Report: LightSquared's Interference Fixes Won't Work LightSquared: Your Report Suffers From Conflict of Interest Despite constant claims by LightSquared that they've developed low-cost solutions that will mitigate their planned network's interference with GPS, a Federal Advisory board has declared that that there is "no practical solutions or mitigations" that would allow LightSquared and GPS to peacefully co-exist. Back in June LightSquared proposed utilizing a 10 MHz swath of L-band spectrum in the lower portion of the company's spectrum assets to avoid interference. The company then proposed several antenna solutions high-precision GPS users could implement at their own expense to resolve issues. The National Space-Based Positioning Navigation and Timing Committee last week issued a statement saying that none of these solutions were acceptable: Based upon this testing an analysis, there appear to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS. As a result, no additional testing is warranted at this time. LightSquared is responding to the report by claiming a conflict of interest by one of the panel's members, insisting that Bradford Parkinson, the vice chairman of a board, is also a director of GPS vendor Trimble Navigation.
|
 | | And so it begins...... Yeah, Lightsquared is not going to make any friends here.
If they want to make it work, then need to find the solutions themselves and demonstrate them in a manner that can be duplicated by an independent engineering firm. Only then can they have even a fighting chance of getting approved. | |
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
|  |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by Linklist:If the FCC had any guts and wasn't trying to push another BPL fiasco on the public, they would have refused Lightsquared the opportunity to even test satellite spectrum over ground transmitters. But a Billionaire money investor, with backing from congresscritters, forced the FCC to play nice. Now we will all pay the price as said Billionaire takes the FCC to court to try and hold the FCC to its stupid promises.
Wrong.
The FCC's engineers knew it would not work, but was nice enough to let Lightsquared (used to be another name) try.
I see nothing wrong to let a company try even if the company is making claims that do not seem true. Who knows lightsquare could have really invented some kind of super technology.
The FCC did nothing wrong. | |
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared Really? So the frequencies in question were determined to not be used for terrestrial transmissions by the FCC and then the FCC waived that determination and let a company attempt to use the frequency range for purposes other than intended. And the FCC isn't at fault? | |
| | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared The FCC gave a conditional waiver with the clause of not causing interference to be approved
GPS Interference = Not Approved
The FCC did this to give a company a chance to test their claims. The company failed so they were never approved.
It is written clearly in the waiver, linked to several times before on this site.
How is the FCC at fault for giving a company a chance??? | |
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared I've read the FCC's conditions. Still doesn't excuse its ignorance in violating its own rules. | |
| | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by openbox9:I've read the FCC's conditions. Still doesn't excuse its ignorance in violating its own rules.
What ignorance???
They could have said no, but instead they were nice and gave the company a chance. They did not have to do that.
I see nothing wrong with the FCC allowing a company to prove they can do what they claim. Its up to the company to decide if they can actually do what they say.
Obviously lightsquared could not do what they could say, so they probably were going to try and lobby/bribe their approval based on the fact they spent so much money on bullshit.
All lightsquared wants to do is flip satellite only spectrum into ground based spectrum worth 10 times as much. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by Oh_No:They could have said no, but instead they were nice and gave the company a chance. That ignorance. It's not being "nice". Nice would've been informing LightSquared what it needed to accomplish to build out its network.said by Oh_No:All lightsquared wants to do is flip satellite only spectrum into ground based spectrum worth 10 times as much. That only makes this issue more flagrant. | |
| | | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by openbox9:said by Oh_No:They could have said no, but instead they were nice and gave the company a chance. That ignorance. It's not being "nice". Nice would've been informing LightSquared what it needed to accomplish to build out its network. said by Oh_No:All lightsquared wants to do is flip satellite only spectrum into ground based spectrum worth 10 times as much. That only makes this issue more flagrant. FYI, they made it quit clear to lightsquared what they had to do.
They could not cause interference to aviation, gps, defense.
Any engineer would have said you cant make it work.
Lightsquared say they had new technology to make it work, so the FCC was nice enough to let them try.
Lightsquareds new technology did not work and thus they were denied the waiver.
I dont understand your FCC bashing here. The FCC did not do anything secretive or wrong. I dont understand your obsession with the FCC who did way more than what they normally do. | |
|
| | | | | said by openbox9:Really? So the frequencies in question were determined to not be used for terrestrial transmissions by the FCC and then the FCC waived that determination ...
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension.
The FCC granted a conditional waiver, that condition being that LightSquared be able to operate their service on a non-interfering basis. LightSquared has not been able to meet the condition set forth in the conditional waiver, therefor the waiver does not apply.
I really can't make it any more simple than that.
As to why the FCC's engineers agreed to the conditional waiver, knowing there was no way said condition could be met, one can only surmise. Given the parties involved, including, it is said by some, President Obama, himself, my guess would be political pressure. | |
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared Bolding the word "conditional" doesn't change the mistake that the FCC made. You suggest that the FCC knew this wouldn't work but let a company waste resources of a business and the government. Does that sound about right...even with my poor reading comprehension? | |
| | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by openbox9:Bolding the word "conditional" doesn't change the mistake that the FCC made. You suggest that the FCC knew this wouldn't work but let a company waste resources of a business and the government. Does that sound about right...even with my poor reading comprehension?
No that does not sound right. It was 100% up to the company to figure out a way to make it work and to prove there was no interference. The FCC did not force them to try.
The FCC said no unless LS can prove there is no interference.
The FCC gave them a chance to prove they can make it work. Lightsquared could not, so the answer stayed NO.
Why is this so hard to understand?? The FCC made no mistakes and did nothing wrong.
Should the FCC never give a company a chance to prove their technology??? | |
| | | | | | | | said by openbox9:You suggest that the FCC knew this wouldn't work but let a company waste resources of a business and the government. "Suggest" being the key word. I don't know it. Nor do I know the real reason why they would do such a thing, but, as I wrote earlier, one can surmise. Read LightSquared: The Next Big Obama Scandal
said by openbox9:Does that sound about right...even with my poor reading comprehension?
Yeah, except you seem to be functioning under the illusion that the FCC, a Federal agency, operates entirely on scientific principles, w/o political influence. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared I'm read up on Falcone's ties to the White House.said by jseymour:Yeah, except you seem to be functioning under the illusion that the FCC, a Federal agency, operates entirely on scientific principles, w/o political influence. Sadly, I'm not under that illusion. I have no doubt that the FCC is more of a political arm these days than an engineering and oversight organization. | |
| | | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Idiot FCC as much at fault as Lightsquared said by openbox9:I'm read up on Falcone's ties to the White House. said by jseymour:Yeah, except you seem to be functioning under the illusion that the FCC, a Federal agency, operates entirely on scientific principles, w/o political influence. Sadly, I'm not under that illusion. I have no doubt that the FCC is more of a political arm these days than an engineering and oversight organization. You are right. The FCC used to rely on science, engineering and facts, but since the 90s they become more corrruptable and bow to political pressure. Just like the political pressure to approve lightsquared when they caused intereference.
We are lucky the FCC only gave them a conditional waiver and not a waiver that allowed them to cause interference.
Political bullying and strong arming almost allowed lightsquared to bypass facts, science and engineering.
But in the end science, facts, and engineering protected GPS. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by openbox9:Bolding the word "conditional" doesn't change the mistake that the FCC made. You suggest that the FCC knew this wouldn't work but let a company waste resources of a business and the government. Does that sound about right...even with my poor reading comprehension?
Wrong again. Conditional waivers are granted all the time to give companies a chance to test their technologies in real world circumstances. Conditional licences were even given out during the digital TV era and there were 2 competing technologies. Test towers and transmitters were hooked up and allowed on the air to see what would and would not work. One standard came out on top and the other was allowed to die off. | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by jseymour:As to why the FCC's engineers agreed to the conditional waiver, knowing there was no way said condition could be met, one can only surmise. Given the parties involved, including, it is said by some, President Obama, himself, my guess would be political pressure.
That is the whole issue and why Lightsquared will probably sue. Promises made to them from political operatives within the FCC and not the engineers.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
|
| | Will never work! Lightsquared has as much chance of not interfering with GPS as a snow ball in Hades.
The spectrum they want to use was for satellite (space to ground) communications and now they want to get a waver to change the usage to terrestrial. Someone obviously doesn't understand the laws of physics and wave propagation (the later is called an inverse square law - double the distance from a transmitter and the power decreases by 1/4) as well as the frequency "red shift" that occurs between 2 bodies in motion. Read my sig 
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! | |
| | | | Re: Will never work! Lightsquared IS space to ground. If they think this will ever fly, they're very VERY high.
Ground Control to Major Tom.... | |
| | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Will never work! Lightsquared is approved for space to ground, but they want to be ground to ground. They cant be ground to ground due to interference.
They can still implement the space to ground broadband they originally said they would do. | |
| | | | Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | Re: Will never work! Read again, he was making a joke... | |
| | | | | | | Re: Will never work! I am confused, so if it doesn't effect like people's gps's, and only super precision stuff, doesn't super precision stuff already have filters? So what's the problem? | |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78
 ·DIRECTV
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
·AT&T Southwest
| I know this might sound like common sense but if the GPS signaling seems to be the problem why can't the FCC just find a different set of spectrum for them and essentially tell them
"Hey just move and transmit here!"
I mean seriously, if interference is a problem for any normal WI-FI area where a channel is particularly saturated I just find a different WI-FI transmit channel.
nevermind, I am making sense again... stupid,stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid....
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
| | |
HIPAR
join:2005-11-10
Tannersville, PA | The debacle I've been following this very closely since this debacle surfaced during the 2010 Thanksgiving coup. I haven't found any evidence that anyone in a decision making capacity remotely understood the ramifications of what was about to happen.
Someone in the FCC engineering office must have known this wouldn't work but I've found no evidence they performed even a cursory analysis. There was a Lightsquared document (wish I could find it now) that detailed a lame test they had conducted to determine effects on GPS equipped cell phones. That document abruptly ended with a statement of testing would continue through the FCC mandated interference working group.
It probably developed something like this:
FCC to Lightsquared - 'We all want to support the administration's broadband initiatives. We're with you on this and ready to help.'
LightSquared to FCC - 'One minor detail, we need you to lift the Gating requirement allowing us to issue terrestrial only hand sets.'
FCC to Lightsquared - 'No problem, we'll get the International Bureau on this right away.'
FCC announces it's intention to make a 'minor' modification to Lightsquared's license setting a ridiculously brief over the holiday comment period. Hoping nobody will notice?
DoD, FAA scream bloody murder to NTIA. Garmin performs 'quick and dirty test' showing severe problems. GPS industry mobilizes.
FCC to Lightsquared - 'We did our best to get this thing done for you but everyone's looking now. Unfortunately, we need to go by the book. So let's organize a test that proves there is no interference problem. Then we can lift the provisions we had to impose for your license.'
The test and all subsequent testing yields damning results. Lightsquared 'tap dances' around the issues but FCC cannot approve the license after having bowed to political pressures stating GPS interference/compatability issues must first be resolved.
Lightsquared to FCC - 'Enough of these delays. Nothing is our fault. You encouraged us to spend lots of money to get a jump on our network buildout and we expect you to make things right for us. We're going to sue.' | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·