December 14, 2011
Preliminary analysis of the test findings found no significant interference with cellular phones. However, the testing did show that LightSquared signals caused harmful interference to the majority of other tested general purpose GPS receivers. Separate analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration also found interference with a flight safety system designed to warn pilots of approaching terrain.
You're almost always a week late on posting these news items.
Was it posted earlier?
Mid November Standford University held a conference on precision timing and position services.
The lead-off talk was essentially on how LightSquared as currently embodied destroys GPS.
Spectrum charts show how LightSquared, particularly if they go ahead with deployment in the 10H band, renders a number of precision positioning services (such as that offered by John Deere, used in precision agriculture, roadbuilding, and construction) useless. And there is NO design around.
A second presentation at the conference was from the FAA, detailing disruption to GPS services.
The frequency band LightSquared wants to use, just below the GPS L1 signal, was originally designated for weak-signal satellite downlinks, such as INMARSAT III which broadcasts the correction signal used by the John Deere precision positioning system mentioned above.
This band was developed, and is used for weak-signal downlinks from orbiting satellites.
LightSquared wants to put 15kw terrestrial transmitters in this band! Yes, that's going to disrupt service, and no, many services will NOT be able to design around it!
Look for the posts, look at the presentations.
LightSquared can be a superb service -- but not using those frequencies!
Was it posted earlier?
It was posted earlier and had an active discussion thread.
I read yesterday 12/20 that Lightsquared is pushing the FCC for a decision.
Are you kidding me? That's like moving in next to an airport that's been there for 100 years and building a skyscraper in the landing zone... "Your planes are old and inaccurate... Get the newer VTOL planes that don't need runways."
It's the same people that build houses next to airports and then sue to stop the noise from airplanes taking of and landing.
Perhaps the best corollary is the one which compared LightSquared's proposal to that of your neighbor who decides to build a 30,000 seat amphitheater next to your house and schedules rock concerts 24 hours a day. They then wonder why you are complaining as there is a picket fence separating your property from theirs.
Article is from December 14, 2011 with the preliminary analysis of the test findings. I posted the link December 19 2011 @ 4:01pm
The December 14th preliminary analysis can be posted as an update to your thread.
As of today:
Given the hue and cry over the issue, it would have been political suicide to come to any other conclusion
Build a drag strip next to this guys house, and have free track runs all nights and day.... "...not my fault your house isn't soundproof enough. Build a better house..."
As of 2/15
Looks like due to continued interference with the GPS spectrum, Lightsquared is not likely be approved by the FCC any time soon.
good analogy, kinda highlights how absurd lightsquared is acting. lightsquared should be offering a free upgrade or retrofit solution if he is gonna destroy the existing gps infrastructure. take responsibility for your action!
With the $billions invested, I expect Lightsquared to fight this to the bitter end. They're still playing the media game, spinning this as if the government is pandering to special interests, quashing innovation, and denying 100+ million people competitive internet service.
The FCC has pulled its approvals. Yes, LightSquared will scream and holler, and do everything they can.
But there are still enough bright folk at the FCC, I hope, that they won't be fooled twice.
Move it to a different band (where?) and it could be a good service. But not in a band that's dedicated to weak signal satellite downlinks!
I'm worried they'll take it to the courts, or turn it into an election year issue.
Move it to a different band (where?) and it could be a good service.
Too bad their entire business model was to acquire cheap spectrum in the wrong band and blame the rest of the world for their own foolishness instead of ponying up the money for an appropriate allocation like the rest of the LTE players.
LightSquared has filed an angry rebuttal to the FCC:
In what appears to be a foreshadowing of the company’s long-implied threats of litigation, LightSquared executive Jeff Carlisle alluded to “enormous and quantifiable . . .damages to LightSquared resulting from the Commission’s breach of its agreement with LightSquared and its violation of LightSquared’s constitutional rights.”
Now that there is two threads on the same subject, which one should we use from this point forward?
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2020