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.
The stability of a received GPS signal determines how well the receiver can track the signal and the accuracy of the positioning results it provides. While the satellites use a very stable oscillator and modulation system to generate their signals, just how stable are the resulting phase-modulated carriers? In particular, do received signals always conform to the published system specifications? In this month’s column we take a look at a specially designed receiver for analyzing GPS carrier phase and some of the interesting results that have been obtained.
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
A RADIO WAVE, OR ANY ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE FOR THAT MATTER, may be generally characterized by four parameters: amplitude, frequency, phase, and polarization. If the values of amplitude, frequency, and polarization remain constant, then the wave is a pure oscillation or “tone” and can be represented as a sine wave.
An unvarying tone doesn’t convey any information. However, the wave can be modulated by varying one or more of its characteristic parameters in a controlled fashion. In this way information, whether it be audio, images, or data, can be transmitted from one place to another. The sine wave is therefore referred to as a “carrier” (of the modulation). A continuous wave is a wave that is not interrupted.
Of course, radio waves are not only used for communicating. They’re also used for navigation, radar, and many other purposes including the jamming of other radio signals. The modulating signal may either be continuously varying (analog) or have a fixed number of values of one or more of the parameters (digital) — two values in the case of binary modulation.
Amplitude modulation is commonly used for broadcasting and communications. If a continuous wave is interrupted by keying the transmitter on and off using a code of some kind, such as Morse code, information can be sent. For speech and music transmission, an audio waveform is modulated onto the carrier.
Frequency modulation is used for very high frequency (VHF) high-fidelity broadcasts and for communications in the VHF and ultra-high-frequency ranges of the radio spectrum. The instantaneous carrier frequency changes with the frequency and amplitude of the modulating waveform.
Phase modulation is typically used for data transmissions and, as we know, this is how the pseudorandom noise codes and the navigation message modulate the signal carriers of GPS and other global navigation satellite systems. (While the polarization of a wave can be modulated to transmit information, this is not very common.) The stability of a received GPS signal — both the carrier and its modulations — determines, in part, how well the receiver can track the signal and the accuracy of the positioning results it provides.
While the satellites use a very stable oscillator and modulation system to generate their signals, just how stable are the resulting phase-modulated carriers? In particular, do received signals always conform to the published system specifications? In this month’s column we take a look at a specially designed receiver for analyzing GPS carrier phase and some of the interesting results that have been obtained.
“Innovation” features discussions about advances in GPS technology, its applications, and the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick.
By Johnathan York, Jon Little, and David Munton
All global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) rely on well-defined data messages modulated onto stable carrier signals. The transmission of signals that adhere to published interface specifications (ISs) is what permits a GPS or GLONASS signal to be transmitted from a satellite and to be decoded at our receiver. This process is one that most of us never need to consider, and is part of the background magic that make GNSS so powerful.
Still, signals are generated and received by real hardware — hardware that can be subject to the harsh space environment or a challenging ground environment. And once these signals are generated, they propagate to the user along a path through a dynamic medium that includes the ionosphere — a dilute plasma that introduces a well-known time-delay and phase change into the signal. The net result is is an effect on the signal that depends on both time and space.
An interesting question is the following: How do we know that the signal we plan to send (as documented in an IS) is actually the signal that we receive? A pragmatic answer is that GNSS positioning works. If there is a difference between the IS-defined signal and the received signal, the impact is not seen by most users. Another answer is that satellite vendors test (and then test again) their equipment prior to launch, providing a high level of certainty that the ISs are being adhered too. In this article, we will describe our work in providing a third way of answering the question — by monitoring signals — motivated by our desire to see “all the bits, all the time.” We have seen some interesting effects in our observations, and we will discuss our attempts to detect and characterize these effects.
Background
For our purposes, we will be looking strictly at the L1 C/A-code signal. The reasons for this will become clear shortly. The standard textbook form of the noiseless signal is
(1)
where P is the signal power, cCA(t) is the C/A-code modulation stream of plus and minus ones, nNav(t) is the navigation bitstream that is modulated onto the signal, and the cos(ωt) factor represents the fundamental carrier frequency, with ω being the angular frequency (ω=2πf). For the GPS L1 signal, f = 1575.42 MHz. The GPS receiver processes this signal (in the presence of noise) into the observables (such as range, phase, or Doppler frequency shift), or the positions and velocities that we need.
One of the research problems that we find interesting is determining how to monitor the details of the signal in Equation (1) or of any other GNSS signal. Why would this be of interest? To us this is interesting because we have seen events where the signal does not behave as expected. In fact, these events were first noted by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) receivers, and were later noted again in ionospheric observations. By being able to monitor the signal at a very detailed level, we can hope to gain insight into the origins of these events.
We are not alone in wanting to validate that the signal and data being produced by a GNSS receiver is valid. A standard approach to monitoring the GNSS signal would be to use an autonomous receiver method, known as receiver autonomous integrity monitoring or RAIM. However, in this approach, the integrity of the navigation solution is evaluated based on the range and phase observables produced by the receiver, and we obtain no insight into the behavior of the actual signal — only the receiver’s behavior in processing the received signals. Another option is to directly observe each satellite’s signal using a high-gain antenna. This approach provides significant insight into the behavior of the signal but is expensive and is really only effective on one satellite at a time. A system, which is close in spirit to our approach, is the Ohio University GPS Anomalous Event Monitor (GAEM). GAEM consists of two high-quality commercial receivers, which serve as independent triggers for an RF capture system. When the receivers detect an anomaly, the RF capture system is able to provide 20 seconds of raw RF data for study.
Using an Inexpensive Software Receiver
The observations we will discuss in the rest of this paper were made using what we term the Global Navigation Satellite System Complex Ambiguity Function receiver, or GCAF. The GCAF is a prototype receiver, and is well suited to some of the detailed analysis we have described.
Briefly, the GCAF receiver is a single-channel, single-frequency (L1) GPS receiver, which uses firmware installed on a field programmable gate array (FPGA) to process the incoming GPS signal. FIGURE 1 is a labeled photograph of the GCAF. RF down-conversion occurs in the module at lower left. The down-converted signal is passed to an FPGA-based software receiver, shown at lower right. All of the processing to produce the complex correlation curves is done in the software receiver. The aggregator, shown at upper right, simply provides an Ethernet interface to the outside.
FIGURE 1. The GCAF receiver.
The incoming signal is correlated against a replica of the expected L1 C/A-code signal, generating samples of the correlation curve. The difference between the GCAF and many standard commercial GPS receivers is that the GCAF samples the C/A-code correlation curve at 512 points (lags) at a 1-kHz rate. Each correlation sample is complex, consisting of in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components, with the software that processes the receiver raw data designed to maintain the signal in the I-component, and noise in the Q-component. As a result, the GCAF engine not only tracks the signal where it is expected to appear, but also at nearby offset phases and Doppler shifts simultaneously, and this ability substantially eliminates dependence on the tracking loop behavior and allows the observation of the characteristics of the received signal, rather than inferring them from observations of tracking loop behavior. See the sidebar, for more details on the receiver’s operation.
Since the GCAF provides access to the high-rate complex correlation values, we can “decode” the navigation modulation sequence, nNav(t), from the incident signal by tracking the correlation peak phase and watching for phase changes. These phase changes correspond to distinct changes in the carrier phase. FIGURE 2 shows results from measurements collected with the GCAF while observing space vehicle number (SVN) 26 / pseudorandom noise code number (PRN) 26 on August 22, 2009. The top plot shows the amplitude of the in-phase component of the incident signal in blue, and that of the quadrature component in red. The amplitude is in arbitrary units, while the time along the bottom is in milliseconds–so the entire snapshot is only 0.6 seconds long.
FIGURE 2. Amplitude and phase of the detrended L1 C/A-code carrier of SVN26 (PRN26) recorded on August 22, 2009, at 10:16:30 GPS Time.
These results in Figure 2 are as we expect, with the dominant energy appearing in the I-component. Clearly visible in the I-component is the navigation bitstream, which appears as a series of 180° phase changes in the carrier signal (hence changing the sign of the amplitude). The lower plot in Figure 2 shows the results of a “squaring” detector applied to the complex signal. Effectively this doubles any phase changes, since (ejφ)2 = ej(2φ). This nicely converts the navigation bitstream transitions to 2 × 180°, or 360°, which removes them from the signal. (This is the approach pioneered by one of the first commercial GPS receivers, the Macrometer, for providing correlation-free L1 phase observations by removing both the code and navigation message phase transitions.) What the lower plot in Figure 2 conveys is the absence of any transitions other than the expected ones of 180°.
However, not all of our measurements are quite this typical. In some cases we observe what we term “carrier-phase signal events” (CPSEs). FIGURE 3 shows a typical example of such a CPSE taken on SVN48 (PRN21) on March 13, 2010. In the upper plot, note the sudden change in amplitude in the quadrature component near -100 milliseconds. In the lower plot, note the sudden changes in the carrier phase that occur at the same times as the amplitude changes. In this case, the squaring detector shows clear evidence of a transition that was not anticipated, and appears to be of approximately 90° and persist for approximately 175 milliseconds.
FIGURE 3. Decoded navigation bitstream on SVN45 (PRN21) taken on March 13, 2010, at 20:28:54 GPS Time.
Of course, the single-channel nature of the GCAF does not permit an unambiguous identification of where in the signal chain a CPSE is introduced. The introduction of events might occur within the satellite transmission chain, or be produced within the propagation environment, or possibly be a quirk of the receiver itself. However, the types of events we observe seem a very unlikely failure mode for the GCAF. In the case of the example shown in Figure 2, the only place in the system where a signal at the exact Doppler-shifted frequency of the SV is in the numerically controlled oscillator (NCO) of the carrier-tracking loop. The GCAF tracking loop is updated at a rate slower than many of these events and manual examination of telemetry from the tracking loops in specific instances indicates no anomalous or discontinuous tracking behavior during the events examined. If events are generated by the local receiver environment, one possible mechanism would be a small multipath source at a position so as to induce a phase shift at a greater magnitude than the direct signal. This appears unlikely as events occur at many times of day (and therefore multipath geometries), and have onsets and durations that are difficult to explain with a reasonable multipath reflector.
As a prototype instrument, the GCAF does have practical limitations. One of these limitations is that observations are divided into 5-minute intervals, at which point the signal is reacquired and data collected for another 5-minute interval. This is an operational limitation, which serves to improve robustness and bound individual output file sizes to 1 gigabyte each, and as a result, limits the durations of the CPSE that we can observe.
Event Detection
The simple squaring detector discussed above is not sufficient to provide a robust detection mechanism for the type of CPSEs we might see. In fact, we wanted a metric that would not rely on a pre-definition of what we might see in the signal, but which would flag changes in signal phase that might be interesting. To develop this metric, we borrowed ideas from the field of metrology, specifically work that characterizes noise types in oscillators. We ended up focusing on the modified Allan variance. While we will not detail the derivation of our metric here, we will discuss the results.
The basic idea is to consider the phase, ϕ, of the GPS signal, averaged over sequential periods of duration τ. We choose τ to satisfy τ > 1 millisecond, since this is the basic chipping period of the L1 C/A-code signal. For the n-th period, τ, we denote this averaged phase by <ϕn>. By considering the impact of noise, specifically receiver thermal noise and clock stability, we can formulate a probabilistic bound of the form:
(2)
The interpretation of this result is that for a given averaging period τ the interval-to-interval variation in the average phase should never be too large. The right-hand side of Equation (2) provides a threshold for the phase variations over three consecutive periods, and is determined by the receiver thermal noise and clock stability. This bound, which is probabilistic in nature, applies with a false alarm rate of once in 10 years. If the metric exceeds this threshold, we declare that a phase event may have occurred within the three intervals.
There is still the practical question of what averaging intervals τ need to be chosen. We have chosen to use a discrete set of τ that range from a few milliseconds to several seconds. This enables us to identify CPSEs that might occur rapidly (that is, at millisecond levels) or more slowly (at second levels). FIGURE 4 provides an example of the metric response to three consecutive CPSEs that are associated with SVN48 (PRN07). The upper plot shows the results of the squaring detector applied to the phase. Clearly evident are three rapid phase changes of about 20°. The next plot shows the result of the detection metric, which shows three double peaks in the vicinity of the phase changes. The third plot shows the I- (blue) and Q- (green) signal components. The bottom plot shows the NCO offset, which is a useful diagnostic.
FIGURE 4. A CPSE observed on SVN48 (PRN07) on September 15, 2010, at 19:21:42 GPS Time. (Click to enlarge.)
Observations of Signal Events
The examples we have shown so far reflect what we refer to as two-sided discontinuities; that is, a sudden change in phase, followed by a return to close to the original value. FIGURE 5 shows a similar type of CPSE, in which we only see one side of the change. We have seen this type of event quite commonly on SVN62 (PRN25). If there is a return to the original phase, it may be beyond our observation period. Note that the apparent slope in Figure 5 is an artifact of a linear detrending process acting across the discontinuity. FIGURE 6 shows an example of a different type of CPSE that we occasionally see, one in which a change in the slope of the phase occurs (corresponding to a change in frequency). The figure shows a single inflection in the phase rather than a rapid change in the phase value.
FIGURE 5. A CPSE observed on SVN62 (PRN25) on January 16, 2011, at 16:26:03 GPS Time with a magnitude of about 40°. (Image: Authors)FIGURE 6. A CPSE observed on SVN38 (PRN08) on September 29, 2009, at 18:26:20 GPS Time. (Click to enlarge.)
Over the entire GPS constellation, we see events with rapid phase changes most frequently associated with the signals from three SVNs: 45 (an original Block IIR satellite), 48 (a Block IIR-M satellite), and 62 (a Block IIF satellite). This is most clearly shown in FIGURE 7, which contains a histogram of the number of events with rapid phase changes we have seen, broken out by SVN. For this histogram, we have chosen to count only those events that have well-defined phase discontinuities. Other SVNs, for example SVN34 (a Block IIA satellite), will show CPSEs on occasion, but the signals from this set of three SVNs are the ones that we have come to observe most closely. Until recently, SVN62 was the newest SV, and so we have been heavily weighting our observations on this SV.
FIGURE 7. Histogram of event counts for SVNs 45, 48, and 62 (PRNs 21, 07, and 25) covering the periods from mid-2009 until mid-August 2011. (Data: Authors)
Is There an Impact on Users?
To conclude, it is worth assessing what the potential impact of signal events on user equipment might be. We first began to investigate the detailed carrier-phase structure when we learned that the FAA WAAS system found that the carrier phase from SVN45 behaved differently than the rest of the GPS constellation, and that similar effects were seen in SVN34 (PRN04) and SVN35 (PRN05). What was observed were short-duration irregularities (< 1 minute) in which the carrier phase changed rapidly. These events were noticed simultaneously across multiple receivers. These observations led to our use of the GCAF to investigate the carrier phase. It is clear that the CPSEs can have an impact on specialized equipment.
But what about more standard user equipment? Given the types of events that we have observed, particularly those in which the phase changes suddenly and by a large amount, it is natural to ask how this might impact position and navigation users. A momentary 90-degree phase shift that lasts tens to hundreds of milliseconds might have varying effects on receivers depending on the duration of the event, the design of the carrier tracking loop in the receiver, and the instantaneous noise environment at each receiver.
If the CPSE is shorter than the inverse of the receiver carrier tracking loop bandwidth, then the receiver might perceive the CPSE as a very brief loss of signal since the tracking loop will not be able to respond quickly enough. Observables formed from a second or more of raw values are likely to experience a small reduction in signal strength. As a result, short events are likely to go undetected by a traditional receiver that is primarily performing navigation.
However, CPSEs that persist longer than the inverse of the receiver carrier-tracking-loop bandwidth could be interpreted by the receiver in a variety of ways, including a combination of cycle slip(s), navigation bit polarity inversion, or rapid carrier-phase changes.
Summary
We have been engaged in a detailed examination of the GPS L1 C/A-code signal for several years. In examining the signals, we have found that there are times when the signal exhibits an unexpected transition in phase. Looking across the GPS constellation, we find that these events tend to vary by satellite, both in rate and in behavior. While the impact from these events on most user equipment is small, the fact that the behavior is unique by SV is interesting. The type of detailed signal monitoring we have described is useful in two ways: it provides a means of observing effects that might otherwise pass unnoticed, and it gives us the capability to look for events in the future that might have a more obvious impact.
Acknowledgment
This article was stimulated by our research paper “A Non-Traditional Approach to Analysis of Signal Structure Anomalies Observed in PRN 21” presented at ION GNSS 2010, the 23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation in Portland, Oregon, September 21–24, 2010.
Manufacturer
The GCAF receiver uses a Xilinx, Inc., Spartan-3 FPGA.
The Global Navigation Satellite System Complex Ambiguity Function Receiver
The signal from the GCAF’s antenna passes through an amplifier stage, and then to an analog front end, where the signal is downconverted from the L1 frequency, 1575.42 MHz, directly to in-phase and quadrature IF signals. The signal is then passed to a Flexible Low-power Wideband Receiver (FLWR). The FLWR is a low-cost FPGA-based digitizing receiver designed and built by the Applied Research Laboratories at the University of Texas. Notably, the FPGA implementing the C/A-code replica generation and computation of the fast numeric theoretic transform (FNT) is an inexpensive 400 kilo-gate FPGA. The receiver is a two-channel, 10-bit, direct sample receiver, operating at 100 megasamples per second. The FLWR was built to operate as part of an array of antennas, and so connects to an aggregator. In the application discussed in this article, the aggregator simply serves as an interface between the receiver and a host computer. The C/A-code replica generator and the FNT computation of the correlation functions are written as Verilog firmware and loaded onto this receiver. Command and control and data collection occur over a USB port on the aggregator board, which is connected to a local computer.
The host computer receives the time-domain correlation curves from the FPGA and stores them on disk for future processing. The time-domain correlation curve data is also processed by software in the host computer in order to provide feedback to the code and carrier local replica generators on the FPGA. In this way, the tracking loops are closed through the host computer via USB approximately every 100 milliseconds. Because the prototype GCAF provides hundreds of correlator output lags and a rapid dump period, the GCAF is able to track the peak very loosely. That is, unlike a traditional three-lag correlator, which must constantly track the correlation peak in order to produce meaningful data, the GCAF tracking loop needs remain only in the vicinity of the peak. Because the FNT-based GCAF is bit-accurate to traditional early/prompt/late correlators at each lag, there is potential to produce geodetic-quality observables in this loose tracking mode. This stands in contrast to the coarse quality typical of FFT-based loose-tracking approaches. In many cases, this property may make redundant the early/prompt/late-style correlator typically found alongside FFT-based correlators.
Specifically, our prototype implementation has a sufficient number of correlator lags and a sufficiently high dump rate such that it is necessary to remain only within ±25 microseconds of the code peak and ±50 Hz of the carrier peak. The loose-tracking capability of GCAF has interesting implications for signal quality (and anomaly) monitoring. Commercially available atomic frequency standards have time drift rates of 0.2 microseconds per month, and absolute frequency accuracies of well below 1 Hz at the GPS L1 frequency. This level of accuracy means that the GCAF can perform open-loop tracking of GNSS signals when the receiver and satellite positions are known. Open-loop tracking is very useful for anomaly diagnosis and monitoring, as it observes the signals as received from the satellite, as opposed to observing their effects on a tracking loop.
Johnathan York received a Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He has worked at the University of Texas Applied Research Laboratories (ARL:UT) since 2001, working primarily with high-throughput real-time digital signal processing applications.
Jon Little is a senior engineering scientist at ARL:UT. He holds a B.S. degree (1988) and an M.S. degree (1990) from Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. He has worked extensively with the design and development of GPS ground systems and receivers.
David Munton received a B.S. degree in physics from Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California, and a Ph.D. degree in physics from The University of Texas at Austin. He has worked as a research scientist at ARL:UT since 1993. His GNSS research interests include precise positioning and three-frequency measurement combinations.
FURTHER READING
◾ Carrier-Phase Events and Monitoring
“A Non-Traditional Approach to Analysis of Signal Structure Anomalies Observed in PRN 21” by J. Little, J. York, A. Farris, and D. Munton in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2010, the 23rd International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, September 21–24, 2010, pp. 2190–2198.
“A Fast Number-theoretic Transform Approach to a GPS Receiver” by J. York, J. Little, D. Munton, and K. Barrientos in Navigation: The Journal of The Institute of Navigation, Vol 57, No. 4, Winter 2010, pp. 297–307.
“A Complex-Ambiguity Function Approach to a GPS Receiver” by J. York, J. Little, D. Munton, and K. Barrientos in Proceedings of ION GNSS 2009, the 22nd International Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Savannah, Georgia, September 22–25, 2009, pp. 2637–2645.
“The Integrity of GPS” by R.B. Langley in GPS World, Vol. 10, No. 3, March 1999, pp. 60–63.
◾ GPS Signal Components
“Minding Your Is and Qs” by R.B. Langley, a sidebar in “Open Source GPS–A Hardware/Software Platform for Learning GPS: Part II, Software” by C. Kelley and D. Baker in GPS World, Vol. 17, No.2, February 2006, p. 56.
◾ Modified Allen Variance
“Allan Variance and Clock Stability” by R.B. Langley, a sidebar in “New IGS Clock Products: A Global Time Transfer Assessment” by J. Ray and K. Senior in GPS World, Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2002, p. 48.
The Science of Timekeeping by D.W. Allan, N. Ashby, and C. Hodge, Agilent (formerly Hewlett-Packard) Application Note AN1289, Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, California, 1997 and 2000.
UC Berkeley researchers have developed a method to provide real-time, high-resolution data in hard-to-map waterways, using GPS. Tossing a robot is Andrew Tinka, with Kevin Weekly. (Photo courtesy of Jérôme Thai.)
By Tracy Cozzens
A fleet of 100 robots equipped with GPS and sensors were released May 9 into California rivers to measure water flow, salinty levels, and pollution. The Floating Sensor Network is a project by the University of California, Berkeley, to improve the way water quality and flows are monitored.
About two-thirds of California’s fresh water is in the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system where the test took place. This water supplies about two-thirds of the state’s population with drinking water and irrigation. The initiative is led by associate professor Alexandre Bayen at the Center for Informatin Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS).
The robots each have a sensor to test salinity and a GPS unit from a smartphone. Some have propellers so they can maneuver around obstacles and reach specific destinations. The robots also sent Tweets to @fsnandroid61.
The robots drifted through the area of the river being measured, then were retrieved by boat. “One advantage of our real-time communication system is that we can see where all our sensors are on a map, which makes it very easy to chase them down and retrieve them,” said graduate student researcher Andrew Tinka.
With the first test completed, the team’s efforts over the summer have two priorities, Tinka explained. “First, we’re using the flow data that we gathered on May 9 to understand how this ‘mobile’ data can be best used for river hydrodynamics studies. We’re learning how to turn the individual traces of water that each sensor gives us into a big-picture view of the entire river region, sort of how like meteorologists take the data from a few weather stations and turn it into an overall view of what the weather is doing over a large area. Second, we’re working with other hydrodynamics research groups to expand the use of this kind of mobile sensor. We’re loaning our equipment to other groups, doing pilot projects with others, and basically trying to get these sensors into researchers’ toolboxes throughout the water community.”
There are two types of devices in the fleet, active and passive. The active sensors have a twin-propeller drive system that lets them move through the water to avoid obstacles or stay in the correct region of the river. “We developed the internal electronics for this device ourselves,” Tinka said. “We integrated a Magellan AC12 GPS receiver along with a Gumstix embedded computer and a Motorola GSM module. Our passive sensors don’t have a propulsion system; they do exactly what the water does. We developed this system with a focus on cost and ease of assembly.” The team used a waterproof consumer smartphone, the Motorola Defy, for the GPS positioning, computation, and comunications.
So far, the test has proven the usefulness of such a network. The devices were developed to be easily deployable, especially where a lot of flexibility is needed, such as in disaster response. “The ability to quickly and easily put these sensors into new inland environments, by just about any method (throw them from a boat, drop them from a helicopter, toss them from a dock or a bridge) makes them a really useful new tool,” Tinka said.
photos courtesy of Jonathan Beardphotos courtesy of Jonathan Beard
A hundred robots, 40 with propellers, were released into the Sacramento River near Walnut Grove (photos courtesy of Jonathan Beard).
Just for the record: what is reported in “Detecting False Signals With Automatic Gain Control” (April GPS World) is what we introduced a long time ago and is reflected in one of our videos, and implemented in all of our GNSS receivers. AGC information is one of the four ways, and the least significant way, that we show interferences. There is a big difference between showing something in the laboratory and in some receivers, compared with having technology in mass production that everyone can understand and use. — Javad Ashjaee
JAVAD GNSS, San Jose, California
Author Dennis Akos replies:
I am sure JAVAD receivers work quite well to leverage AGC to flag RFI (it was not the survey-grade model I used for the paper, though). The original Nordnav R30 GPS receiver showed both AGC and the L1 frequency spectrum back in 2004. u-blox has an RFI flag in its receiver, which is based on AGC. Others likely do as well.
In any event, AGC detection of RFI (and you could say spoofing) is not new. I coauthored an ION GPS paper with Bastide and others back in 2003 showing how powerful AGC could be to detect interference. In 1997 Per Enge had a student, Awele Ndili, working with the Plessey chipset, who did something similar, checking the AGC for signs of RFI.
So when all the hubbub came up about spoofers a couple years back, I tried to flag the question — why be concerned about this? AGC can tell when more power is coming in the frequency band and thus flag RFI or spoofing is happening. So spoofing is no more of a threat than simple jamming, should one be concerned about it and make a relatively small effort to check for it.
I was quite impressed with the spoofer design Humphreys/Psiaki/Ledvina came up with (“Straight Talk on Anti-Spoofing,” January 2011, and “Assessing the Spoofing Threat,” January 2009). Quite neat, needs very little additional energy with the lift and carry-off approach. But also very hard to leverage for any dynamic case where the victim receiver did not want to be spoofed (spoofing a dynamic receiver with the approach? Doable, but really hard, and would still inject more RF energy). So it left the threat, in my mind, to those who are being monitored and want to spoof their device: very small subset — the fisherman in illegal waters, the prisoner with ankle monitoring. This is the hardest detection case, but I am still fairly confident AGC can work here.
Main motivation for the article: I was troubled that I did not see the need for folks to be up in arms any more about spoofing than plain old jamming.
Again, my premise: in the great majority of cases spoofing is easily detected using technology already in a majority of receivers, making it no worse than jamming, and the harder cases should still be detectable with additional effort/sensors. But it is important for all to remain vigilant, as these AGC-based techniques do need to be implemented/leveraged to avert the spoofing threat — and Humphreys/Psiaki/Ledvina deserve credit for bringing this potential to light. Even with successful spoofing detection it will appear as much less sophisticated jamming, not allowing the receiver to obtain position/time information.
So that is why I worked with the Swedes to try and show this and get that message out. It would have been great to test with one of the more sophisticated jammers (perhaps will have a chance to do so with an upcoming test), but I did not have one, so we just did simple repeater jamming.
I am glad Javad is preaching the same message. It would be great to see him to more widely disseminate that message and put much of these concerns to rest.
Regarding the video: Thanks, Javad. Really some nice features. I need to get a TRIUMPH-VS or two here at Colorado University to work with. Quite curious as to the sensitivity of the AGC. But the receiver has a great feature set!
One quick comment. In the video where you tested the RX with the jammer — I might go back and qualify that indicated you did the test under controlled/allowed conditions. I recall we published an GPS RFI test back about 10 years ago, and we had some official inquires for more details on the testing and why we were broadcasting in the GPS band. No idea how/where you did your testing (assuming 746th Jamfest or similar), but unless you state otherwise, it might bring some unwelcome attention.
Likely none of us needs a reminder as the upcoming leap second has been all over the news outlets for the past few days. But just to provide the details again, read this article.
Presumably, all GPS receiver manufacturers have checked to make sure their receivers will handle the leap second properly. However, at least one late-model high-end receiver from a leading manufacturer is currently reporting incorrect advance leap second information in its data files.
The European Satellite Services Provider (ESSP), the EGNOS system operator and EGNOS safety-of-life service provider, announced in a service notice dated 22 May that there might be an interruption in service for a 72-hour period should the leap second not be managed correctly.
AGI, a company that develops commercial modeling and analysis software for the space, defense and intelligence communities, has warned: “The consequence of failing to accommodate this event is that orbit in-plane motion and corresponding Earth orientation will both become inaccurate by at least one second until the leap second is properly implemented. This will also affect estimating orbits using time sequences of observations spanning this leap second event. GEO satellites might be inaccurate to about 3 km and LEO satellites to about 8 km. How great the discrepancy will be depends on how long one waits to implement the leap second. The probable inaccuracies may be within the collision keep-out zones of many satellites, causing either false alarms or totally missed threat detections.”
And it has also been reported that some computer operating systemsmight hang due to improper handling of the leap second.
An article on the upcoming leap second for the popular press may be found here. And, in case you missed it, a recent Physics Today article on the leap second and its future can be found here.
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:
Likely none of us needs a reminder as the upcoming leap second has been all over the news outlets for the past few days. But just to provide the details again, read this article.
Presumably, all GPS receiver manufacturers have checked to make sure their receivers will handle the leap second properly. However, at least one late-model high-end receiver from a leading manufacturer is currently reporting incorrect advance leap second information in its data files.
The European Satellite Services Provider (ESSP), the EGNOS system operator and EGNOS safety-of-life service provider, announced in a service notice dated 22 May that there might be an interruption in service for a 72-hour period should the leap second not be managed correctly.
AGI, a company that develops commercial modeling and analysis software for the space, defense and intelligence communities, has warned: “The consequence of failing to accommodate this event is that orbit in-plane motion and corresponding Earth orientation will both become inaccurate by at least one second until the leap second is properly implemented. This will also affect estimating orbits using time sequences of observations spanning this leap second event. GEO satellites might be inaccurate to about 3 km and LEO satellites to about 8 km. How great the discrepancy will be depends on how long one waits to implement the leap second. The probable inaccuracies may be within the collision keep-out zones of many satellites, causing either false alarms or totally missed threat detections.”
And it has also been reported that some computer operating systemsmight hang due to improper handling of the leap second.
An article on the upcoming leap second for the popular press may be found here. And, in case you missed it, a recent Physics Today article on the leap second and its future can be found here.
CoreLogic released its National Foreclosure Report for May, which provides monthly data on completed foreclosures and the overall foreclosure inventory. According to the report, there were 63,000 completed foreclosures in the U.S. in May 2012 compared to 77,000 in May 2011 and 62,000* in April 2012.
According to the announcement, since the financial crisis began in September 2008, there have been approximately 3.6 million completed foreclosures across the country. Completed foreclosures are an indication of the total number of homes actually lost to foreclosure.
Approximately 1.4 million homes, or 3.4 percent of all homes with a mortgage, were in the national foreclosure inventory as of May 2012 compared to 1.5 million, or 3.5 percent, in May 2011 and 1.4 million, or 3.4 percent, in April 2012. The foreclosure inventory is the share of all mortgaged homes in some stage of the foreclosure process.
“There were more than 819,000 completed foreclosures over the past year, or an average of 2,440 completed foreclosures every day over the last 12 months,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic. “Although the level of completed foreclosures remains high, it is down 27 percent from a peak of 1.1 million in all of 2010.”
“Though the national foreclosure inventory levels remain steady, around 1.4 million homes, there have been dramatic shifts at the state level,” said Anand Nallathambi, president and CEO of CoreLogic. “Nevada, Arizona and Michigan, for example, each experienced at least a 20-percent decline in the foreclosure inventory from a year ago. While foreclosure inventories in most states are declining, the foreclosure inventory is still rising in many judicial states, such as Hawaii, New York and Connecticut.”
Highlights as of May 2012
The five states with the highest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in May 2012 were: California (133,000), Florida (92,000), Michigan (60,000), Texas (58,000) and Georgia (57,000). These five states account for 48.8 percent of all completed foreclosures nationally.
The five states with the lowest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in May 2012 were: South Dakota (48), District of Columbia (74), North Dakota (547), West Virginia (620) and Hawaii (623).
The five states with the highest foreclosure inventory as a percentage of all mortgaged homes were: Florida (11.9 percent), New Jersey (6.6 percent), Illinois (5.3 percent), New York (5.0 percent) and Nevada (4.9 percent).
The five states with the lowest foreclosure inventory were: Wyoming (0.7 percent), Alaska (0.8 percent), North Dakota (0.8 percent), Nebraska (1.0 percent) and South Dakota (1.3 percent).
*April data was revised. Revisions are standard, and to ensure accuracy CoreLogic incorporates newly released data to provide updated results.
The data in this report represents foreclosure activity reported through May 2012.
This report separates state data into judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosure state categories. In judicial foreclosure states, lenders must provide evidence to the courts of delinquency in order to move a borrower into foreclosure, while in non-judicial foreclosure states lenders can issue notices of default directly to the borrower without court intervention. This is an important distinction since judicial states as a rule have longer foreclosure timelines thus affecting foreclosure statistics.
A completed foreclosure occurs when a property is auctioned and results in the purchase of the home at auction by either a third party, such as an investor, or by the lender. If the home is purchased by the lender, it is moved into the lender’s Real Estate Owned (REO) inventory. In “foreclosure by advertisement” states, a redemption period begins after the auction and runs for a statutory period, e.g., six months. During that period the borrower may regain the foreclosed home by paying all amounts due as calculated under the statute. For purposes of this Foreclosure Report, because so few homes are actually redeemed following an auction, it is assumed that the foreclosure process ends in “foreclosure by advertisement” states at the completion of the auction.
The foreclosure inventory represents the number and share of mortgaged homes that have been placed into the process of foreclosure by the mortgage servicer. Mortgage servicers start the foreclosure process when the mortgage reaches a specific level of serious delinquency as dictated by the investor for the mortgage loan. Serious delinquency is typically defined as 90, 120, or 150 days delinquent (sometimes more), in foreclosure or in REO. Once a foreclosure is “started,” and absent the borrower paying all amounts necessary to halt the foreclosure, the home remains in foreclosure until the completed foreclosure results in the sale to a third party at auction or the home enters the lender’s REO inventory. The data in this report accounts for only first liens against a property and does not include secondary liens. The foreclosure inventory is measured only against homes that have an outstanding mortgage. Homes with no mortgage liens can never be in foreclosure and are therefore excluded from the analysis. Approximately one-third of homes nationally are owned outright and do not have a mortgage. CoreLogic has approximately 85 percent coverage of U.S. foreclosure data.
1The number of mortgages per completed foreclosure nationally is calculated by dividing the number of homes with a mortgage by the number of completed foreclosures in the month. By State and CBSA, it’s calculated by dividing the number of homes with a mortgage in each area by the sum of completed foreclosures for the prior 12 months. The slight difference in the calculation between national and state and CBSA helps to account for data volatility.
On June 27, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against New York-based hedge fund adviser Philip A. Falcone and his advisory firm, Harbinger Capital Partners LLC for illicit conduct that included misappropriation of client assets, market manipulation, and betraying clients. The SEC also charged Peter A. Jenson, Harbinger’s former Chief Operating Officer, for aiding and abetting the misappropriation scheme. Additionally, the SEC reached a settlement with Harbinger for unlawful trading.
In a separate, settled action, the SEC charged Harbert Management Corporation, whose affiliates served as the managing members of two Harbinger-related entities, as a controlling person in the market manipulation.
The SEC alleges that Falcone used fund assets to pay his taxes, conducted an illegal “short squeeze” to manipulate bond prices, secretly favored certain customers at the expense of others, and that Harbinger unlawfully bought equity securities in a public offering, after having sold short the same security during a restricted period.
“Today’s charges read like the final exam in a graduate school course in how to operate a hedge fund unlawfully,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Clients and market participants alike were victimized as Falcone unscrupulously used fund assets to pay his personal taxes, manipulated the market for certain bonds, favored some clients at the expense of others, and violated trading rules intended to prohibit manipulative short sales.”
The SEC filed actions in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Falcone, Jenson, and Harbinger, and, in connection with the illegal trading scheme, separately instituted and settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against 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.
Describing the illegal short squeeze, Gerald W. Hodgkins, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said, “After he took control of an entire issue of high-yield bonds, Falcone kept buying with an eye toward rigging the market and punishing short sellers to settle a score. In the process, Falcone hijacked the market for the bonds and illegally manipulated their price and availability. The Division will continue to police the bond market to make sure it operates as an efficient market, free of the corrosive effects of manipulators such as Falcone.”
Misappropriation Scheme
In the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone unlawfully used fund assets to pay his personal taxes. In 2009 Falcone owed federal and state authorities $113.2 million in taxes. Declining to pursue other financing options, such as pledging his personal assets as collateral for a bank loan, Falcone elected instead to take a $113.2 million loan from the Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P. – the same fund from which Harbinger had earlier suspended investors from redeeming.
Falcone authorized the transfer of fund assets to himself in a transaction that Jenson helped structure. Falcone and Harbinger never sought or obtained consent from investors prior to using the fund's assets to benefit Falcone.
As part of the misappropriation scheme, the SEC alleges that Falcone and Harbinger, aided by Jenson, made several material misrepresentations and omissions in seeking legal advice regarding the loan and in subsequent communications with investors, including, among other things:
the financing alternatives available to Falcone;
the circumstances that led to Falcone’s need for the loan;
the ability of the Special Situations Fund to furnish the loan, without disadvantaging investors;
the terms and conditions of the loan, including the interest rate charged and the amount of collateral posted by Falcone; and
the role of Harbinger’s outside legal counsel in vetting the transaction.
The SEC also alleges that Falcone and Harbinger delayed disclosing the loan for approximately five months because of their concern that disclosure of Falcone’s financial condition might have a negative impact on investor withdrawals and on Falcone’s ability to attract more investments for other Harbinger funds. Falcone repaid the loan in 2011, after the Commission commenced its investigation.
Market Manipulation / Illegal Short Squeeze
In a separate civil action, the SEC alleges that from 2006 through early 2008 Falcone and two Harbinger investment management entities manipulated the market in a series of distressed high-yield bonds issued by MAAX Holdings Inc. In this fraudulent scheme, Falcone and the Harbinger entities allegedly orchestrated an illegal “short squeeze” – a market manipulation scheme in which an investor constricts the supply of a security, through large purchases or other means, with the intent of forcing settlement from short sellers at arbitrary and inflated prices.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that at Falcone’s direction, Harbinger purchased a large position in the MAAX bonds during April and June of 2006. After hearing rumors that a Wall Street financial services firm was shorting the MAAX bonds and also encouraging its customers to do the same, Falcone decided to seek revenge. In September 2006, Falcone directed the Harbinger-managed funds to buy every available bond in the market, often purchasing the bonds from short sellers. Ultimately, Falcone raised the funds’ stake to approximately 13 percent more than the available supply of the MAAX bonds.
At one point, Harbinger had purchased 22 million more bonds than MAAX had ever issued. Contemporaneously with these purchases, Falcone locked up the MAAX bonds the Harbinger funds had purchased in a custodial account at a bank in Georgia to prevent his brokers from lending out the bonds to sellers seeking to deliver the bonds to purchasers after short sales.
Having seized control of the supply of the MAAX bonds, Falcone then demanded that the Wall Street firm and its customers settle their outstanding MAAX short sales, not disclosing that it would be virtually impossible to find bonds available for delivery. The Wall Street firm bid daily for the bonds, which quickly doubled in price. Then, Falcone engaged in a series of transactions with certain short sellers at arbitrary, inflated prices, while at the same time valuing the funds’ holdings on his books at a small fraction of the prices he charged the covering short sellers.
Preferential Redemption Scheme
In its action alleging misappropriation, the SEC also alleges that in a further breach of Falcone and Harbinger’s fiduciary duties to their clients, Falcone and Harbinger engaged in unlawful preferential redemptions for the benefit of certain favored investors.
In 2009, while soliciting required investor approval to restrict withdrawals from another Harbinger fund, Falcone and Harbinger secretly exempted certain large investors that Falcone deemed to be strategically important from soon-to-be imposed liquidity restrictions – provided those investors voted to approve restrictions that would temporarily stabilize the decline in Harbinger’s assets under management.
Ultimately, pursuant to these ‘vote buying’ agreements, Falcone and Harbinger allegedly permitted these investors who were connected to certain favored institutional investors to withdraw a total of approximately $169 million. Harbinger concealed these quid pro quo arrangements from the independent directors and from fund investors.
Other Illegal Trading by Harbinger
In a separate administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding, the SEC found that between April and June 2009, Harbinger violated Rule 105 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 105 is an anti-manipulation rule that prohibits short selling securities during a restricted period and then purchasing the same securities in a public offering.
The Commission’s Order censures Harbinger and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Rule 105 now or in the future. Harbinger will pay disgorgement in the amount of $857,950, prejudgment interest in the amount of $91,838, and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $428,975. Harbinger consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the Commission’s findings.
Settlement with Harbert Management Company
In a separate complaint also filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Harbert and two related investment entities – HMC-New York Inc. and HMC Investors, LLC – for their role in the illegal short squeeze described above.
The SEC alleges in its complaint against Harbert that during the entire period of the short squeeze, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors, directly or indirectly, possessed the power to control Falcone and the investment managers through which he operated. HMC-NY and HMC Investors, two entities controlled by Harbert, served as the managing members of two limited liability companies that acted as the general partners of the funds advised by Falcone.
Harbert and its affiliates also provided hedge fund administrative, legal, compliance, risk assessment and other services to the funds. In these capacities, Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors knew of Falcone’s trades in the MAAX bonds, but failed to take appropriate steps to address Falcone’s manipulative conduct. The SEC charged the Harbert defendants as controlling persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that they are jointly and severally liable for Falcone’s and the Harbinger investment managers’ violations of the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act.
Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Defendants Harbert, HMC-NY and HMC Investors have agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1 million. The Harbert defendants also have consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The proposed settlement with Harbert is subject to approval by the court.
In the pending federal court actions concerning the first three fraudulent schemes described above, the Commission seeks a variety of sanctions and relief including injunctions against Falcone and Harbinger from violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
In addition, the Commission seeks to enjoin Harbinger and Falcone from controlling any person who violates the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act. As for monetary relief, the Commission seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties from Falcone and Harbinger. The Commission further seeks to prohibit Falcone from serving as an officer and director of any public company. Against Jenson, the Commission seeks to enjoin Jenson from aiding and abetting future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act and Advisers Act and seeks to obtain monetary penalties.
The SEC’s investigation was a coordinated effort between teams from the SEC’s headquarters and the New York Regional Office, including Conway T. Dodge, Jr., Robert C. Besse, Ken C. Joseph, Mark Salzberg, Brian Fitzpatrick, and David Stoelting. Messrs. Joseph, Salzberg, and Fitzpatrick are members of the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. Mr. Stoelting and David Gottesman will lead the SEC’s litigation team.
The Geospatial Information & Technology Association (GITA) announced the transition of GITA to an all volunteer organization officially begins at the close of business Friday, June 29, 2012. The following Monday, the association will enter a new phase of its existence, one that will be marked by a focus on virtual, on-line education and less of a dependence on resource-heavy conferences.
According to Executive Director Bob Samborski, it means the following for GITA members?
You will continue to receive the GITA News Hub without interruption.
Existing memberships in GITA will continue and individuals will be contacted at the time of their next renewal.
GITA is reaching out to each of its current chapters to determine how each of these local organizations can move forward. Any currently active chapter can continue to operate as usual under the auspices of GITA’s non-profit status.
Options for realigning GITA’s administrative and IT infrastructure in a cost-effective way are being researched. Because the current staff of GITA will end full–time employment on Friday, normal communication channels (phone calls and emails) will be changed.
More information about the transition will be made available in the near future in the News Hub and on the GITA website.
Samborksi writes:
“It is important for everyone to know that GITA will continue to function as a professional, non-profit educational association. The Board of Directors will continue to explore new ways to add value to GITA membership and consider options for managing potential future educational events. More content and learning will become available online. And, as the association transitions to a volunteer-driven organization, active participation from our members in GITA activities will be sought.”
“While I personally will not be an employee of GITA after Friday, I will continue to serve the association as a volunteer during the period of transition. If you would like to contribute your time and effort to helping to redesign GITA, please just let me know! I will be reachable at my usual email address for the foreseeable future: [email protected].”
“Finally, I look forward to contacting our individual and corporate members, chapter officers, international affiliates and other important constituents in the next few days as we wind down this chapter of GITA. I will offer a few more details about what the future holds for GITA, as well as some personal comments about my 24 years of service to the association.”
“Until then, sincere thanks to everyone who reads the GITA News Hub. I wish you the best in your geospatial endeavors.”
Google announced, via its Lat Lon Blog, 3D imagery on their latest version of Google Earth for Android.
Google announced with 3D imagery, there is now a new way to explore the world, right from the palm of your hand with a 3D view of your favorite metropolitan area. Now you can soar above your favorite cities in 3D, with Google Earth for mobile.
Google reports they recently shared a preview of this striking new 3D imagery and starting today, users can take flight with their latest version of Google Earth for Android. An updated version of Google Earth for iOS will be also be available soon.
According to the announcement, creating the comprehensive 3D experience is possible due to advanced image processing. Using 45-degree aerial imagery, Google said its able to automatically recreate entire metropolitan areas in 3D. This means every building (not just the famous landmarks), the terrain, and any surrounding landscape of trees are included to provide a much more accurate and realistic experience.
Initial 3D imagery cities are: Boulder, Boston, Santa Cruz, San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Antonio, Charlotte, Tucson, Lawrence, Portland, Tampa, Rome or the San Francisco Bay Area (including the Peninsula and East Bay). Google said it will continue to release new 3D imagery for places around the world over the coming months; by the end of the year, they aim to have new 3D coverage for metropolitan areas with a combined population of 300 million people.
Google announced on their Lat Lon Blog that Google Maps for Android now works when it's disconnected from the internet. Users can select and save a region of a map from more than 150 countries for use offline.
"Having an Internet connection has always been a key requirement for using Google Maps for Android… until now," said the blog post dated June 27, 2012.
Whether travelling internationally, carrying a WiFi-only device, heading underground on the subway or restricting your mobile data usage, you can now save up to six large metro areas (e.g., Greater London, Paris, or New York City and surrounding area) and use Google Maps for Android to find your way.
For example, Let’s say you find yourself traveling to London this summer. Before you head off on your trip, simply find the area that you’ll be visiting. Then select “Make available offline” from the menu and verify the area that you would like to save. Below the map, you’ll see we estimate the file size for you, so you know how much space it will take on your device. Once you confirm your selection the map will immediately start downloading.
Save an area and go to My Places to see all your offline maps
If you have GPS enabled on the device, the blue dot will still work without a data connection so you know where you are, and if your device has a compass you can orient yourself without 3G or WiFi connectivity.
So whether you’re traveling internationally or underground, we hope offline maps will help you get around.
Google announced it is also releasing a smoother and faster Compass Mode for Street View within Google Maps for Android. The device becomes a window into a 360-degree, panoramic view of the outdoor or interior location through Business Photos. To experience the improved qualities of this feature you need a device with Google Maps for Android, Android 3.0 or higher and a gyroscope sensor plus version 1.8.1 of Street View on Google Maps.
