GPS World

Blog

  • FCC Asks If You and GPS Should Be Protected from Interference

    “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.”

  • More Mobile Devices, More Geospatial Trends

    Granted, I’m a mobile device geek. I see tremendous growth for geospatial apps on mobile devices. Obviously, insane numbers of mobile devices are shipping. This past Christmas, Amazon shipped 4+ million of its Kindle tablet computers.

    As I’ve written before, the future (and present) of our geospatial mobile devices largely depends on developments in the consumer electronics market. Since Apple introduced the iPad precisely two years ago and has sold upwards of 100 million units since then, the Kindle Fire is the first real threat to the iPad. It’s been successful largely because of its price, $199, about 1/3 the price of a comparable iPad. Yet, it’s functionality is quite striking. Since I bought my wife a Kindle Fire this past Christmas, she’s used her notebook computer noticeably less. Since the Kindle Fire runs Google’s Android 2.3 operating system, she can browse the web (Facebook, et al), check email, read ebooks, play Words with Friends. What else is there? The only reasons I see her using her notebook computer is to use office apps (Word, spreadsheet, PowerPoint) and to print documents.

    In a similar fashion, the computer gaming industry is going to push geospatial apps to an entirely new level. Look, for example, at augmented reality technology. I’ve written, with great anticipation, about augmented reality (AR) for quite some time. As witnessed at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this month, augmented reality is a hot topic in the world of consumer electronics.

    In some cases, AR is combined with other emerging geospatial technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

    Clearly, the hardware technology is developing quickly in the gaming world, and just like consumer mobile devices are transforming geospatial data collection, augmented reality hardware/software will migrate to the professional geospatial user community. Imagine the Call Before You Dig technician being able to “see” the underground infrastructure on his/her table computer without having to break out a shovel. Imagine the groundskeeper being able to “see” the underground irrigation system on a table computer to know where to look for a faulty valve. Imagine the first responder, in a building filled with smoke, being able to clearly “see” doorways, hallways, stairwells, exit signs, etc.

    The hardware to accomplish the above is developing fast. The data? Not so much. I wrote a piece about this a few months ago. If you’re in the geospatial industry, the opportunities are endless.

     

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

  • Let’s Hear It for the Supremes!

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

    The most interesting part of the Supreme Court decision pops up in a somewhat open-ended what-if comment concerning future issues that at least one justice thinks the court should address. Consumer privacy issues remain very much alive and potentially troublesome for location-based services in the United States

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

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

    The Register-Guard newspaper of Eugene, Oregon, published an editorial containing the quote reprinted in the introduction to this column. The writer went on to say that “The result was a ruling that sidestepped tough questions, such as how to treat information held by cell phone companies and how to treat information gathered from devices that are installed at the factory.”

    The Register-Guard went on to state “Advances in science and technology have produced GPS devices that have unlimited potential for abuse.”

    “In the face of the very real threat of ubiquitous surveillance, Congress should complete its revamping of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Lawmakers have begun work on this task, but the legislation is not ready for passage.”

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

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

    Most consumers and cell-phone users do not have a clear picture of just how far the ball goes if they check a box that says “agree to terms” or otherwise signify that they are releasing their location data in some undefined form. Sure, they think they’ll just get a coupon the next time they pass near an industrial-strength coffee shop. They have no idea just how much their location data and travel patterns could be exploited by companies seeking to sell them something based on their profile. If you think robotelemarketing – the automated sales calls, often extremely deceptive in their offer, that come as you’re sitting down to dinner – are the worst form of pest, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    The Eugene Register-Guard made this recommendation: ““In the face of the very real threat of ubiquitous surveillance, Congress should complete its revamping of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Lawmakers have begun work on this task, but the legislation is not ready for passage.”

    I am not intimately familiar with the draft of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but I have a feeling it does little more than scratch the surface on this issue; it probably focuses on government use of private citizens’ location data, and does not begin to consider commercial use.

    So far, we are just talking about the United States.

    Regarding GNSS use elsewhere around the world  for tracking criminals:

    In Russia and China, one can reasonably presume that the interests of the state will crush any notion of citizen rights, so that government and police use of GNSS tracking will be placed under no restriction. Europe under the European Union has fairly strong citizen protections in some areas, less so in others. Japan, Korea, Australia . . . I just don’t know.

    Regarding GNSS use elsewhere around the world for tracking ordinary citizens’ location and travel patterns for commercial — that is, sales and marketing — purposes, I must again claim ignorance regarding the established ground rules in these countries, if there are any.

    Anywhere in the world, if GNSS should be perceived as a tool of Big Brother (government) or Big Broker (industry selling and buying consumer location data), then all navigation systems acquire a big PR problem, which translates into big funding and modernization problems. That outcome, that uncertainty, would affect everyone in or associated with GNSS provision. So we all have an interest in seeing, or making, or shaping, some resolution.

    Presumably, we are all waiting around for a test case on privacy versus commercial interests. With the location-based services (LBS) market poised — same as it ever was — on the brink of widespread acceptance, it might benefit everyone if such a case came sooner rather than later. Or if the U.S. Congress tackled the issue before being required to do so by the courts.

  • Supreme Court Rules Warrant Needed for GPS Tracking

    GPS trackers are a form of search, and to use them police must have a search warrant, according to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling today. The high court issued a unanimous ruling that a search warrant is required before police slap a GPS tracker on a criminal suspect’s vehicle to monitor the suspect’s movements, reports the Associated Press.

    The decision was a defeat for the government and police agencies that increasingly rely on GPS surveillance. A GPS device installed by police on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones’ Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

    Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search. The court ruled that GPS monitoring on the Jeep violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

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

  • Location Technology, All in the Cars

    Microsoft says this is its last year at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Fine. Move over because the car manufacturers are using the show to unveil stunning location and mobile offerings. It has only been a few years since automakers started coming to CES to pitch new in-vehicle mobile platforms. This year automakers have been knocking themselves out to bring smartphones, location and cloud content into the vehicle to enhance the driving experience. The CES invasion by the vehicle OEMs started in 2007 when Ford introduced Sync at CES. Kia followed in 2010 with UVO powered by Microsoft. 2012 brings a multitude of OEM mobile announcements, including one from first-time CES participant Mercedes-Benz.

    Cars are getting smarter. Kia unveiled the next-generation UVO 2, which adds a crash notification assist feature that automatically dials 911 on a connected phone when an airbag deploys. It adds a number of location-based services that are controlled via a smartphone app that includes noting a car’s parked location on a map, transferring destinations from Google maps to the navigation system, and monitoring vehicle location and speed.

    And the list goes on. Mercedes Benz made its initial appearance at CES to show off an app that allows drivers to plug iPhones into vehicles to enable the phone’s entertainment and navigation to appear on the in-dash display. Chevrolet introduced a new head unit that will use a smartphone’s apps, such as Pandora, to access cloud-based content and navigation. Ford added Roximity to provide contextual real-time discounts linked to the vehicle’s location and user’s preferences. TCS has its foot in this market, too. It will be supplying hybrid navigation solutions for the QNX in-vehicle car platforms.

    images
    Mercedes-Benz takes center stage at CES 2012.

    After-market activity. You can tweet about your accident, make it a status update, or do both. TomTom has integrated Facebook and Twitter with its navigation app for iPhones and iPads. Information from Facebook events, places and friends will feed to create navigation routes. Destinations and arrival times can then be shared on these networks.

    Heavy-weight skinny nav. Garmin has introduced the nüvi 3500 series, its new flagship personal navigation device, an ultra-thin GPS device with a five-inch screen. Capabilities include digital HD traffic and a smartphone link that can add live services, such as traffic information, traffic camera images, weather and fuel prices.

    Good luck, Verizon. At a time when straight-up navigation is becoming a utility, Verizon is rolling out a new bundled application app package. It includes their navigation app, as well as NFL Mobile, ringback tones and Verizon Video for $12.99. I don’t know much about the NFL Mobile app, but it better be good. Given the poor marks received by Verizon Video and low interest in ringback tones, the package isn’t looking too appealing when navigation is often a freebie.

    Need maps. TomTom will be providing Samsung with map and location content to power the Wave3 smartphone. TomTom will provide map coverage for more than 200 countries, POIs, traffic, 3D maps and landmarks and “safety-related speed cameras.” Safety-related speed cameras?

    Enterprise routing trends. Enterprises using vehicle routing software for fleets of service and truck vehicles are increasing their buying of on-board computers, as well as smartphones for driver interfaces. These products are used for improved efficiencies in planning routes, and often feed analytics into a complex logistics system. Customers who used to be satisfied with just obtaining GPS positions of their fleets are now pushing for more telematics and a connected vehicle.

    Lower prices and more pressure on productivity have pushed demand for on-board computers that can deliver data about the vehicle’s actual route, and sometimes connects to the engine to provide detail on how the vehicle was driven. Other fleets, particularly service fleets, are tending toward integrating routing apps with smartphones. The phones are cheaper than onboard computers, don’t need to integrated, and still can provide turn-by-turn directions to that day’s route. The trend is toward the Android operating system.

  • NavSAS Group Acquires, Tracks Second Galileo IOV Satellite

    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 (Politecnico di Torino / Istituto Superiore Mario Boella) for the first time at 11:54:10 CET (10:54:10 UTC).

    This signal has been received at the Istituto Superiore Mario Boella (ISMB) premises (located in Torino, Italy, latitude = 45°03'54.99" N, longitude = 7°39'32.29" E, height = 311.97 meters) with a non-directive GNSS antenna, a commercial narrowband E1 RF front-end, and the N-GENE receiver, a fully software receiver developed by the NavSAS researchers.

    The FM2 satellite currently broadcast a Galileo Open Service signal on E1 band using the Code Number 12 of the Galileo Interface Control Document (ICD). It is the second of the two Galileo In-Orbit Validation (IOV) satellites launched on October 21, 2011. The first IOV satellite — the Galileo-ProtoFlight Model (PFM) spacecraft — was received by NavSAS researchers for the first time on December 12.

    Both the PFM and the FM2 satellites were in view January 17, and their E1 signals have been successfully received and processed.

    Figure 1 and 2 show the orbits of the two Galileo satellites at the moment of the signal acquisition. These screenshots have been produced by a free software tool (Orbitron, by Sebastian Stoff). In Figure 1 the two satellites, denoted as GALILEO-PFM GALILEO-FM2, are visible. Figure 2 shows a detailed skyplot computed in Torino, Italy.


    Figure 1. Galileo IOV satellite orbits at the moment of the signal acquisition.


    Figure 2. Skyplot of Galileo IOV satellite orbits at the moment of the signal acquisition.
     

    The Galileo FM2 satellite signal (PRN 12) has been successfully acquired for the first time at 11:54:10 and the first acquisition and tracking results are reported from Figures 3 to Figure 6. It can be noticed that the satellite signal was received with a C/N0 of approximately 46.4 dBHz and a Doppler frequency shift equal to -2595 Hz.


    Figure 3. Search space of the successful acquisition of the Galileo FM2 satellite (PRN 12).


    Figure 4. Zoom on the peak obtained acquiring the Galileo FM2 satellite (PRN 12).


    Figure 5. Estimated C/N0 and correlation values obtained tracking the PRN 12.
     


    Figure 6. Estimated Doppler values obtained tracking the PRN 12.
     

    Also, the Galileo PFM satellite was in view on January 17, and the signals from both satellites have been measured and compared by the NavSAS researchers. Figure 7 shows the elevation patterns of PFM and FM2 satellites as obtained from prediction visibilities based on NORAD tracking information (two-line elements of Galileo satellites downloaded on January 17). Figure 8 shows both the estimated Doppler and C/N0 profiles obtained from multiple measurements performed on the same time interval: their trends agree with the satellite elevations shown in Figure 7.


    Figure 7. Elevation pattern versus time of the PFM and FM2 satellites over Torino on January 17.


    Figure 8. Estimated Doppler and C/N0 profiles along multiple measurements performed on January 17.

    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.

  • Second Galileo IOV Satellite Transmitting Signals

    News courtesy of CANSPACE Listserv.

     

    On Monday, 16 January, at about 02:18 UTC, the second of the two Galileo In-Orbit Validation (IOV) satellites, FM2 (Flight Model 2) also known as GSAT0102, started transmitting navigation signals on the L1/E1 frequency using the E12 ranging code, according to tracking reports from the COoperative Network for GIOVE Observation (CONGO).

    FM2 was launched together with PFM, the ProtoFlight Model (GSAT0101), on October 21, 2011. PFM started transmitting E1 signals on December  10, 2011, and E5 signals on December 14, according to CONGO network tracking reports. Subsequently, ESA confirmed that the E6 transmitter was powered up the weekend before Christmas.

    CONGO is a global network of 19 tracking stations established by the German Space Operations Center (DLR/GSOC) and the German Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (BKG) in cooperation with several agencies including Technische Universitaet Muenchen.

  • Facts, Law, Table, Pound, Hand

    So it has come to this. LightSquared officers want the FCC to investigate Brad Parkinson.

    Senator Joe McCarthy is not a good look for them.

    A young attorney of my acquaintance, who also happens to be a contributing editor to this magazine, wrote me in this regard:

    “Lawyers have an old saying — when you don’t have the law on your side, pound on the facts; when you don’t have the facts on your side,  pound on the law; and when you don’t have either, pound on the table.”

    It appears that LightSquared has run out of technical solutions that it has variably proposed, without coming up with any to solve interference with the full range of GPS uses and users, and is now reduced to complaints about process. Engineering was never its strong suit, and there are many cautionary lessons to be learned from its near-run at GPS demolition. Financiers and lawyers can bring a whole heap of spectrum danger with just a little knowledge.

    In coverage of this issue over the past year, I have tried to keep the magazine and its various newsletters away from the posturing and saber-rattling on both sides, the stock-market speculations and the wireless industry tea-leaves reading, and stick instead to the facts: test results, official statements by government agencies, and so on. You gentle readers have plenty of other outlets for hyperbole and flights of imagination that you can go to for that sort of thing, and it’s never in short supply. I hope we have served you well.

  • CES Turning into Big Tech Auto Show

    Navigating your way through thousands of booths and 140,000 attendees is a challenge in itself at the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show. While there was a huge amount of location-based services news, the big deal was the presence of just about every automobile manufacturer. Such off-site meetings as the Consumer Telematics Show, Showstoppers and AT&T Developer’s Conference also highlighted the connected car.

    images

    LAS VEGAS — It took several years, but most major automobile manufacturers are onboard with the idea that a vehicle needs to be connected. Most automobile manufacturers came to the Consumer Electronics Show here to show off their connected devices and explain where they think the market is going.

    “The connected vehicle has arrived, though it is not a smart phone on wheels. This the year we are seeing a lot of growth — and I have been doing this a long time,” said Thilo Koslowski, Gartner vice president. “From 2008 to 2012, the majority of car manufacturers have installed connected vehicles. From 2013 to 2016, we will see really major market adoption. A mature market expects connected vehicles — and that’s right around the corner.”

    Koslowski says that automakers shouldn’t be locked into one specific market strategy. “They aren’t going to make it if they do.  Technology and business approaches evolve in parallel,” he said. “The traditional value and supply chains may not be the best way to market these systems…and you will see some consolidation.”

    The aftermarket will take over the connected marketplace if the car makers won’t adjust their strategies, Koslowski said. He said in 2004, the CRM opportunity seemed to be more important to auto makers, but now it’s somewhere in the middle of importance. “We are primarily in the product differentiation phase now,” he said. “It is an open playing field right now, but it will be a challenge for companies who think they have it all figured out.”

    Gartner’s research has found that consumers want wireless map updates, real-time weather and traffic, remote software updates and parking availability. What they don’t like are family and friend location information, creating and reading e-mail in a car, anon-demand music book, and such social networks as Twitter in the vehicle.

    TomTom Signs Deal With Samsung

    One of the bigger announcements in the location space at CES, and maybe the one with the most LBS tie in, was TomTom’s deal with Samsung. TomTom’s maps and location content will power Samsung’s Wave 3 smartphone. The deal basically allows the phone to have LBS, said Charles Cautley, TomTom managing director, automotive licensing.

    The business-to-business market has been a strong one for TomTom, which estimated that around 40 percent of its earnings came from that segment, said Cautley, who spent considerable time at General Electric in the commercial vehicle market before coming to TomTom three years ago.

    To cap off a big week, TomTom rolled out three portable navigation devices, Start, Via and Go Live. It also signed a licensing agreement with high-end automaker Fisker Automotive. Through a three-year-deal, TomTom will provide map and location data for the Fisker Karma electric sedan. “We absolutely think the electric vehicle market is going to grow,” Cautley said.

    TomTom competitor Magellan also rolled out some new PNDs, including the RoadMate 9055-LM and back-up camera. “Overall, the PND is becoming less a novelty and more a utility,” said Magellan’s Stig Pedersen, senior director of marketing strategy. “We are moving more towards safety features in the next year.”

    Auto Companies Announce Offerings At CES

    Some in the automobile industry are now saying that CES is the place where car makers are rolling out the new technology, not at the concurrent Detroit Auto Show, which is used to roll out new cars.

    Chrysler Group’s Uconnect now has a website that allows its users to get in-car updates for their in-vehicle system through a mobile phone, said Joni Christensen, Uconnect head of marketing.

    After the initial cost of Uconnect, all that a car owner needs to pay for, after a year’s free service, is the Sirius radio, Christensen said. The navigation system, like Ford’s Sync, is tied to one system — and like Cadillac’s Cue, can be switched from one screen to a view that is incorporated into a car’s speed gauge.

    OnStar will give “selected” developers access to a proprietary application program interface (API) to create mobile apps designed with OnStar’s suite of services, the company said. The first partner to use OnStar’s API will be RelayRides, a peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace.

    In other company news, OnStar and Verizon Wireless are working on a second-generation connected research vehicle. The Chevrolet Volt research will receive streaming content from the Cloud enabled by the Verizon 4G LTE network and building on OnStar’s Advanced Telematics Operating System (ATOMS).

    Audi said it is also offering a 4G LTE capability for its Audi Connect services. The company will continue to use Google Earth maps and will show a driver their destination in 3D imagery.

    Telenav launched a new product called Scout at CES that can work with Ford’s SYNC connected unit. Scout provides customized navigation, entertainment, and convenience features for connectivity between a smart phone, vehicle, or a computer.  Scout Key features turn-by-turn directions, real-time traffic, and estimated drive times to specific destinations at different hours of the day. Scout also provides personal local search based on a user’s preferences for entertainment, restaurants, and other points of interest once they arrive at a destination.

    “It’s free on iTunes right now, but we plan to launch it on other platforms,” said Sooner Heath, Telenav customer solutions manager.

    Indoor Positioning Looking to Get Bigger

    Soon all malls, shopping centers, airports, sporting venues and other businesses will feature indoor maps, which could be the boost LBS needs, particularly if big businesses come on board and advertise. At CES, CSR said it is working with Micello, Google and Nokia Location and Commerce on indoor positioning, that combines Wi-Fi and GPS.

    Some of the capabilities include being able to see what floor in the building you are walking in, pedestrian dead reckoning, and turn-by-turn walking directions, said Blake Bullock, CSR product manager.

    Fernando Villasol, Nokia Location and Commerce director of content, says the advent of indoor positioning will soon open up new market opportunities for developers.

    In other CES news:

    • Kenwood says its marketing agreements with Garmin continue to produce great aftermarket sales. The company rolled out its $1,500 DNX7180 Navigation/Multimedia Receiver, which features navigation from Garmin, including Lane Assist with Junction View. A built-in free feature is the Navteq Live Traffic for the life of the product.
    • Location Labs’ new Safely line of services include phone controls to allow parents to lock kids’ phones, a family locator, a teen phone lock during drives that is available on Sprint and T-Mobile phones, and a social monitor for Facebook.
    • Like TomTom’s discontinuation of the Tele Atlas name, Nokia has basically done away with the Navteq company name, though many in the industry still say “Navteq” when talking about the mapping side of the business.
    • There was an LBS and Safety Zone at CES that was in a terrible area in the back of North Hall. While there was a lot of foot traffic, looks like smaller and international companies were thrown in the back — not near the bigger auto players which would have generated more attention to the booths/companies. Overall, CES is more of a connected vehicle show than LBS…a change that has been happening for two years.

     

  • Should GPS Users Accept New ‘Fees’?

    This week, I’m pleased to present to you an essay written by Gavin Schrock, a licensed land surveyor (Washington), technology writer and administrator of the Washington State Reference Network (WSRN), which operates 103 GNSS reference stations that comprise the statewide RTK Network. He has written about surveying, mapping, GNSS, civil engineering, GIS, and data management for industry and association publications. He is usually not as cynical as he is when facing potential forced upgrades/replacements/production losses for his profession and the GNSS community.

    With plenty of announcements, posturing and news, expect another newsletter shortly from me recapping the LightSquared events of December and January.

    Eric Gakstatter

    Should GPS Users Accept New “Fees”?

    “Eat your spinach, you no good’ infink [infant]’. Eat it. EAT IT. Eat it.!” – Poopdeck Pappy [from Popeye]

    By Gavin Schrock, LS

    GPS is free of charge; period. Apart from any costs you incur in securing your own equipment to utilize the signals from the GPS constellation, or to subscribe to some augmentation service, there are no direct user fees. This is codified in our nation’s laws; GPS is free of user fees and this policy has remained consistent throughout the history of the U.S. Global Positioning System. End users, industry, public safety, and some international agreements, are based on or rely upon this fundamental, ubiquitous, irrefutable, concept of free!

    Not that a fee would not be a great revenue generator; it has often humorously commented on within the Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) circles of the government that if one penny could be charged every time a GPS-based position is generated that there would be no debt. But this is not a serious consideration, and for the very reason we have GPS in the first place: we’ve already paid for it. GPS is essentially a military program, a weapons system “friend with benefits”. Taxpayers own this system. It was funded for and is operated (in an exemplary manner) by the military for specific purposes, but is almost exclusively unique as a military program in that it provides almost unprecedented direct economic and public safety benefits to the civilian world as well. In other words; we really get our money’s worth out of this investment.

    The military can keep it free because they reap enough internal benefits to justify the expenditures; like valuable encrypted services for their own national security purposes. Many fear that the military might lose a substantial portion of this justification if such things as P-Code encryption were turned off, as some have suggest (without the newer “M-Code” being fully deployed first) and that bean counters might start looking at fees. Fees are universally so unpopular for dual-use GNSS systems that no other constellation provider does, nor plans to do so, with the possible exception of the European Galileo system; and there is still great internal debate and dysfunction within the EU and the Galileo program on the design of a franchise model for user fees. Some have also tried to characterize expenditures for developing, deploying, operating and modernizing the GPS constellation as “subsidies” for GPS manufacturers and users. Many more view it as: we paid for it, we own it, and it ain’t a subsidy. Are lighthouses and highways considered subsidies?

    You can freely look for and receive GPS signals anywhere they may roam, worldwide and in any band they may wander, not just the GPS Band. There are absolutely no restrictions on receiving GPS signals. The FCC regulates transmissions, not reception. You are not breaking any laws or “squatting” if you look for GPS signals in the next band or the one beyond that. You can try to look into an FM band with your VHF radio if you want. It may not make any sense, but there are no restrictions. What one does with received signals can run afoul of the law though (like eavesdropping on private conversations or decoding encrypted national security transmissions), but when it comes to GPS, there are no current restrictions on what you listen to.

    That the FCC only regulates transmissions and not reception discounts calls by some (guess who), for the FCC to develop and enforce standards for GPS receivers. The FCC is generally only concerned with what things emit or transmit. A receiver does neither as it is transmissions and emissions that harm other users. There may be no legal standing for the FCC to regulate receivers. The same kind of selective indignation is heard the characterization of GPS units as being “unlicensed” (got a license for your FM car radio?). This is another attempt to deflect from the immediate issue at hand by implying that your GPS gear is somehow breaking some rules, is deficient, or that the manufacturers have been negligent. More storms in teacups?

    No Steps Backward, Only Steps Forward

    To this date, the gracious hosts of the GPS constellation (USAF) has not implemented any fundamental design changes that would force you to have to change your GPS uses, or incur any additional costs in doing so. Quite the opposite, there have been many improvements along the way which would make one consider a voluntary upgrade. An example of changes for the better include Selective Availability (deliberate degradation of GPS signal) being turned off in 2000. That action was made permanent in 2007 and such actions acknowledge the tremendous lateral benefits of civilian uses. It will not be until December of 2020 (at the earliest) that there will be any major change in the GPS signal (or spectrum) that will render any method or solution for utilizing the GPS solutions unusable or substantially compromised. The planned change is an option that the constellation provider may exercise at that time to no longer support selected elements of the GPS L1 P(Y) and L2 P(Y) signal characteristics. The U.S. Government acknowledges global use of GPS codeless and semi-codeless techniques is committed to maintaining as such for a whole decade for transition. That is an important distinction; a whole decade… there are no “gotchas” (nor should there be) when it comes to such a valuable amenity. This decade for transition primarily provides time for other constellation upgrades to reach fruition, providing alternatives and mitigating for the possible loss of codeless and semi-codeless functionality. That is another important distinction and concept; do no harm to one capability until there are alternatives completely in place to mitigate for the harm/loss.

    Don’t Fee on Me…

    If the U.S. government was to try to start charging some end users fees directly or via some other means like a surcharge on GPS gear, that would be met with such opposition as to drag the debate out in process and possibly the courts for far more than a decade. Such an action would also be breaching some hard wrought international agreements. Implementation of direct fees would be as improbable as being struck by a falling GPS satellite.

    Now, if the constellation host (USAF, or if forced by another agency) were to make a design change that enabled a specific private entity or group of entities to be able to charge for use of the system (i.e. like an encryption, or spectral change that might cause you to have to buy some proprietary gear) then that would be a fee and that scenario would surely cause an even bigger storm!

    But what if a U.S. government regulatory action rendered your current gear to become obsolete in some way? That you would have to incur expenditures to continue to use the very system you paid for, and through no fault or action of your own – would this in affect be a “fee”? (You probably know where I’m going with this). Some say this is moot, because (in their eyes and marketing dreams) your gear is already “obsolete”, and you should buy their gear right away.

    Obsolete?

    One would not expect the definition of a word like “obsolete” to be highly debatable, but one would have never expected a word like “ancillary”, or Ancillary Terrestrial Component to be up for debate either.

    From the FCC:  (“We clarify that ‘integrated service’ as used in this proceeding and required by 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(4) forbids MSS/ATC operators from offering ATC-only subscriptions. We reiterate our intention not to allow ATC to become a stand-alone system. . . . We will not permit MSS/ATC operators to offer ATC-only subscriptions, because ATC systems would then be terrestrial mobile systems separate from their MSS systems.”).

    Sorry, got sidetracked there. Obsolete. Now look at your high precision GPS gear, the gear that you maybe even purchased within the past year. If you were to use that gear today, you would have a reasonable expectation of a certain level of precision and reliability from that gear. There are no planned constellation/signal changes before the end of 2020 that would otherwise negatively impact the expected precision and reliability of your gear. Barring events or conditions completely out of your control, or that of the constellation hosts (natural or manmade disasters, invasions of GPS eating zombies, etc) your gear will not be in any way “obsolete” (with regards to current functionality) before 2020 at the earliest (and may still function long after that).

    Your smart phone might be deemed “obsolete” by some of your technophile buddies because a new one came out, but yours still works. On the other hand some have opined “just because a company builds an electric car does not mean we should shut down all gas stations”. Comparing consumer level devices to expensive and sophisticated high precision GNSS gear is like comparing grapes and watermelons. Folks do not take too kindly to others telling them their gear is obsolete, or poorly designed – quibble about the details, but they don’t take too kindly just the same.

    But what could make your gear obsolete? Apart from the previous scenarios (and no insult to folks who believe in GPS eating zombies) there are things out there that could potentially compromise your ability to use your current gear, but none, other than things like space weather and malicious jammers (that deliberately set out to mess with current GPS capabilities), are not within your realm of control, or for the most part the control of the constellation providers. However, there is that controversial broadband plan under review that sets out to introduce a new source of interference (that does not currently exist in the specific form, strength, and coverage) being so heavily debated during this past year.

    If this perpetually-revised broadband plan is to be given the go ahead, then a new source of interference will require an upgrade or replacement of many high precision and general navigation and aviation GPS units, and if the costs of upgrades and production interruptions fall on the end users, this will, in effect, be a “fee” (or at least smell like one). Likening these costs to a fee is not any crazier or out of line than the barrage of claims and counter-claims brought about by this recent GPS-Broadband “mad as a box of frogs” debate. There are all kinds of arguments, or rationalizations of unpopular positions, that run the gamut from specific technical considerations, politics, deflection, projection, test result rejection, lobbyist injection,  to “we already have full rights to do this, GPS must accept the interference.” If that were the case, then why did there have to be a waiver? – and a waiver with strict conditions attached at that?

    The broadband applicant and the GPS industry have sparred mightily. Have the conditions of the waiver been met? Who’s fault was it? Bad receiver designs or flawed and rushed broadband plan? [Insert your own favorite rhetoric or talking point here]. Leaving all that aside for a moment, a big overlooked question is, what about the innocent bystanders that will take the heat if it is approved? The end users subject to a new “fee” of sorts. While there is fleeting mention of the “who pays?” in the deliberations (that only seems to go as deep as “the other guys should pay”), no party has set forward a practical plan to cover those costs other than the end user eating them. The highest probability is that the end user will have to eat this “fee” and that will be quite a blow to many people.

    Is the fix in, for the fix that is in?

    There has been a lot of alchemy going on over the past year with regards to this matter; attempts to turn straw into gold; like the effort to turn low-cost satellite spectrum into golden terrestrial spectrum, and more recent efforts to try to spin what will amount involuntary upgrades (“fees”) as some kind of “gift”.  Involuntary expenditures end users will have to incur, to continue to use their perfectly fine GPS gear and perfectly fine spectrum and perfectly fine constellation, as they were designed for and as they are accustomed to, are a defacto fee! To try to spin something so unsavory into a gift, gem, or blessing in disguise, is being viewed widely viewed as self serving and somewhat disingenuous. There is a reason why alchemy went out of style centuries ago by the way.

    One way to help someone swallow something unsavory is to sugar coat it, convince someone that it does not taste too bad and won’t make them sick, or wrap it in something that appeals to them. It is very likely that all manufacturers will see fit (if the plan is indeed forced on us) to sweeten the deal to soften the blow, offer incentives, and throw in cool features. No matter how cool the deal is, and what amazing features “you’d be a fool to pass up” are, there is still an element of being forced to pay to be able to continue to use GPS as you are accustomed.

    Setting aside this controversy for a moment, there are several schools of thought about upgrades. Like any product, developers (even sometimes with the purest of intentions) work very hard to develop new features and hope we see those as valuable enough to spark an upgrade or replacement purchase. This can be wonderful and with healthy competition we benefit from options for both “nice to have” new features to groundbreaking “must have” features. High precision GPS gear is not consumer GPS gear, and most folks do not buy every new unit that comes out. Do you buy a new car every year? Most need to get several years of use out of the gear to realize cost-benefit, but for others a constant upgrade can pencil out. The growing popularity among heavy users (especially construction) of leasing gear ensures all of newest features, configuration, and firmware (remember that every support call starts with “what firmware version are you on?”). This does not work for everyone and so far as there has not been a forced upgrade or other planned obsolescence, users have reasonably expected many years of reliable use out of their current gear.

    Selling (and opposing) the controversial broadband plan that sparked this flurry of debate, has been a well-funded and ongoing effort. No one disagrees that more wireless would benefit a lot of people and even laterally the very end users that will have to pay the “fees” to make it a success. We’ve been told that this plan heralds a new chapter/era/breakthrough in wireless. But it is not like there is some amazing new technology in play that could not be served by other plans, existing or in the works, that do not hurt GPS, and then we find out that the plan might not be as ubiquitous as we might think.

    We’ve been told that this is an epic battle between and “obstructionist GPS community and the very future of broadband!” Not quite; LTE is already here, growing, and there are quite a few other initiatives under way, including several hybrid satellite-terrestrial proposals that do not pose immediate threats to GPS. Opposition to this plan does not impact the entire future of all broadband. Plus there is a substantial amount of spectrum being “sat on”, and numerous tests show seriously underutilized spectrum. This has more to do with operational, marketing, and poorly functioning systems that just needs good management and policies. Of course more spectrum needs be sought over time, but why are some of the more recent (and vocal) advocates (even from within the GPS community) for this specific plan so hung up on the supposed “criticality” of this one specific plan. Wouldn’t it be better for both the expansion of broadband and the GPS community to advocate for better management of existing spectrum? Or is it better to zero in on one piece of spectrum that represents a hazard to current GNSS? How about working on underutilized spectrum and give sufficient time to work out solutions for the MSS/GPS bands? This haste and laser focus on this GPS-unfriendly option raises a lot of questions and hackles as we have seen.

    We’ve been told variations over time how the interference can “all be fixed with a ten cent filter” to “some components only cost $6″, to $300, to $800, to $5,000, to a thousand bucks a year, to… (lets drop that for a moment). We’ve also been pitched that the plan will bring forth a new cut-rate nationwide RTK network (which may not be as practical or nationwide as some might think). Though there would be benefits of more wireless choices, and a great many investors would benefit as well; does one segment of the population have to take the bullet for this success?

    New features added to sweeten the deal might be well worth the cost when separately considered as a voluntary purchase (or not), but if someone wants to eschew the sweeteners, can they get upgraded for free?

    A spoon, or shovel full of sugar helps the medicine go down…

    Manufacturers have always admirably striven to create new and amazing features, and then the sales and marketing folks have to turn those into “must have” features. This latest move with the “GPS upgrade fee sweeteners” is not an exception. Some sweeteners that will likely be added to the “GPS upgrade fee” might be “must have” to some, but might include features that are not quite ready for prime time in the view of some, or do not solve “make or break” issues for other end users. End users are savvy enough to decide what to buy and when, and if not forced to do so will buy based on business needs and cost benefits. Folks do not take too kindly to salesmen implying that they are “fools for not taking advantage of this deal”.

    For example, a forced upgrade might be offered with modifications to get access to more constellations and signals (for the limited numbers of receivers that can take that kind of upgrade). A lot of folks already have with their current gear, L5, Galileo, and other signals capability (or at least placeholders and will be waiting years before those come to fruition). Others wait until a constellation or signal is fully deployed before making a big purchase or commitment. It was announced December 27th, 2011 that the Beidou/Compass constellation has been declared operational, but how many years before that will make any difference to you in the field? Trying to sell something that is not yet ready for prime time can have mixed results. Do you remember the dark times of the old Glonass constellation? Unlike today when it has been successfully modernized and is at full deployment, there were past precision issues reported when using Glonass.  I asked a few manufacturers why a decade ago they did not heavily market their early Glonass capable gear, one response was “we did not want a customer to go out there and get [poor] results and then blame us for pushing Glonass on [them]”. Many users may be wise wait until these new constellations and signals have matured.

    A noble ambition/feature is to solve the filtering for not only this pending issue but for all forms of interference, and this has been tacitly offered as up another sweetener. With the timeline too short to pull this off before approval of this broadband plan hanging over our heads aside, are end users currently really being crippled by existing sources of interference? Not to deny the potential harm of various types of interference, but is the timing of this “awareness heightening” by some supporters of the broadband plan a case of (to paraphrase L. Frank “Oz” Baum) “pay no attention to the [broadband plan] behind the curtain”?

    The U.S. GPS Interference Detection and Mitigation Program (IDM) is a serious undertaking. There are reporting elements like the Patriot Watch portal (closed to the general public) and support/notification services (for not only interference but constellation updates and other alerts) from a “GPS Triad” formed by the USAF (military issues), the FAA (airspace issues), and U.S. Coast Guard (surface issues) already in place. I’ve queried these entities, as well as a number of RTK network operators and have not come up with a huge number of verified examples of interference that would significantly affect high precision users. I’m not saying that “the Orc we fear is worse than the Orc we hear”, but like any other element of risk assessment there should be serious analysis of incident data and testing before we rush off on a potentially costly course of action based in part on anecdotes and compound assumptions about interference.

    There have been several (but few) well publicized cases of interference that do present cause for concern, in particular the accidental military source disruption in San Diego in 2007, and the cheap “trucker jammer” that affected an airport in New Jersey. But for non-jamming or military sources (that are not typically turned on in populated areas) the other more commonly suspected sources of interference are often recognized and avoided (e.g. certain types of power lines, some sat-phone handsets, and some high power distribution substations). There are also users successfully working in areas one would highly suspect for interference, but are not necessarily a hazard; like in and around airports, military installations, and even on hilltop antenna farms, without loss of precision.

    That is not to say that interference is not a threat nor that jamming might not harm operations. Jammers are highly illegal and of course some folks will use them. You put the idea in a users head, and then the otherwise systematic debugging of field operations issues can take on a whole new element of paranoia. We’ve even fielded support calls this past year with frustrated field users asking “could this be interference from LightSquared?”, a system that has not even been turned on yet. Efforts to build affordable detection devices is a noble cause. There have been some great strides in analyzing this issue and developing new tools. The problem with serving up these things as a sweetener added to a forced upgrade, or as a tool to deflect attention away from the immediate broadband-plan issue, is that many view this in some way disingenuous.  Right or wrong, the timing and nature of how this has been spun may serve to taint the otherwise worthy issue of a broader interference.

    More at stake than your GPS unit

    Sweetening the deal and softening the blow for one limited segment of GPS users, like the surveying profession, or other specific type of GPS equipment, completely ignores other issues that can be viewed as much more compelling than that of the individual.

    Aviation: Can the same model of cheap, quickie upgrades (and sweeteners) be applied to aviation? Some of the most compelling concerns have come from the aviation community and FAA Advisory report. To assert that one could go up to a plane on the tarmac, crack open the GPS unit, put in a few cheap components and then send a hurtling can of people into the sky sounds more than reckless or insulting. Developing, acquiring, testing, certifying, installing and then testing again of aviation components is time consuming and expensive, and cannot be taken lightly.

    Public safety rightly seems to trump all in this debate, it was no surprise that the December 2011 report of recent limited FCC ordered testing was met with such shock, and that mainly over the aviation element risks.

    The same solutions for limiting interference in cell phones may not be applicable to other types of gear, and may be completely ludicrous for others. In the case of cell phones, these are narrow band (only using about 6%, or 2MHz of the 32MHz of GPS signal) as they are not concerned with precision, and many utilize Assisted GPS (AGPS); an augmentation to improve the slim pickings from such a narrow band view. High precision units, and most general navigation GPS, plus aviation, and most military are “wide band”. There is a huge difference between a cell phone being tested in a purely pass/fail mode; more for “conformance”, than for “performance” and a high precision unit that uses (perfectly legitimately) as much signal as possible to achieve such high precisions as many rely upon.

    No one would disagree that there are engineers that have been rolling up their sleeves and working on new and improved filtering options, but at this point in time, there is a sort of “spectral gun” being aimed at the end users. The view is quite a bit different from down here at the business end of said gun than from the point of view of those who are so cavalier about this subject on the trigger end. In this charged atmosphere of the current controversy, we may really need a “hype filter”. Is it too much to ask that such grand filtering ideas be backed up with solutions that have been developed and tested for every type of GPS unit well in advance of anyone monkeying with the spectrum? Sure one can assume that anything can be fixed with enough time and money; seems to be no shortage of money, but how about time? Back down the throttle a little and let this plane come in for a safe landing.

    Hold the Cheeseburger

    Wrap up something unsavory in a double-patty-pickles-onions-cheese-on-a-sesame-seed-bun and we are still being forced to consume something unsavory or disgusting– and don’t expect us to think folks are heroes for selling us a toothbrush.

    Opposition to the plan has not been limited to the GPS manufacturers or satellite communications providers who would stand to lose something in this matter. The U.S. military, aviation, agriculture, and public safety are among the others who have arguably had more say in the matter. There have been some accusations that all opposition is contrived, or based solely on conflicted interests – don’t insult us. Yes, the end user may be only looking at the costs of upgrade/replacement/production interruption but what of those who stand to gain either financially or in stature from this if approved?

    Why would parties from even within the GPS industry and community (some call “turncoats”) advocate for introduction of this new specific form of interference and inflicted forced upgrades/replacements on their own industry and end user community, and then try to spin that as some kind of gift, or path to a “better world”? Some would suspect profit, or there may be pure intentions involved, though the latter might make one think about those old spy/action movies where some group is planning to disrupt the world so that they can rebuild a more perfect world according to their plans or beliefs. Good intentions, but…

    If this broadband plan is given the green light (and even if it looks like it might not fly), or not, it may serve as a harbinger of things to come. If it fails, it is not the end of broadband or the world as we know it, and perhaps a good long term plan to manage spectrum and constellation could come of this. It would be a fantastic goal/role for joint PNT/FCC cooperation, but these things cannot and should not be rushed. Wow, managing something effectively, am I dreaming?

    If approved though, all of the manufacturers will have to offer some kind of deals to soften the blow. The end user may have no choice but to upgrade or replace, but they will have a choice in how they do this and who they patronize. Some sweetener peddlers have jumped the gun and have touted cost-benefit computations of the upgrades (based in part on some aforementioned arguable assumptions) that (they say) may only cost you the price of a burger a day; couple of bucks a day (or 50 Rubles, or whatever currency equivalent as many might turn to cheap GPS gear from overseas if forced into this). Many have expressed how insulted they feel about this attempt to minimize their concerns.

    People will not easily forget those who blatantly advocated for what many consider to be a rushed-reckless spectral disruption. Many end users have indicated that they will seek to pay (if forced to) these “fees” to other companies who did not support the potential harmful broadband plan, exercising what little choice or influence they have in this matter. Or at least if the GPS eating zombies do attack, they might be tempted to trip some of those turncoats.

    Thanks, and see you next week.

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

     

  • Where Am I?

    I have long advocated that our warfighters and first responders deserve the best equipment available so they can answer the basic question, “Where Am I?” quickly and with complete certainty. Or, “Where am I now and how do I get to someplace of relative safety quickly?” Unfortunately, government-furnished equipment (GFE), in this case the GPS handheld equipment we supply our warfighters, does not do a good or even adequate job of answering that question.

    At this time of year, while everyone else is busy making New Year’s resolutions and breaking them, I tend to wax nostalgic. About 45 years ago when I was a college newspaper editor — yes my fascination for the written word has been going on for at least that long — I had the opportunity to interview a wonderful elderly professor who taught a combined psychology and philosophy course on the human condition. I am absolutely sanguine he gently pontificated marvelous, life-changing platitudes, many of which are unfortunately long forgotten, but I do remember his famous Daniel Boone quote related to being lost, and I present to you the slightly modified version. When Daniel Boone, the famous wilderness scout, became a legislator later in life, he was asked by a senator if he had ever been lost while he was roaming around in the wilderness. Daniel Boone thought for a moment and replied, “No, I have never been lost, but since my compass was government furnished equipment supplied by the lowest bidder, I was mighty bewildered once for about three weeks.” This kindly professor also encouraged his graduate students to constantly ask themselves, metaphorically of course, “Where Am I?”.

    It is a philosophy that we should all adopt, one I have followed through the years. It has served me well, certainly much more so than the plaintive words from the 7th Cavalry General Custer query, where we hear the oft-cited and mournfully questioning lyric, What Am I Doing Here? Recently, the troubling aspects of the “Where am I?” and “What am I doing here?” questions have come home to roost. Of course, I am speaking of when and where I am physically, as in time and place, not metaphorically. While the answer seems straightforward and simple for most of us, emails I have received over the last ten years from our warfighters indicate this may not always be the case for everyone. Many of us, and in fact I hope, all of us, at one time or another, ask that question: Where in the heck am I anyway? When you and I ask that question and we are momentarily disoriented or just trying to find the location of our next appointment, it can be mildly frustrating, but when our warfighters ask that question in the heat of battle, it can be a life or death interrogative.

    In this column from day one, I have strongly advocated that our warfighters and first responders deserve the best equipment available that enables them to answer that basic question — Where am I? — quickly and with complete certainty, no ambiguity. Where am I now and how do I get to someplace of relative safety quickly? Unfortunately the GFE or government furnished equipment, in this case the GPS handheld equipment we supply our warfighters, does not do a good or even adequate job of answering that question. Let’s face it — the government furnished equipment fails miserably at what should by now be a simple task.

    Our warfighters may eventually be able to determine where they are located with the help of a paper map, but the handheld versions of GPS GFE do a lousy job providing situational awareness and indicating the route to a safe haven. If there are still doubters, one need only remember the Jessica Lynch story as you contemplate the disasters resulting from disorientation, being lost, or making a wrong turn in combat conditions. That one infamous wrong turn will affect Jessica Lynch and her comrades for the rest of their lives as well as the families of those who died because of a simple and basic navigational error.

    Since that very public scenario played out almost eight years ago, our GFE GPS equipment has unfortunately not changed one iota for the better. Our warfighters are still using . . . let’s be precise, are still issued the same outdated, overweight, battery limited, lousy handheld equipment, with a monochrome screen, that they actually rarely use as a stand-alone device. The current GPS GFE functions almost adequately when it is embedded in another piece of equipment and our warfighters do not have to deal with the sorely antiquated and frustrating user interface. When bullets are flying and our warfighters are enmeshed in the fog of war is not the time to deal with an infuriating user interface.

    The bottom line is thousands of our warfighters — if their cards, letters, telephone calls and public testimonials are any indication — consider the GFE GPS they are issued to be vastly inferior PNT equipment.

    iphone-5-black-and-white
    Apple iPhone 4S

    As a natural consequence, many warfighters have turned to commercial equipment for their PNT (Position, Navigation and Timing) needs. Familiar commercial GPS providers such as Garmin, TomTom, Trimble, and Apple have seen their devices proliferate in theater. Service providers such as Verizon have seen a ten-fold increase in commercial spectrum since the conflicts began more than eight years ago. Face it: When your life is on the line, you are going to quickly determine what you really need to survive, purchase it, and learn how to use it. This is why in my previous column I mentioned that the new Apple iPhone 4S may prove to be the most useful and versatile PNT device on the market today. This is true especially for our warfighters and first responders, who have stated categorically in more than 8,000 letters and emails to me that availability of PNT signals is the critical metric for judging the efficacy of a handheld/portable PNT device in war time and emergencies.

    Consider the following iPhone attributes:

    1. Receives 30+ GPS satellites.
    2. Receives 24+ GLONASS satellites.
    3. Receives WASS and EGNOS GEO satellite transmissions where available. Note that a GEO (geosynchronous Earth orbit) PNT satellite may be the geometric equivalent of more than three MEO (medium Earth orbit) satellites. As I have said many times, where PNT is concerned geometry matters.
    4. Receives Wi-Fi signals and un-encoded GPS signals processed by Skyhook wireless software, which providing a TTFF (time to first fix) of only four seconds.
    5. Receives 3G and 4G signals from cellular towers and provides a position when all other signals are obscured or otherwise unavailable. Note: While the Apple iPhone GPS chip is sensitive enough to work indoors, even when that fails due to electrical interference or dense shielding, the Wi-Fi signals and cellular signals usually penetrate. Warfighters tell me even in Afghanistan it is rare not to have an accurate position and time displayed on an Apple iPhone, iTouch or iPad.
    6. The iPhone user has access to 30+ PNT programs with highly accurate color terrain maps and satellite views that the GFE GPS does not provide.
    7. The Apple iPhone fully incorporates the multi-sourced PNT derived position with other applications on the iPhone and makes the most of situational awareness, which is critical to a warfighter and first responder.
    8. The Apple iPhone fully incorporates the PNT position with the communications capabilities of the iPhone to include cellular, Wi-Fi and SMS or texting for the younger generation.
    9. The iPhone allows users to take photos of their surroundings and encode the photos with PNT information, alerting others to their situation. It provides situational awareness for the users and those communicating with the users.
    10. The embedded and integrated communication capabilities of the iPhone allow the user to talk with mission planners, taskers and superiors while simultaneously reporting findings or accepting mission changes, all on the same device.
    11. If the iPhone is lost, its position can be determined with another iPhone or Apple computer. If it has fallen into enemy hands, it can be tracked and found, or if that is not feasible all the information on the Apple device can be deleted and the device rendered inert.

    While this is quite a list of capabilities, it is far from a complete or exhaustive list. The really tragic part of this true story is that with just a little imagination and subject-matter expertise combined with some planning, the GFE GPS could have incorporated the same capabilities, and more; who knows, The iPhone could be the future GFE for PNT. As it is of the eleven PNT and related capabilities listed for the Apple iPhone, only one can be accomplished by the current GFE handheld GPS — a tragic state of affairs!

    To make matters worse, officially our warfighters cannot use the iPhone and its abundant situational awareness capabilities, or devices like it, for official mission or mission-related activities. To the U.S Army’s credit, it is attempting to change this inane and life-threatening policy. Until that happens or new GFE PNT equipment is developed, U.S. military personnel are forced to use the worst handheld equipment available, from a size, weight and power perspective (SWAP) that provides the least amount of information possible. This makes current DoD policy concerning PNT hardware, software and frequencies about 20+ years out of date and consequently, or should I say thankfully and to their credit, our warfighters have basically totally ignored this antiquated policy.

    To be perfectly clear, I cannot and would never advocate ignoring official government policy or denigrate those who do. The current GFE GPS serves a purpose, or so I am told, and even though it is marginal, the equipment should be utilized where officially mandated. However, the smart warfighter will incorporate numerous GPS/PNT backups and utilize them judiciously — or as one clearly frustrated warfighter wrote, “…I use the GFE GPS and Viper combination, which is very unwieldy and cumbersome, to call in or direct fire because I can be prosecuted by the military if I don’t, but I use my iPhone [PNT capabilities] for everything else including communicating with and getting my comrades and I back to our unit at the end of our patrol. Why can’t the military furnish me with something like the iPhone that works, is a tenth the size and weight, and costs only one fifth what the current GFE GPS costs? It already exists, just authorize my teammates and me to use it. How hard can that be?”

    You can literally feel the warfighter’s confusion in that statement. Let’s hope the U.S. military is successful in mandating desperately needed changes. We will keep track of those efforts and let you know. Meanwhile, buy your favorite warfighter a backup PNT device such as a Trimble, Garmin or iPhone — anything so they can answer the age-old question of “Where am I?” and then find their way safely home.

    Until next time, with full apologies to CWO5 William Dagenhart (USMC) and to the men and women of the 7th Cavalry, happy navigating.