The FCC sees indoor location as a critical safety concern for E911 emergency response. The commission has tasked an advisory committee to evaluate indoor location positioning technologies. A public workshop on this testing is being held at the FCC on Wednesday, October 24, and can be watched online at www.fcc.gov/live.
TechnoCom has been chosen to conduct the independent testing as a neutral third party. The test bed is in about 20 structures of various types, in locations that range from highly dense urban to sparse landscape. The following companies are submitting technology for the testing: Qualcomm (AGPS/AFLT/Cell ID), NextNav (GPS-like terrestrial beacons), Boeing (LEO satellites using the Iridium constellation), and Polaris (RF fingerprinting). Additional companies submitted technology, but later withdrew. Test results should be made public in March of 2013.
Although the LightSquared issue seems to have waned, it’s like a virus in that it’s really difficult to erradicate it completely. However, Harbinger Capital Partners (LightSquared’s primary financial backer) and LightSquared are facing tougher problems than they have since they’ve started this adventure, not only from their technical foes but now from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Earlier this week, the SEC filed fraud charges against Phil Falcone and Harbinger. In particular, the SEC alleges that:
Falcone fraudulently obtained $113.2 million from a hedge fund that he advised and misappropriated the proceeds to pay his personal taxes;
Falcone and two Harbinger investment managers through which Falcone operated manipulated the price and availability of a series of distressed high-yield bonds by engaging in an illegal “short squeeze;”
Falcone and Harbinger secretly offered and granted favorable redemption and liquidity rights to certain strategically-important investors in exchange for those investors’ consent to restrict redemption rights of other fund investors, and concealed the arrangement from the fund’s directors and investors; and
Harbinger engaged in illegal trades in connection with the purchase of common stock in three public offerings after having sold the same securities short during a restricted period.
“Not only are hedge fund managers expected to be savvy investors, they are supposed to serve the interests of their clients. Here, in addition to raiding a fund for personal benefit and cutting secret deals with favored investors, Falcone then lied to investors about what he had done,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the Asset Management Unit in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
Yes, it’s getting ugly. However, they aren’t giving up. I wouldn’t expect so after spending ~$4 billion on this project.
LightSquared’s latest proposal to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a spectrum swap. Read the details of their proposal here. In fact, LightSquared was able to convince a group of your legislators to lobby the FCC in support of the spectrum swap.
“In the absence of a viable technical solution that would allow LightSquared to use its own licensed spectrum, we believe a spectrum swap is the most resourceful and efficient way to quickly expand broadband access nationwide,” wrote Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.), Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), who all serve on the Appropriations Committee.
Seriously? Our own U.S. legislators want to trade for spectrum worth almost nothing for spectrum worth billions of dollars? Who’s side are these people on? Clearly, not the taxpayer. However, there’s little or no chance a spectrum swap is going to happen. It’s a dream that they ran up the flagpole so see who would salute it. I doubt anyone did, at least anyone of significant influence, and now the legislators can say they fulfilled their obligations (in exchange for ??) and no harm done.
Serious Technical Issues Still Exist
Aside from the serious financial, legal, and political challenges LightSquared faces, they are no closer to solving the GPS interference problems disclosed a year ago.
If you recall, the National Telcommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a U.S. government agency tasked by the FCC to study the LightSquared/GPS interference issue, concluded:
“The federal agencies and LightSquared have invested significant time and resources to identify and analyze proposed solutions to address the impact of LightSquared’s planmned network implementations. Based on the testing and analyses conducted to date, as well as numerous discussions with LightSquared, it is clear that LightSquared’s proposed implementation plans, including operations in the lower 10MHz would impact both general/personal navigation and certified aviation GPS receivers. We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment.”
That pretty much says it all. While the “lower 10” the NTIA is likely a technically solvable problem, the cost of redesigning and redeploying GPS receivers across commercial, military, aviation, etc. markets to accomodate the lower 10 MHz is huge. It’s likely in the high tens of billions or even into the hundreds of billions.
The upper 10 MHz of LightSquared’s spectrum, there is no practical technical solution that exists. If there was one, even one that was close, LightSquared would be talking about it all day long. You can bet that many engineers from many different companies and agencies have been working to solve this technical problem since early last year, but no one has come up with any reasonable solution yet. Also, remember that the upper 10 MHz hammered the vast majority of all GPS receivers in existence, not just high-precision receivers.
The Way Forward
Without a technical solution to their GPS interference problem, LightSquared is stuck trying to convince regulators that it deserves to be gifted alternative spectrum since they couldn’t make theirs work. As I wrote earlier, I think the possibility of a spectrum swap is low, but the conversation may linger.
From now on, it’s clear that the technical discussion has disappeared. It’s turning into a pure political discussion. Even though the FCC received the NTIA’s recommendation to not allow LightSquared to proceed back in February, the FCC still hasn’t declared a ruling on anything regarding this matter. Some speculate that they won’t make a ruling before the U.S. presidential election this coming November in order to fly under the radar. For this reason, it would not be surprising to me if this issue hung in limbo for the rest of the year; dormant, but it’s still lurking, like a virus.
Last Monday, June 25, 2012, I was a guest on America’s Web Radio’s ACSM Radio Hour discussing the current LightSquared situation. It’s a good discussion (60 minutes). The podcast is a standard audio recording you can play on your MP3 player or listen to on your computer. You can download it here.
FCC Narrowbanding Rule
While we’re on the subject of the FCC, you might have heard about the Narrowbanding rule the FCC established some years ago. It’s going to kick in January 1, 2013. If you’re an RTK user who uses UHF or VHF radios, you’re likely going to be affected and should be aware of it. Following is a summary statement from the FCC:
“On January 1, 2013, all public safety and business industrial land mobile radio systems operating in the 150-512 MHz radio bands must cease operating using 25 kHz efficiency technology, and begin operating using at least 12.5 kHz efficiency technology. This deadline is the result of an FCC effort that began almost two decades ago to ensure more efficient use of the spectrum and greater spectrum access for public safety and non-public safety users. Migration to 12.5 kHz efficiency technology (once referred to as Refarming, but now referred to as Narrowbanding) will allow the creation of additional channel capacity within the same radio spectrum, and support more users.
After January 1, 2013, licensees not operating at 12.5 KHz efficiency will be in violation of the Commission’s rules and could be subject to FCC enforcement action, which may include admonishment, monetary fines, or loss of license.”
Essentially, the FCC is trying to increase the efficiency of the UHF and VHF radio spectrum so it can accomodate more users.
If you use UHF or VHF radios for RTK, you’ll likely need to upgrade or replace your UHF/VHF radio hardware. Be aware that this could be quite expensive.
Following are some relevant FCC documents on the matter:
Big changes. Apple finally ended its long time dependence on Google Maps. As part of its latest operating system upgrade to iOS 6, Apple is launching its own, home-grown mapping service. It is an impressive offering. In a very different move, Microsoft is replacing its own Bing maps in all Windows Phone devices. Nokia maps, previously Navteq, will replace Microsoft’s home-grown Bing Maps. Micello has a new indoor location trial that isn’t just indoor mapping. This month the FCC has something to say on the topic of privacy in LBS apps. ABI Research has high expectations for indoor location.
Google maps will be demoted to just another app on iPhones and iPads, a blow to Google’s bottom line. iOS device owners account for 28 percent of Google Map users in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, and Spain, reports Analysis Mason. This parting will create additional friction in the contentious relationship between Google and Apple. Many partners are helping Apple produce the offering, but TomTom is the only one acknowledged in the announcement. Apple reports TomTom is “powering Apple maps.” No explanation has been given.
The new Apple in-house maps built for iOS 6 include 100 million business listings and Yelp recommendations, integrated with real-time, crowd-sourced traffic, navigation, and suggested travel routes. It all works with Siri, Apple’s voice-activated search software. Siri has its critics, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak who has been quoted with derisive, even crude, comments on Siri’s usability.
Will Location Move Stock Price? Facebook says it’s working on a location-based mobile-advertising product that will allow advertisers to target users based on their real-time whereabouts. Facebook’s shares have dropped by almost 20 percent since the company’s initial public offering, fueled partly by concern that ad-revenue growth isn’t keeping up with a shift by users to mobile phones.
LBS Is Being Monitored. Ever concerned with privacy, the FCC released a report on location-based services. The agency declined to adopt privacy regulations or best practices, but indicated it would monitor the industry for the following: ensuring privacy considerations are integral to product development, security of data from unauthorized access, timing and frequency of location privacy notices to consumers, and minimization of data collected and time period for which it is retained. The FCC warns it will take additional steps if not satisfied with privacy implementation for LBS.
Indoor Fortunes. Indoor location is positioned to save retail brick and mortar, says ABI Research. I wouldn’t go that far, but it will certainly have a positive impact. Major U.S. retail brands will launch indoor location technologies in 2012 and 2013, says ABI. “Revenue will come from multiple sources, including advertising, infrastructure deployment/service fees, and application management,” says Patrick Connolly. The technology will enable advances in customer analytics, proximity advertising, store optimization, couponing, and CRM. Retailers will likely want to control store data, which will be an important consideration in picking partners.
I Am Here. Micello, indoor mapping creator, has a trial for its new FindMe location application. Users can share their whereabouts in Singapore with anyone in their address book. The app allows users to send a text that includes a detailed map that shows the user’s indoor location. The company is expanding the app to Las Vegas and some college campuses.
Grapevine. Rumors persist that Amazon is in talks to acquire Jumptap, one of the mobile advertising network leaders. Amazon plans to enlarge its Special Offers advertising platform to the Kindle Fire Tablet, a competitor to Apple’s pricier iPad, reports Ad Age. A Jumptap purchase would make sense. Amazon has a treasure trove of purchase information on individual users on hand that can be used to develop personalized and contextual mobile advertising.
Timing Is Everything. In Apple’s forthcoming operating system update, all applications will require explicit user permission before accessing personal information, such as location information. Apple made the announcement just after developer Arun Thampi reported iOS social application Path was uploading users’ address books to its servers. A backlash from consumers and legislators followed. Path later acknowledged storing user data and updated its app to enable users to opt out of its contacts database.
Sad News. Sorry to hear Nokia plans to cut 10,000 jobs by the end of 2013. Remember when Navteq had the mapping world in the palm of its hand? What a fall. Last year Nokia cut 14,000 jobs.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski joined major police department chiefs, including New York City Police Commissioner Raymond E. Kelly, Philadelphia Police Department Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier, Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, wireless carriers, and Senator Chuck Schumer to announce new initiatives to combat cell phone and data theft.
Genachowski commended police departments and members of Congress, in particular Senator Schumer, for calling attention to a growing epidemic of robberies targeting smartphone users. Genachowski announced an industry commitment to develop a shared, centralized database that will record unique identifiers of stolen wireless devices to prevent their reuse, thereby making it harder for thieves to resell stolen wireless devices. Legislation, sponsored by Senator Schumer, will ensure that authorities have the tools they need to crack down on efforts to evade this technological solution.
According to the FCC, there is a growing epidemic of robberies involving smartphones and other cell phones:
More than 40% of all robberies in New York City involve smartphones and other cell phones.
The situation is getting worse: In Washington, D.C., cell phones were taken in 54% more robberies in 2011 than in 2007, and cell phones are now taken in 38% of all DC robberies.
Other major cities have similar statistics, with robberies involving cell phones comprising 30-40% of all robberies.
Robberies are, by definition, violent crimes, and there are many instances of robberies targeting cell phones resulting in serious injury or even death.
A recent Symantec study indicates that a loss or theft of an unsecured smartphone often results in access to sensitive personal data.
Chairman Genachowski, with the support of major city police chiefs and the wireless industry, announced new initiatives by wireless carriers, initially including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint who cover 90 percent of US subscribers, to deter theft and secure customer data:
Implement a database to prevent use of stolen smartphones.
Within six months, when Americans call their participating wireless provider and report their wireless devices stolen, their provider will block that device from being used again. This system will be rolling out globally using common databases across carriers over the next 18 months.
Encourage users to lock their phones with passwords.
Smartphone makers will notify and educate users in the most highly visible ways—through messages on the smartphone itself and through “Quick Start” user guides—about how to use passwords to deter theft and protect their data.
Educate users on lock/locate/wipe applications.
Wireless providers will directly inform their customers about how to find and use applications that enable customers to lock/locate/and wipe smartphones remotely.
Public education campaign on how to protect your smartphone and yourself.
The wireless industry will launch a campaign, with media buys, to educate consumers on how to protect their smartphones and themselves from crime.
Progress benchmarks and ongoing dialogue.
The wireless industry will publish quarterly updates and submit them to the FCC on progress on these initiatives.
Accountability.
The FCC will engage the public safety community and wireless carriers in an ongoing dialog, with regular, quarterly meetings, to ensure that the most effective technological processes are in place to deter smartphone theft and data exposure.
The FCC will launch a proceeding if progress on the above deliverables falls behind schedule.
Legislation expected to criminalize tampering with unique hardware IDs on cell phones.
Members of Congress are planning to introduce legislation that will make it a federal crime to take steps to evade the effective deployment of a stolen phone database, including by tampering with hardware identifiers on wireless devices.
Criminalizing tampering with unique hardware identifiers has been an integral part of successful foreign deployments of stolen cell phone databases and the deterrence of cell phone theft.
In my 20-plus years of involvement in the GPS/GNSS industry, nothing has come close to the LightSquared debate for technical and political complexity, nor for potential effects on nearly every high-precision GPS/GNSS user in the United States. The industry’s destiny is somewhat controlled by a federal agency that is not very knowledgeable about how, when, and where GPS is used — although I’m sure they’ve learned a lot in the last 14 months.
While receiver manufacturers have a firm grip on the technical complications of what LightSquared proposed, they have jockeyed for market position, as information released to the public is filtered through their marketing heads. Finally, media coverage is all over the place, from “LightSquared is doomed” to “this will happen.”
On January 13, as we all know, the U.S. deputy secretaries for defense and transportation wrote, on letterhead of the Space-Based Positioning Navigation & Timing National Executive Committee (PNT EXCOM), to the head of the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), declaring that “there appear to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS.”
On February 14, the NTIA director wrote to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman in a similar vein with nearly the same language. That same day, the FCC stated its intent to “not lift the prohibition on LightSquared,” and to “vacate the Conditional Waiver Order, and suspend indefinitely LighSquared’s Ancillary Terrestrial Component authority.”
It just so happens that LightSquared cannot accomodate military GPS users nor aviation GPS users. Those of you who use high-precision GPS can thank your lucky stars that the military and aviation folks are standing in your corner. Otherwise, as I warned back in May of last year, high-precision users would have been thrown under the onrushing bus of national broadband.
In testimony to a House of Respresentatives subcommittee meeting on GPS and aviation in early February, the Transportation deputy secretary revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spent more than $2 million of taxpayer dollars with two different independent labs to conclude that LightSquared proposals were not compatible with several GPS-dependent air safety-of-flight systems.
Don’t expect the Department of Defense (DoD) ever to provide similar testimony. The Pentagon played its veto card off-air and out of the public eye.
LightSquared has continued to complain about GPS receivers “looking into our spectrum” as the reason for the interference GPS receivers are suffering. If you missed Richard Keegan’s December 2011 article in GPS World, you should take a look. He succinctly addresses this issue, as I did in my November 2011 Survey Scene column.
As LightSquared has clearly lost the engineering argument, it has taken a very creative approach in an attempt to convince the FCC that this isn’t an engineering problem, but rather all about the FCC rules. LightSquared petitioned the FCC to confirm that “GPS devices are not entitled to protection from interference.”
Crazy statement? If you think so, see if you recall reading this statement on equipment such as GPS receivers. It is on almost every electronic device that relies on radio signals.
“This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
“(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.”
What if LightSquared can convince the FCC that GPS receivers do, indeed, fall within the confines of Part 15 of the FCC rules and aren’t entitled to interference protection? That’s what the company is trying to do, and that’s why this fight ain’t quite done.
Don’t underestimate the power of the White House pushing the National Broadband Plan, or of commercial interests — of which there are myriad — seeking to turn a buck on the hunger, whether real or only perceived, for limitless broadband. Even the transportation depsec allowed in his testimony as how “in the Obama administration, we believe deeply in what LightSquared is attempting to do, which is to make the Internet more accessible to more people all across the country. This is an urgent national priority.”
Communications for My RTK
Some people in the GPS industry who believe that the LightSquared service will do wonders for RTK operations, somehow replacing the communications methods we currently use (UHF/VHF, 900MHz, GSM/GPRS, CDMA, Wifi/Mifi, etc.). I disagree.
LightSquared was relying on Sprint’s infrastructure (~31,000 towers) for its terrestrial operations, supplementing them with ~3,400 LightSquared towers at some point. I’ve used Sprint’s mobile phone service for about 12 years and I used Sprint’s data card service for several years (not any longer). I pretty much know that Sprint is good for metro areas and poor for rural areas. Like other wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.), Sprint is strong in some geographic areas, and weak in others. Since LightSquared is focused on serving people (densely populated areas) rather than geographic areas (e.g., farmlands), their terrestrial service is not going to be even close to being nationwide. LightSquared’s solution for areas not covered by their terrestrial service is to use satellite communications for Internet connectivity.
If you think you would enjoy ubiquitous coverage with satellite communications for your RTK operations, consider OmniSTAR’s service, which is in the same spectrum as what LightSquared proposed. OmniSTAR works great when there’s a clear view of the sky to one of OmniSTAR’s satellites (ironically, operated by LightSquared) such as in the agriculture industry. But I’ve used it a bit and — just like GPS — it doesn’t work in buildings, in vehicles, under trees, or in other obstructed-sky locations.
Can you imagine using a LightSquared mobile phone that doesn’t work in buildings, in cars, or under trees? You wouldn’t. Anyone who’s ever used RTK knows that spotty base/rover communications is the quickest way to spoil an RTK party. With GPS/GLONASS receivers allowing us to use RTK in places where we’ve rarely ventured before, the limitation wouldn’t be the number of navigation satellites in view, but rather if the LightSquared satellite was in view.
For those of you who heard that LightSquared might have been a good idea in order to make wireless mobile Internet access more affordable, I seriously doubt that statement as well. Documents in a huge Freedom of Information Act release by the FCC reveal what LightSquared was planning to charge its wholesale customers (not retail) when they were out of range of the terrestrial system and forced to use LightSquared’s satellite for wireless broadband. The wholesale cost of their satellite broadband service was to be $10 per megabyte (not gigabyte), an astonishingly high price for a company that’s been touting affordable, nationwide wireless broadband Internet service.
Upgrade Costs
A cool $2.4 billion was the official estimate given for aviation industry upgrades, should LightSquared have gone forward. I think that’s conservative because I doubt it covers the infrastructure upgrade cost (WAAS, GBAS, and so on) or the cost of NextGen program delays.
How about something closer to home? I queried the administrator of a statewide RTK network of 103 GNSS reference stations, and used his estimates to extrapolate national costs in that regard: 7,000 CORS receivers across the United States. They look like this: optimistic scenario, $64 million; likely,$92 million; worst-case scenario, $120 million.
Keep in mind that this is only the high-precision GPS/GNSS infrastructure in the United States. There are still hundreds of thousands of high-precision GPS/GNSS receivers owned by users across the country that would have to be upgraded. For many GPS receivers (think handheld), there will be no upgrade solution, so the manufacturer might offer trade-in credit for a new GPS receiver.
After spending time to understand the actual costs of accomodating LightSquared, one state legislator who initially voiced his support for LightSquared said “we can’t afford it.”
New Beginnings
Included in the NTIA report was a recommendation that, with time, GPS receivers could be redesigned in order to accomodate LightSquared’s 10L signal.
NTIA also reported that during the January 13 EXCOM meeting, it was agreed that “federal agencies will move forward this year to develop and establish new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals and ensure that any such proposals are implemented without affecting existing and evolving uses of space-based PNT services vital to economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs.”
In summary, GPS/GNSS receiver designs will change in the coming years and move towards more efficient use of spectrum. To me, a critical statement in the NTIA letter to the FCC is “without affecting existing and evolving” — meaning that not only should GPS be considered, but also GPS-like systems from other countries such as Russia’s GLONASS, Europe’s Galileo, and other developing satellite navigation systems and applications.
ERIC GAKSTATTER is contributing editor for survey of GPS World, and editor of Geospatial Solutions.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology will host a workshop on spectrum efficiency and receivers on Monday, March 12, and Tuesday, March 13, in the Commission Meeting Room at FCC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The meeting is part of the FCC’s efforts to enhance the use of spectrum for mobile broadband — including LightSquared — and is being held in conjunction with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Strategic Planning.
The role of receivers in enabling access to spectrum for new services implicates federal stakeholders, as well as the private sector, the FCC said in its announcement of the meeting. “Receiver performance issues have often arisen as a conflict between legacy stakeholders and new entrants where deployment of new technologies and services threatens to adversely impact an incumbent or place restrictions on the new entrant. Past examples include interference issues between new cellular radio systems and public safety radio systems, satellite digital radio systems and proposed terrestrial data services, unlicensed Wi-Fi systems and FAA weather radar systems, and ancillary terrestrial service on mobile satellite spectrum and GPS.
“The resolution of such matters has historically required a public process involving regulators, stakeholders and other parties. Because such discussions sometime begin upon the introduction of a new service or technology, full deployment of such new services could be hindered. New approaches to spectrum management focusing on spectrum efficiency and receiver performance may enable more assured deployment of new services and reduce the necessity for the involvement of regulators.”
The two-day workshop will discuss the characteristics of receivers and how their performance can affect the efficient use of spectrum and opportunities for the creation of new services, the FCC said. Key topics will include current practices for receiver design, case studies involving interference due to receiver characteristics, and approaches for promoting interference avoidance and efficient use of spectrum, given the current receiver base and potential future deployments. The workshop will include perspectives from licensees, equipment manufacturers, component providers, and other interested parties.
For more information, contact Michael Ha, Office of Engineering and Technology at (202) 418-2099 or by email: [email protected].
Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The public notice can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) a FCC.gov.
The more than year-long battle between wireless start-up LightSquared and the GPS industry peaked earlier this week when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), tasked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the potential interference problem between LightSquared’s mobile wireless proposal and GPS receivers, issued a statement and report with the following conclusion:
“The federal agencies and LightSquared have invested significant time and resources to identify and analyze proposed solutions to address the impact of LightSquared’s planned network implementations. Based on the testing and analyses conducted to date, as well as numerous discussions with LightSquared, it is clear that LightSquared’s proposed implementation plans, including operations in the lower 10MHz would impact both general/personal navigation and certified aviation GPS receivers. We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment.”
The FCC subsequently issued a statement including the following paragraph:
“NTIA, the federal agency that coordinates spectrum uses for the military and other federal government entities, has now concluded that there is no practical way to mitigate potential interference at this time. Consequently, the Commission will not lift the prohibition on LightSquared. The International Bureau of the Commission is proposing to (1) vacate the Conditional Waiver Order, and (2) suspend indefinitely LightSquared’s Ancillary Terrestrial Component authority to an extent consistent with the NTIA letter. A Public Notice seeking comment on NTIA’s conclusions and on these proposals will be released tomorrow.”
As promised, the FCC subsequently opened a Public Notice seeking comments based on NTIA’s report and conclusions. View the Public Notice here. Public comments close on March 1, 2012. If you have invested in GPS technology, you should enter your comments to protect your investment.
Submitting your comments to the FCC only takes five minutes. You don’t need to write an essay. Just state that you support the NTIA’s conclusion.
You can compose your comments in a text editor like Notepad, then save the file and attach it. Once you go to the FCC comment submission website, it will make sense. If you have any problems, email me.
Go to the FCC comment submission website by clicking here.
Type in the following information:
Proceeding Number: 11-109
Name of Filer: Enter your name
Address Line 1: Enter your address
City: Enter your city
State: Enter your state
Zip: Enter your zipe code
Attach your comments
That’s it. Five minutes and you’re done.
You might have heard about another Public Notice that the FCC issued regarding LightSquared. It is in response to LightSquared’s petition to rule that GPS receivers are not entitled to interference protection. I wrote about it last week. You can read my article here. At that time, I was planning to submit my comments, but that was before the NTIA released its report and conclusions this week. I wouldn’t suggest you not enter a comment to the earlier Public Notice, but certainly I’d focus on entering comments on the latest Public Notice in support of NTIA’s report and recommendations.
For those of you who heard that LightSquared might have been a good idea in order to make wireless mobile Internet access more affordable, I have serious doubts about that statement. Here’s why…
Borrowing from my article last week, LightSquared is relying on Sprint’s infrastructure (~31,000 towers) for its terrestrial operations, and supplementing them with ~3,400 LightSquared towers at some point. I’ve used Sprint’s mobile phone service for about 12 years, and I used Sprint’s data card service for several years (not any longer). I pretty much know that Sprint is good for metro areas and poor for rural areas. Like other wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.), Sprint is strong in some geographic areas, and weak in others. Since LightSquared is focused on serving people (densely populated areas) rather than geographic areas (e.g., farmlands), their terrestrial service is not going to be even close to being nationwide. LightSquared’s solution for areas not covered by their terrestrial service is to use satellite communications for internet connectivity. If you want to know more about this, read Tim Farrar’s blog on the subject, which includes a map of LightSquared’s terrestrial coverage. I’ve asked LightSquared for the most current deployment map, but received no response. I’ve been unable to find it even in their FCC filings (maybe you can), but I have to believe that if it was something to be proud of, they would be showing it to everyone.
Furthermore, in a huge FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) document release last week by the FCC, documents reveal what LightSquared was planning to charge their wholesale customers (not retail) when customers were out of range of their terrestrial system and forced to use LightSquared’s satellite for wireless broadband. The wholesale cost of their satellite broadband service was to be $10 per megabyte (not gigabyte), an astonishingly high price for a company that’s been touting affordable, nationwide wireless broadband Internet service. If you want to read for yourself, click here. You can read about LightSquared’s objections to the FOIA document release here.
LightSquared bankruptcy looming?
Of course, after the NTIA issued its report and conclusions this week, there were many rumors that LightSquared would soon declare bankruptcy. In response, LightSquared financier Phil Falcone told Reuters “It is clearly not on our table” and that “There are other ways around this.”
Other rumors include a proposed spectrum swap that GPS World reported two weeks ago. Although it’s tough to rule out anything, this would be quite a stretch, especially for the spectrum mentioned in the GPSWorld article (1515-1525 MHz) since it’s still close enough to LightSquared’s 10L signal (1526-1536 MHz) that failed to pass the NTIA’s interference testing that it would likely require another round of GPS interference testing. Furthermore, one of the NTIA’s sticking points was the potential interference from LightSquared’s mobile devices, which operate (uplink) in the 1626.5-1660.5 Mhz range, so that would need to be addressed as well.
The beginning of a new era of GPS/GNSS technology.
Included in the NTIA report was a recommendation that, with time, GPS receivers could be redesigned in order to accomodate LightSquared’s 10L signal.
NTIA also reported that during the January 13 Excom (Position, Navigation, Timing Executive Committee) meeting, it was agreed that “federal agencies will move forward this year to develop and establish new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals and ensure that any such proposals are implemented without affecting existing and evolving uses of space-based PNT services vital to economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs.”
In summary, GPS/GNSS receiver designs will change in the coming years and move towards more efficient use of spectrum. To me, a critical statement in the NTIA letter to the FCC is “without affecting existing and evolving,” meaning that not only should GPS be considered but also GPS-like systems from other countries such as Russia’s GLONASS, Europe’s Galileo, and other evolving satellite navigation systems and applications.
For the latest news, join me next Monday on the ACSM Radio Hour (Monday, February 20)
The LightSquared situation is still very fluid. There seems to be a new twist almost daily.
This past Monday, I was a guest on ACSM’s (American Congress on Surveying and Mapping) Radio Hour with Gavin Schrock and Laurence Socci, hosted by ACSM’s Curt Sumner. You can listen to a recording of the show here.
Due to the significant events that occured this week, I’m returning as a guest either next Monday or the following along with Gavin Schrock to discuss the latest developments. You can join us here at 8 a.m. Pacific/11 a.m. Eastern U.S. time on either day, or the show will be recorded and available for you to listen to at a later date.
“We conclude that LightSquared’s proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time.” These words from Lawrence Strickling (right), U.S. assistant secretary for communications and information and head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), appear to signal the end of LightSquared’s run.
Strickling’s letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius Genachowski appeared in public on February 14. Later that same day, FCC spokesperson Tammy Sun released a statement from that agency that “the Commission will not lift the prohibition on LightSquared,” and that it plans to “vacate the Conditional Waiver Order, and suspend indefinitely LightSquared’s Ancillary Terrestrial Component authority.”
Together, the NTIA and the FCC share responsibility for controlling U.S. radio spectrum use and making band allocations. The FCC supposedly has final authority in these matters, although the NTIA, representing government interests, may swing the bigger cat in the room. LightSquared’s inability to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), coupled with unremitting frowning and glowering from the Department of Defense, may have been the deciding factors — more so than the uproar among most GPS manufacturers. The FAA and the U.S. military, two key government entities with widely fielded GPS equipment and applications, constituted the backbone that the NTIA finally showed, although the military has been, with one notable exception, silent on the issue, and indeed is not mentioned in the NTIA letter.
Strickling’s eight-page NTIA letter recaps the background of our story, with a July 6, 2011 early climax: “The test results demonstrated that LightSquared’s then-panned deployment of terrestrial operations posed a significant potential for harmful interference to GPS services.” He continues with the history of the further NTIA testing of cellular GPS receivers, joint continued analysis by FAA and LightSquared of impact on aviation receivers, and testing of general/personal navigation GPS receivers by the Executive Steering Group of the Interagency National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (EXCOM).
Strickling quotes a January 13 letter to him from Ashton Carter, U.S. deputy secretary for defense, and John Porcari, deputy secretary for transportation:
“It is the unanimous conclusion of the test findings by the EXCOM agencies that both LighSquared’s original and modified plans for its proposed mobile network would cause harmful interference to many GPS receivers. Additionally, an analysis by the FAA has concluded that the LighSquared proposals are not compatible with severl GPS-dependent aircraft safety-of-flight systems. Based upon this testing and analysis, there appear to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as prosposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS. As a result, no additional testing is warranted at this time.”
But wait, we’re not done yet. Strickling calls for GPS receiver standards to be developed, citing the EXCOM’s decision that “federal agencies will move forward this year to develop and establish new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals.”
The FCC, in its concurrence statement to the NTIA letter, actually begins by reciting the mantras of “economic growth, job creation, and to promote competition . . . freeing up spectrum for mobile broadband,” and only graduallyl works its way around to its decision. This signals an ongoing, solid commitment to make further sallies in this area.
Ashton Carter, U.S. deputy secretary for Defense, and John Porcari, deputy secretary for Transportation, have written an official letter to the assistant secretary of Commerce stating that “there appear to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service.” Carter and Porcari are co-chairs of the National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. This represents the strongest intra-government statement to date on the issue.
Their letter further states that “both LightSquared’s original and modified plans for its proposed mobile network would cause harmul interference to many GPS receivers. Additionally, an analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration has concluded that the LightSquared proposals are not compatible with several GPS-dependent aircraft safety-of-flight systems.”
“No additional testing is warranted at this time,” the authors conclude.
They further propose to “draft new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space, commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals.”
No response has emerged from either the Federal Communications Commission or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the two bodies charged with making a determination on the issue. But the letter appears to signal a coming end to a conflict that has occupied many, and tied up many resources and consumed many millions of dollars, for the past year.
One source commented off the record that “Our hope is this will be the end of the matter, and the FCC will withdrawal its initial approval and inform LSQ they must seek the 500 MHz in a different portion of the spectrum.”
Second Galileo IOV Satellite Transmits
On January 17, the E1 signal of the Galileo Flight Model 2 satellite (FM2, also known as GSAT0102) was successfully acquired and tracked by the researchers of the Navigation, Signal Analysis and Simulation (NavSAS) group at Politecnico di Torino / Istituto Superiore Mario Boella. The signal was received with a non-directive GNSS antenna, a commercial narrowband E1 RF front-end, and the N-GENE software receiver developed by the NavSAS lab.
Other research facilities and advanced GNSS companies around the world have also reported reception of a signal from this, the second in-orbit validation Galileo satellite, launched on October 21, 2011. The first IOV satellite, Galileo-ProtoFlight Model (PFM) began broadcasting in December.
FM2 currently transmits a Galileo Open Service signal on the E1 band using the Code Number 12 of the Galileo Interface Control Document (ICD). Acquisition and tracking results are reported in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The signal was received with a C/N0 of approximately 46.4 dBHz and a Doppler frequency shift equal to –2595 Hz.
Both Galileo craft were in view on January 17. Figure 4 shows both the estimated Doppler and C/N0 profiles obtained from multiple measurements performed on the same time interval.
As a final step, the demodulation of the E1b data channel has also been performed, checking the navigation messages for both the satellites. It has been noticed that, at the moment, the navigation messages present only two types of page: reserved (word type field with value 63) and type 0 (spare). Type 0 words have valid Week Number and Time Of Week fields. On the other hand, both the satellites broadcast a valid secondary code on their E1c pilot channels, compliant with the Galileo ICD.
— Fabio Dovis
FIGURE 1. Search space of the successful acquisition of the Galileo FM2 satellite (PRN 12).
FIGURE 2. Peak obtained acquiring the Galileo FM2 satellite.
FIGURE 3. Estimated C/N0 and correlation values obtained tracking the PRN 12.
FIGURE 4. Estimated Doppler and C/N0 profiles along multiple measurements performed on January 17.
More GPS III Birds, Launch, Checkout Awarded
The U.S. Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a $238 million contract for production of the third and fourth satellites in the next-generation GPS III constellation.
In May 2008, the Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin an initial contract to design, develop and build the first two GPS III satellites. The contract also includes options for up to 10 additional spacecraft. With the most recent award, the GPS III team is now on contract to deliver four GPS III space vehicles, with the first launch scheduled in 2014. The Air Force has plans to build up to 32 GPS III satellites.
The Air Force also signed a $21.5 million contract with Lockheed Martin to provide a launch and checkout capability (LCC) to command and control all GPS III satellites from launch through early on-orbit testing.
The LCC will be integrated into the Raytheon-developed Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX). It includes trained satellite operators and engineering solutions in partnership with OCX to support launch, early orbit operations, and checkout of all GPS III satellites before the spacecraft are turned over to Air Force Space Command for operations.
“Achieving initial launch capability in 2014 is critical to introducing new GPS capabilities on time and will enable the GPS III program to continue its production pace, maximize efficiencies and reduce long term costs for the GPS enterprise as a whole,” said Col. Bernard Gruber, director of the GPS Directorate. “LCC will ensure we can launch in 2014, effectively closing the time gap between GPS III and the Next Generation Operational Control System.”
Lockheed Martin is the GPS III prime contractor with teammates ITT Exelis, General Dynamics, Infinity Systems Engineering, Honeywell, ATK, and other subcontractors.
Increase Proposed for GLONASS
A December 27 meeting in Moscow heard a proposal to expand the GLONASS constellation to 30 satellites and six orbital planes, among five other modernization options. The Presidium of the TsNIImash Council (Central Research Institute of Machine Building) is the arm of Roscosmos, the Russian federal space agency, responsibale for civil aspects of GLONASS.
The other options include adding one more satellite to each of the existing three planes, but that would involve rephasing almost all of the operating satellites, which could cause problems. Adding three new planes to the constellation, each with two satellites, is the leading option, and will be considered in detail over the next few months.
It is not clear how the present GLONASS frequency-division multiple-access (FDMA) channel spectrum could handle 30 satellites. It appears that the current arrangement can only handle a maximum of 28 satellites. The concept would need support from the Russian Defense Ministry among others to go ahead.
Incomplete Compass ICD Released
China announced the official start of Compass operational positioning, navigation, and timing services to China and surrounding areas and released a test version of an interface control document (ICD) on December 27. The ICD is available in both Chinese and English in PDF format from the system’s website, www.beidou.gov.cn.
The nine-page test ICD is incomplete. It only describes the basics of the coordinate and time systems and the basic characteristics of the open service B1 signal transmitted as the in-phase component on the 1561.098 MHz carrier frequency, including the ranging codes assigned to different satellites. There is no discussion of the details of the navigation message or associated algorithms.
A spokesperson stated that the test version is being released to stimulate research and development work and promote applications as soon as possible, and that some aspects of the transmitted signals are not yet finalized or “cured” and that is why they are not discussed in the test ICD.
Leap Second
The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) announced that a positive leap second will be introduced into Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) at the end of June 2012. UTC will be retarded by 1.0 second so that the sequence of dates of the UTC markers will be:
2012 June 30 23h 59m 59s
2012 June 30 23h 59m 60s
2012 July 01 0h 0m 0s
UTC and all time scales based on UTC will be affected by this adjustment. However, GPS will not be adjusted physically. For GPS, the leap second correction contained within the UTC data of subframe 4, page 18 of the navigation message transmitted by satellites will change.
Before the leap second: GPS-UTC = +15s (that is, GPS is ahead of UTC by 15 seconds).
After the leap second: GPS-UTC = +16s (GPS will be ahead by 16 seconds).
Meanwhile, the International Telecommunication Union postponed until 2015 a vote on a proposal to do away with leap seconds completely.
“We invite comment on LightSquared’s petition, and establish a pleading cycle.” Thus spake the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), groping for a way forward in the ongoing LightSquared/GPS conflict. The FCC has opened an Internet docket for public comment on the LightSquared position that GPS users and receivers “do not merit legal protection from interference” created by LightSquared. The FCC asks for comments by February 27.
LightSquared asked the FCC in December to rule that GPS receivers and users “do not merit legal protection from interference” caused by the proposed wireless broadband service. Such interference has been amply demonstrated by comprehensive testing from May to October of last year. Opening the docket for public comment is the FCC’s way of fielding the LightSquared petition.
LightSquared claimed in its December 20 petition that GPS makers sell “unlicensed and poorly designed” receivers that improperly listen to LightSquared’s airwaves.
Jim Kirkland, general counsel of Trimble Navigation Ltd. and head of the Save Our GPS Coalition, responded that Congressional directives bar the FCC from clearing LightSquared before questions of GPS interference are settled. The company’s December requests consists of “gross mischaracterization of prior FCC decisions,” Kirkland stated. “LightSquared and its predecessors have never been allowed to interfere with GPS.”
Parties are invited to file comments in response to LightSquared’s petition for declaratory ruling in IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142, no later than February 27. Parties may file replies in response to those comments in IB Docket No. 11-109 or ET Docket No. 10-142, as appropriate, no later than March 13.
Click here for the FCC Public Notice, “International Bureau Establishes Pleading Cycle for LightSquared Petition for Declaratory Ruling.”
LightSquared is currently conducting a public campaign intended to persuade federal regulators to approve a nationwide broadband service that would be detrimental to users and applications that depend on GPS. The campaign relies on misinformation, revisionist history, half-truths, and clear misstatements of fact. To understand the effort to convince regulators and legislators that the experts are wrong, one must consider 10 basic truths.
1: The MSS Band Was Not Meant for High-Powered Terrestrial Use. The FCC authorized use of ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) ground transmitters many years ago within the mobile satellite services (MSS) band. The LightSquared campaign claims that this proves the band was intended for primary high-powered terrestrial use. But note ATC means ancillary terrestrial component, not primary. The FCC allowed this use only to fill in small holes in coverage from satellites. The term MSS recognizes that the band was for use by low-powered satellites, not high-powered land transmitters.
The FCC conditional waiver given to LightSquared, if allowed to stand, would completely change the nature of the band, converting it to primary terrestrial use by 40,000 or more high-powered ground transmitters. Many FCC statements preceding the conditional waiver make it clear that the LightSquared effort is precisely what the FCC said would not be permitted.
2: Interference to GPS Has Not Been Resolved. LightSquared assured the GPS community when the conditional waiver was announced that all interference issues had been addressed, and its system would not interfere with GPS. It was immediately clear to GPS engineers that this was wrong, and subsequent testing ordered by the FCC, along with that done by manufacturers, federal agencies, and independent organizations, confirmed that the original LightSquared system would cause massive interference with all classes of GPS receivers.
Faced with irrefutable evidence of massive interference, LightSquared revised its system design to propose initial use of only 10 MHz of spectrum farthest from the GPS band (Low 10) for an unspecified period of time, after which it would be allowed to add the closer 10 MHz (High 10). While it may be feasible in the future to develop GPS receivers that could tolerate Low 10, several things are reasonably clear:
High-precision receivers that can tolerate High 10 and work as well as the ones we now use can’t be built, now or in the foreseeable future. LightSquared’s claims that “we can innovate our way out of this” are wrong with respect to High 10. Filters that LightSquared presently touts to allow Low 10 would not work in the High 10 environment.
Based on limited testing and analysis, Low 10 causes less interference than the original plan of Low 10+High 10, but the Low 10 effects on many receivers, particularly high-precision receivers in many high-value applications, remains substantial.
With this plan, LightSquared claims that 99 percent of existing GPS receivers would not suffer harmful interference. This conclusion relies on a definition of harmful interference of C/N0 degradation of 6 dB for general navigation devices (the GPS industry and FCC precedent require only 1 dB), and on testing cell-phone GPS with a simple pass/fail criterion, ignoring performance degradation and the fact that modern cell phones are much more like general navigation devices and PNDs than older cell phones. Slanted and unorthodox analytical parameters produced this rosy assessment.
Based on evidence of Low-10 interference, the NTIA and FCC ordered more testing specifically focused on Low 10. In response to mounting evidence of interference at this level also, LightSquared has now offered a third version of its system architecture, using Low 10 and limiting power on the ground. From a GPS interference perspective, this power reduction is useful. However, the latest LightSquared plan does not fully address three key problems:
There has been no renunciation of High 10. LightSquared says that in 5–6 years it will need spectrum capacity beyond Low 10. It would be irrational to design receivers now that tolerated Low 10, only to find in a few years that the requirements had changed to require tolerance to High 10 also (which is not possible).
There will still be interference with GPS receivers of various important classes in the power-limited environment of the latest plan.
None of the evolving plans deals with the massive installed base of GPS receivers.
3: The GPS Industry Did Not Know of a Spectrum Conversion. LightSquared claims that for many years GPS manufacturers were aware of the proposed ground transmitters and should have designed receivers to avoid picking up strong signals in this neighboring band. These claims of foreknowledge of a recent fundamental change in proposed use of the MSS band are fallacious.
The U.S. GPS Industry Council at the time of the limited conditional approval of ATC transmitters (circa 2003) consisted of only two or three GPS manufacturers. It is clear from USGIC statements at the time that it did not anticipate a spectrum reallocation. In any case, it is a huge stretch to claim that USGIC represented all GPS manufacturers, let alone the entire GPS industry and users. The GPS industry had no indication that the FCC would ever radically reallocate MSS band for a stand-alone high-powered terrestrial network, prior to November 2010.
As [GPS World survey editor] Eric Gakstatter has pointed out, a major change with the potential to affect all GPS users should follow certain guidelines. The Air Force GPS Directorate demonstrated this in handling a much less important change to GPS signals: discontinuing support for the semi-codeless technique used in most high-performance receivers. In 2008, it hired consultants to question all manufacturers and many users of GPS about the potential impact. It then proposed that the signal change would occur on December 31, 2020, giving more than 12 years to prepare for the change.
Should we ask anything less from LightSquared’s far more radical proposal?
The FCC has a process that would have been much more appropriate for a proposal to reallocate the MSS L-band to high-powered terrestrial use: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Had it followed this process, we might be having a productive discussion of technical aspects.
4: GPS Receivers Properly Use the MSS L-Band. LightSquared asserts that GPS receivers intrude into LightSquared’s spectrum— a misleading claim. Many GPS receivers in fact have filters that do not block signals from the MSS band. There are several reasons for this:
So long as the MSS band was a satellite band for signals from space to Earth, the signals from other systems in that band were low-power and not harmful to GPS reception. GPS receiver designers relied on this and assumed this allocation of the band would continue. The ability to use filters that overlap into the MSS band has enabled both low-cost and high-precision GPS receivers.
High-precision receivers cannot produce accurate measurements without using wideband GPS signals that occupy most or all of the GPS band. “Brick wall” filters that could capture all the energy in the GPS band and none of the energy in the adjacent MSS band do not exist.
Lightsquared ignores hundreds of thousands of high-accuracy, high-value GPS receivers that receive signals from the MSS band, using it for its intended purpose — satellite to ground communication. Deere receivers use the StarFire system leasing use of transmitters on MSS band Inmarsat satellites. Trimble leases use of MSS band on LightSquared’s own satellites for OmniSTAR correction signals.
GNSSs worldwide are modernizing their signals; many of these new signals are wideband. To take advantage of them, modern receivers of all classes will be wideband, as high-precision receivers are now, and will suffer interference similar to that of high-precision receivers now.
5: GPS Receivers Do Not Ignore Government Design Standards. LightSquared asserts that the fundamental GPS L1 signal specification mandates receiver design standards that the GPS industry has ignored, to save a few cents of cost. These claims are false. The GPS specification defines the signal-in-space and explicitly says that it is not a receiver design standard; it simply uses a nominal receiver design to be able to translate signal-in-space specification into navigation performance effects.
6: Receiver Replacement Costs and Schedules Are Large. LightSquared has offered $50 million to fund retrofit or replacement of legacy government receivers impacted by its signals. General Shelton of the Air Force Space Command testified to Congress that it would take billions of dollars to replace or retrofit the government receivers. He also estimated a 10-year time frame to test and validate replacement receivers.
LightSquared says it will not bear the costs of replacing commercial receivers since, it claims, manufacturers are responsible for the improper design of those receivers. This is wrong, as shown earlier. LightSquared should bear the cost of replacing commercial receivers, if allowed to proceed. A realistic time frame needed to replace high-accuracy, high-value commercial receivers is also about 10 years.
LightSquared argues that in five years, most current GPS receivers will be obsolete. This is clearly not true. Many current high-precision receivers are already prepared to use modernized signals from GNSS constellations. The L1C GPS civil signal, for instance, will not be available on any satellite until 2014, and the full constellation of satellites with L1C will not be available until 2026. Therefore, many receivers in use now will continue to be in use for many more years than five.
7: Other GNSS Are Also Affected. Because Galileo, Compass, and GLONASS use or will use signals similar to GPS, in the same band as GPS, they will suffer interference very similar to that suffered by GPS. Users will lose the benefits of these other constellations, as well as GPS.
The United States has entered into formal obligations to protect some other GNSS signals; LightSquared signals are not compatible with these U.S. obligations.
8: Handset Interference is a Serious Concern. LightSquared handsets do not yet exist, but testing to date makes it clear that the handset signals to communicate with LightSquared base stations also interfere with GPS receivers when they are nearby (a few meters). The interference to GLONASS reception is also likely to be harmful. The interference effects of a group of LightSquared handsets has not been fully evaluated, but will certainly create more interference for nearby receivers.
Out-of-band emissions from LightSquared handsets, if as high as FCC power masks currently permit, would substantially interfere with all GPS receivers, possibly more than LightSquared base stations.
9: The Solution Is Not a $6 Filter. LightSquared displayed a Deere high-precision receiver with a “$6 filter” and told Congress this proved it could be done inexpensively and quickly. The claim is based on half-truths.
The Low 10 signal can be filtered out using low-cost parts, but the effect on performance is not known. There is good technical reason to be concerned about degraded performance from this filtering.
The Deere receiver displayed is not capable of readily being retrofitted with LightSquared’s or any other filter. Like many high-precision units, it is an integrated, hermetically sealed device. Retrofitting would entail returning the unit to the factory, cutting open and discarding the case, replacing the antenna/preamp assembly with a redesigned antenna/preamp assembly, inserting the unit into a new case and sealing it, re-testing the unit, and returning it to the customer. A costly process.
Filtering is one element of a design, usually distributed across several stages of the receiver. Changing filtering requires a redesign that may stretch across the entire RF front end, and cannot be done casually.
The displayed filter’s specified insertion loss is 3 dB, well above what GPS designers normally accept, and would result in about 2 dB more loss of sensitivity than with current filters.
LightSquared has suggested moving StarFire and OmniSTAR augmentation signals to the top of the MSS band, very close to the GPS band, so that filters that included GPS could include them. This is a reasonable approach, but the “$6 filter” might not permit that, as it would excessively attenuate at least the StarFire signal.
10: The GPS Industry Supports National Broadband. The GPS industry broadly supports the goal of extensive and pervasive national broadband, and of strong competition among providers. Pervasive broadband would be helpful for applications such as real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning. It would be beneficial to GNSS users to have broadband services available everywhere, but not if the cost is to degrade or deny GNSS service.
LightSquared’s broadband services require terrestrial base stations and cannot be done with the LightSquared satellites. It is unlikely that low-population areas will be covered with terrestrial base stations due to the economics involved, but if broadband coverage is nationwide, then so too will be GPS interference.
Rich Keegan is a senior principal engineer at NavCom Technology, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Deere and Company.
Many press reports recently said that the Federal Communications Commission plans to require GPS in all mobiles by 2018, including LBS Insider (October 12, 2011). However, the FCC said that isn’t quite so, saying that “not before 2019, on a date still to be determined, carriers will have to meet the more stringent location accuracy standards that now apply to those carriers using a handset solution for [enhanced 911], and they may choose which solution to use.”
FCC spokeswoman Lauren Kravetz said that these technology solutions may be GPS chipsets, network-based, or a hybrid. The FCC said, after the conclusion of an eight-year period that ends in early 2019, it will sunset the existing network-based rule and require all wireless carriers to meet “the more stringent location accuracy standards in the handset-based rule. The FCC will then set a specific sunset date for a network-based standard — after further notice and comments.”
An announcement completely overshadowed by the Apple iPhone 4S rollout may have a major impact on the location-based services industry. The FCC has said that all wireless carriers, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, are required to integrate GPS into phones by 2018. In other news, Intel bought Telmap, which has made inroads into the LBS market with its partnerships with carriers.
In a move designed to allow first responders to locate 911 emergency calls, the Federal Communications Commission will require all wireless operators, including voice-over-IP service and landline providers, to integrate GPS in phones by 2018.
The FCC says the majority of mobile phone users will have GPS-installed devices by the 2018 deadline. The FCC did not set a deadline for phones that do not use GPS-based technology. In addition, VoIP is going toward more mobile applications, rather than its original substitute for landline service.
Most industry experts agree that the rise of location-based services occurred when the FCC mandated that carriers have location capability during its enhanced 911 rulemaking. Wireless carriers chafed at the deadlines and accuracy requirements. However, the rulemaking did bring market awareness to the carriers to the benefits, and potential new markets, coming from this mandated location requirement.
While it is too early to tell how much this will help drive LBS markets, the FCC said the decision, which was overshadowed as it was announced the same week as the rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S, was spurred by the desire to modernize 911. This means locating emergency callers quickly, particularly from smartphones and other mobile devices.
But have the wireless carriers lost their grip on LBS? In 2009, the surge in the number of GPS-enabled smartphones, proliferation of handset and mobile OS application stores, and increased availability and consumer demand for free or low-priced LBS applications has had a huge impact on the traditionally carrier-controlled LBS market, said Dan Gilmartin, Where vice president of marketing.
“The decreased costs and barriers to entry into the market place and ability to reach consumers through low- or no-cost viral social marketing channels is enabling small application developers to compete with the established LBS developers. The result is a highly competitive landscape that beforehand was dominated by only a few major players,” he said.
Gilmartin said that Google’s decision to offer free turn-by-turn navigation and acquisition of ADMob for $750 million reinforced the expectation that the viable business models for LBS in 2010 and beyond will include offering free or “freemium” services to consumers through ad-supported and other non-traditional funding models. “That said, the carriers’ subscription model still appears viable, at least for the short term, and consumers are proving to be willing to pay for what they perceive to be high-quality applications both on- and off-deck, navigation being the most prominent category,” he said.
Go Ask Apple?
The rollout of the Apple iPhone 4S may not be the biggest thing for the LBS market, but it does open it further to another tier-one carrier in Sprint. Like other iPhone models, the 4S has GPS embedded, but offers Siri voice-recognition that integrates with its navigation capability.
When LBS Insider contacted Sprint for comments on the new iPhone 4S and the FCC decision that GPS be installed in all smartphones, we got the public relations brush off to “Go ask Apple.” Ask Apple about GPS and LBS? This is an interesting response, as Sprint was one of the first major LBS market players, particularly their Nextel folks who were very innovative with location technology in the early days.
Intel Buys Telmap
At least one company in the LBS market is doing something right when a big company like Intel buys it. As GPS World reported, Intel bought Telmap, the Israel-based LBS company. The deal was announced at the recent Intel AppUp Elements developer conference in Seattle.
Motti Kushnir, Telmap chief marketing officer, said that since Telmap is a private company, financial details cannot be disclosed. He said the deal will take effect by the end of the year. “Telmap will be a wholly owned subsidiary and will maintain its independence as well as its brand,” Kushnir said in a prepared statement.
Kushnir said no layoffs are expected, nor will facilities close or be moved by Intel. “On the contrary, we are expected to grow in order to support the growth of our business both in existing and new territories,” he said.
One of the reasons Intel bought the company is that it is sees mobility as one of its growth engines — and location is a key component, Kushnir said.
Telmap says it has 6 million users for its IP portfolio that includes mapping, local search, and navigation. This includes a new restaurant LBS initiative in Israel. The company is working with Rest, a large Israel restaurant guide to provide location-based coupons to customers.
In other LBS industry news:
Fierce Wireless made an admittedly subjective list of the worst cell phones of all time. Garmin’s ill-fated Nuvifone G60 made the list. The phone, a partnership between Garmin and Asustek Computer, featured LBS — and had a $5.95 monthly charge for premium service. Fierce Wireless says that it was a failure in part because of Google’s free location services.
Nokia will be closing down its operations in Bonn, Germany, and Malvern, Pennsylvania, with an expected loss of more than 1,300 jobs in the Location and Commerce divisions. According to published reports, operations will consolidate in the Berlin, Boston, and Chicago offices. Another 2,200 layoffs will come from its European manufacturing operations.
This column has admittedly neglected traffic markets lately, but will be running more stories and interviews soon. With that, some big news has come out of that market, namely Google’s recent deal with INRIX to power its navigation and mapping applications. INRIX traffic information will be integrated in Google’s online products and services and on mobile phones.
Meanwhile, INRIX competitor TomTom is launching a Traffic Foundation that brings together stakeholders from academia, industry, and policy-making to help reduce traffic congestions. The company also rolled out its Custom Probe Counts at the ITS World Congress, that allows government and business markets to assess traffic density. The company also expanded its coverage from 14 to 18 countries.
“We conclude that LightSquared’s proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time.” These words from Lawrence Strickling (right), U.S. assistant secretary for communications and information and head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), appear to signal the end of LightSquared’s run.
