With mounting evidence that its proposed use of spectrum would have a detrimental impact on GPS reliability, LightSquared seems to be hedging its 4G hopes on the argument that affected devices don't warrant interference protection from the US government. Now the FCC is asking for public opinion on the matter, a development which would seem to indicate that LightSquared's plans aren't doomed just yet. Indeed, in an email statement to Bloomberg, executive vice president Jeff Carlisle says his company is "extremely pleased" with the news. Your feedback is welcome at any time between now and February 27th; responses will then be collected until March 13th.
Even if LightSquared makes a fair point in accusing GPS makers of unjustly relying on its spectrum, it's tough to envision a path forward for the company's ambitions — particularly when numerous reports (including flight system concerns from the FAA) have demonstrated legitimate real-world interference. We wouldn't be surprised to see the FCC err on the side of caution here. Still, if you're willing to fight for the cause of wholesale LTE, hit the source link below.
There are 27 Comments. Add yours.
The FCC has a pretty nice site.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:02 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Why does nobody bring up the fact that the original license (2001-2004) was for mostly satellite based services? When LightSquared submitted the modification (2011) for more ground-based communication (vs mostly satellite), that’s when shit hit the fan.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Because the people trying to push this through find it inconvenient to note that the FCC agreed to let them try and prove their case only when they tried to get it changed in 2011.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They had intentions to make it a mixed network almost from the beginning and they’ve been leaning on the FCC to hold up their end (i.e. enforcing the spectrum change) since at least mid-2008.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except the FCC never promised more than to give then a chance to prove it would not interfere. They bought this spectrum from someone else then went to the FCC asking.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except that the FCC is actually to blame here. The FCC tried to push this whole deal through over a 10 day public opinion period (when 30 days is normally requried) and to top it all off, those 10 days were over Thanksgiving, making it only about 5 effective days. By the time anyone was able to object to this, it was already approved. It wasn’t until people started speaking up that the FCC started acting like they cared.
There have been several internal FCC meetings and investigations into this case, and several senior FCC members have been resigning when new information comes out about the process.
There is clear evidence that the FCC made huge favoritism to Lightsquared for this LTE network and left Globalstar (another LTE wholesale potential) in paperwork for months at a time and rejected extensions on their plan citing the same issues that Lightsquared got away with having.
It’s clear that Lightsquared is using some political lobbying power here and to act like they are playing fair is inaccurate. The GPS isn’t just using their spectrum under no terms. Lightsquared has contracts that allow the use of there terrestrial spectrum for GPS.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 6:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Maybe I am missing it but I don’t see an option to submit feedback for that story and I don’t see the lightsquared article as an option for the larger comment page.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Neither do I. Does anyone have a link?
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
FCC ECFS Short comment link: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=11-109&filedFrom=X
FCC ECFS Standard (for uploading attachments – click the link at the top that says Submit a filing in 11-109): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=94jz8&name=11-109
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 1:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So Lightsquared wants to provide LTE internet service via satellite?
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No via ground using a bit of spectrum designated for satellite communications.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can guarantee you that if this issue was keeping 4G from being deployed in the cities, all of the people defending the FCC would instead be screaming for higher standards on GPS gear.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think enough people, city folk included, have experienced enough problems with weak GPS signals to recognize that they don’t need something impairing GPS even further, whether by interference or the loss of sensitivity due to whatever filters get bolted on to block the overflow.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
GPS had licensed that spectrum from Lightsquared.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Here is my 2¢, why does the government seek the opinion of the people when it is consumer related but not when it comes to an issue that effects our rights. Example NDAA Bill the president signed, look I am not saying consumer issues are not important they are but not as important as NDAA
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:41 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think that companies are the only ones who will add any relevant information about the argument. Most Americans, including myself, don’t know about the issue to give a good opinion about the subject.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Public comments are a part of agency rulemaking procedures by law. The NDAA bill was not an agency rule. You are supposed to contact your member of congress about bills.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 12:41 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
how would I know if LightSquare is right or not? we didn’t carry tests, did we? of course people want 4G and don’t care if navy GPS dont work. if it really creates problem, then our opinion couldn’t change it. LS says test results were wrong. how about non-biased test to shut them up?
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 1:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The tests were not biased, they are saying that because they have everything riding on this stuff I think.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 3:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
AND let’s not forget that the Dear Leader and his bundlers have money invested in LightSquared!
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seriously? LS’s technology could have helped bridge the ever-increasing gap between the United States and the rest of the developed world. Why the hell wouldn’t the admin want them to succeed?
Go look up broadband statistics – it’s rather depressing.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 4:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I may be missing something, but is that a comparison between Obama and Kim Jong Il? If so, that’s crazy.
Posted on Jan 30, 2012 | 6:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Which is why the FCC is denying their application?
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I feel that often the big picture in this argument is often overlooked. The broadband communications industry in the USA is owned by a very small group of very large corporations. The benefits to consumers of having a wholesale broadband provider far outweigh the cost of having to modify existing GPS technology at a relatively low cost. The question of who foots the bill for the adaptations, I believe, is a separate argument all together.
The presence of some solid competition in the broadband market is long, long overdue. And LS would be different in that they won’t have the distraction of selling to consumers.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Regardless of whether there’s a LightSqared operation or not, here’s what I think.
If the critical GPS users’, like the Navy, Army and Air Force, devices can be so easily compromised or overwhelmed by interference, then it is a weakness that should be resolved instead of ignoring or pretending that it’s not there.
What happens if our enemies use the interference to overwhelm our defense GPS systems?
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 10:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You blow up the jammers? Simple fact of radio technology, use enough power and you can always jam something else.. However in the meantime, you make yourself a big target.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 12:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.