Bookmark this page:
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Get a Move On: July 30 Deadline for FCC/LightSquared Comments
July 18, 2011
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ . Follow the instructions provided on the
website for submitting comments. First, click “Submit a Filing.” Once
the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
wish to add that the FCC’s own Technical Working Group tasked with
investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
Transportation, all agree on this.
It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
resource for a wide range of users — not just yourself or your industry
sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama’s
administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. Recently,
after 2 ½ weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
bureau chief Rick Kaplan said “We need to make sure we aren't locking
out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission” — a clear
reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
$20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
product or service.
Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
for another company’s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
licenses, to get LightSquared’s powerful terrestrial signal away from
troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
editorial, “A Pawn in Their Game.”
From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
“The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to “to address potential
interference issues “] effort identified significant technical issues
related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
upper 10 MHz channel —the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
— will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
legacy GPS receivers.“
For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/DA-11-1133A1.pdf
>
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/get-a-move-on-july-30-deadline-fcclightsquared-comments-11895
July 18, 2011
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ . Follow the instructions provided on the
website for submitting comments. First, click “Submit a Filing.” Once
the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
wish to add that the FCC’s own Technical Working Group tasked with
investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
Transportation, all agree on this.
It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
resource for a wide range of users — not just yourself or your industry
sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama’s
administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. Recently,
after 2 ½ weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
bureau chief Rick Kaplan said “We need to make sure we aren't locking
out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission” — a clear
reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
$20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
product or service.
Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
for another company’s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
licenses, to get LightSquared’s powerful terrestrial signal away from
troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
editorial, “A Pawn in Their Game.”
From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
“The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to “to address potential
interference issues “] effort identified significant technical issues
related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
upper 10 MHz channel —the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
— will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
legacy GPS receivers.“
For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/DA-11-1133A1.pdf
> Get a Move On: July 30 Deadline for FCC/LightSquared Comments
> >http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/get-a-move-on-july-30-deadli ...
> July 18, 2011
> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
> on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
> replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
> comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
> To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
> using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.=
Follow the instructions provided on the
> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
> on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
> replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
> comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
> To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
> using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.=
> website for submitting comments. First, click =93Submit a Filing.=94 Once
> the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
> Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
> information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
> transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
> Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
> Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
> became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
> that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
> incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
> mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
> wish to add that the FCC=92s own Technical Working Group tasked with
> investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
> Transportation, all agree on this.
> It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
> resource for a wide range of users =97 not just yourself or your industry
> sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
> The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
> It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama=92s
> administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
> includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
> connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
> publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. =A0Recently,
> after 2 =BD weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
> bureau chief Rick Kaplan said =93We need to make sure we aren't locking
> out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission=94 =97 a clear
> reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
> A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
> $20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
> amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
> industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
> product or service.
> Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
> for another company=92s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
> licenses, to get LightSquared=92s powerful terrestrial signal away from
> troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
> But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
> World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
> editorial, =93A Pawn in Their Game.=94
> =A0From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
> =93The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to =93to address potent=
ial
> the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
> Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
> information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
> transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
> Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
> Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
> became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
> that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
> incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
> mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
> wish to add that the FCC=92s own Technical Working Group tasked with
> investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
> Transportation, all agree on this.
> It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
> resource for a wide range of users =97 not just yourself or your industry
> sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
> The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
> It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama=92s
> administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
> includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
> connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
> publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. =A0Recently,
> after 2 =BD weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
> bureau chief Rick Kaplan said =93We need to make sure we aren't locking
> out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission=94 =97 a clear
> reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
> A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
> $20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
> amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
> industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
> product or service.
> Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
> for another company=92s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
> licenses, to get LightSquared=92s powerful terrestrial signal away from
> troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
> But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
> World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
> editorial, =93A Pawn in Their Game.=94
> =A0From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
> =93The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to =93to address potent=
> interference issues =93] effort identified significant technical issues
> related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
> L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
> three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
> representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
> number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
> potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
> the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
> identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
> band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
> upper 10 MHz channel =97the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
> =97 will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
> legacy GPS receivers.=93
> For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/D ...
> related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
> L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
> three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
> representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
> number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
> potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
> the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
> identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
> band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
> upper 10 MHz channel =97the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
> =97 will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
> legacy GPS receivers.=93
> For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/D ...
I dispatched my comment. I'm fully aware that this issue will not be
decided by public comments. It's more like 'You have no basis to
gripe if you didn't go on the record'. So when the FCC finally
trashes GPS, I have 'Griping rights'.
--- CHAS
wrote:
If you or I were caught using a GPS jammer, we would most likely be
imprisoned. But if a big corporation with lots of money does it, it
is OK? This country is more corrupt than a Banana Republic in South
America. I'm ASHAMED.
Lg
>> Get a Move On: July 30 Deadline for FCC/LightSquared Comments
>> >http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/get-a-move-on-july-30-deadli ...
>> July 18, 2011
>> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
>> on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
>> replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
>> comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
>> To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
>> using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ .
Follow the instructions provided on the
>> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will accept public comments
>> on the LightSquared interference with GPS issue until July 30, and
>> replies to those comments until August 15, 2011. After the public
>> comment period is closed, the FCC can render a decision at any time.
>> To file comments with the FCC: Comments may be filed electronically
>> using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ .
>> website for submitting comments. First, click “Submit a Filing.” Once
>> the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
>> Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
>> information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
>> transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
>> Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
>> Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
>> became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
>> that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
>> incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
>> mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
>> wish to add that the FCC’s own Technical Working Group tasked with
>> investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
>> Transportation, all agree on this.
>> It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
>> resource for a wide range of users — not just yourself or your industry
>> sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
>> The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
>> It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama’s
>> administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
>> includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
>> connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
>> publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. Recently,
>> after 2 ½ weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
>> bureau chief Rick Kaplan said “We need to make sure we aren't locking
>> out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission” — a clear
>> reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
>> A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
>> $20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
>> amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
>> industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
>> product or service.
>> Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
>> for another company’s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
>> licenses, to get LightSquared’s powerful terrestrial signal away from
>> troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
>> But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
>> World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
>> editorial, “A Pawn in Their Game.”
>> From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
>> “The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to “to address potential
>> interference issues “] effort identified significant technical issues
>> related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
>> L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
>> three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
>> representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
>> number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
>> potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
>> the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
>> identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
>> band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
>> upper 10 MHz channel —the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
>> — will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
>> legacy GPS receivers.“
>> For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/D ...
>> the following screen comes us, in the first box labeled "Proceeding
>> Number" enter 11-109. You'll then be required to enter identifying
>> information into the form and add your comments. In completing the
>> transmittal screen, ECFS filers should include their full name, U.S.
>> Postal Service mailing address, and IB Docket No. 11-109.
>> Supply information on how you use GPS and what would happen if GPS
>> became unavailable or unreliable. GPS World suggests including comments
>> that state LightSquared's operations and GPS are fundamentally
>> incompatible and that the FCC should not permit LightSquared to use its
>> mobile satellite services frequency for terrestrial broadcast. You may
>> wish to add that the FCC’s own Technical Working Group tasked with
>> investigating this issue, and the Departments of Defense and
>> Transportation, all agree on this.
>> It may further be worth adding that GPS is an important, if not vital,
>> resource for a wide range of users — not just yourself or your industry
>> sector. These include many life- and safety-critical applications.
>> The FCC has to date exhibited a bias on the issue in favor LightSquared.
>> It certainly feels a lot of pressure from President Obama’s
>> administration to further the U.S. National Broadband Plan, which
>> includes improving Americans' accessibility to high-speed wireless
>> connectivity to the Internet. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has
>> publicly stated his strong intent to implement this agenda. Recently,
>> after 2 ½ weeks on the job, the new FCC Wireless Telecommunications
>> bureau chief Rick Kaplan said “We need to make sure we aren't locking
>> out valuable spectrum because of inefficient transmission” — a clear
>> reference to the LightSquared/GPS interference issue.
>> A spate of news stories since March have either touted or confirmed a
>> $20 billion deal between Sprint and LightSquared that puts a powerful
>> amount of money as well as added political pressure and wireless
>> industry weight behind the little company that has yet to show a true
>> product or service.
>> Further unsubstantiated rumors connect the maneuvering to a second deal
>> for another company’s spectrum swatch, or even an FCC-mediated swap of
>> licenses, to get LightSquared’s powerful terrestrial signal away from
>> troublesome interference with the GPS signal from satellites in space.
>> But none of this can be confirmed, nor should it be relied upon. GPS
>> World editor Alan Cameron addresses this aspect in an upcoming
>> editorial, “A Pawn in Their Game.”
>> From the official June 20 announcement of the FCC comment period:
>> “The technical working group [tasked by the FCC to “to address potential
>> interference issues “] effort identified significant technical issues
>> related to potential LightSquared operations in the upper portion of the
>> L-Band, which is most proximate to the band used by GPS. Over more than
>> three months, the technical working group tested more than 130
>> representative devices in seven different receiver categories, in a
>> number of different test environments. The tests demonstrated
>> potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in
>> the upper portion of the band and various GPS receivers. The tests also
>> identified some interference issues in the lower 10 MHz portion of the
>> band. The overall conclusion of the testing is that transmissions in the
>> upper 10 MHz channel —the channel nearest to the 1559-1610 MHz GPS band
>> — will adversely affect the performance of a significant number of
>> legacy GPS receivers.“
>> For a PDF of the full announcement, click here.
>> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0630/D ...
>I dispatched my comment. I'm fully aware that this issue will not be
>decided by public comments. It's more like 'You have no basis to
>gripe if you didn't go on the record'. So when the FCC finally
>trashes GPS, I have 'Griping rights'.
>--- CHAS
>decided by public comments. It's more like 'You have no basis to
>gripe if you didn't go on the record'. So when the FCC finally
>trashes GPS, I have 'Griping rights'.
>--- CHAS
If you or I were caught using a GPS jammer, we would most likely be
imprisoned. But if a big corporation with lots of money does it, it
is OK? This country is more corrupt than a Banana Republic in South
America. I'm ASHAMED.
Lg
