satellite testbed arrived at its integration and testing site in Colorado. The Russian SBAS is climbing back onto the air again. And QZSS has been quietly making progress, almost unnoticed.

    For the first column since last February, I can write about something besides LightSquared.

    Oops, I did it again.

    But what a breath of sweet, fresh air.

    Maybe now we can get back to the real business of this community: building systems, integrating sensors, exploring applications, and making the world a better place.

    Can’t resist one last note about those creative financiers, now under Securities Exchange Commission investigation, over at LightSquared. A little bird overheard a certain someone say in mid-December, “I was at the FCC on Monday. The discussion was only about what happens after the LS bankruptcy. They are done with LS. This is all about positioning for litigation right now.”

    Of course it’s not all over yet but the kicking and screaming. Companies have powerful lawyers and white houses have long tentacles into federal agencies.

    Be that as it may, I promised to talk about GNSS, the whole GNSS, and nothing but the GNSS.

    We, and by that I mean you, on three continents, are just kicking the milestones over. I’ve never seen a month in which so much progress was made on all fronts: GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Compass, and QZSS. It has been my experience that a step forward for one system is often matched by a step back or at least sideways for another. It is after all a system of systems, and complex systems are by nature fraught with potential for temporary setback.

    Knock on wood, interoperability moved further toward our grasp in the period November 28 to December 16, 2011, than during any other comparable span. We sometimes talk about a coming Golden Age of GNSS. We just witnessed the Golden Growth Spurt.

    A brief note: With this issue, I assume the responsibilities of publisher of this magazine, as well as editor-in-chief. With colleagues Chris Litton (associate publisher, international account manager), the invaluable Tracy Cozzens (managing editor), and Charles Park (art director), we are collectively worth slightly south of three digits of GNSS experience. Count on us to keep a steady stream of business and technical news coming your way, and to keep this forum open for your views and opinons.

    Got something to say?

    Tell me about it.