LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record

LightSquared, FCC Rebuttals Distort Record

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/lightsquared-fcc-rebuttals-distort-record-11774?utm_source=GPS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=navigate_06_14_2011&utm_content=lightsquared-fcc-rebuttals-distort-record-11774

A claim frequently made by LightSquared spokesperson Jeff Carlisle, and
recently by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, that the GPS industry knew
long ago about LightSquared’s plan for powerful terrestrial
transmitters, would be a telling point — if it were true. But it is not.
The verifiable fact is that the GPS industry knew about and agreed to a
plan by a previous version of the company, for a different purpose, with
a different business concept, and employing a completely different
technological approach, one that would not have harmed GPS transmissions
and disabled GPS users the way the current plan does. Calling the 2010
LightSquared plan the same as the 2003 Motient plan is running a wolf in
sheep’s clothing.

The GPS industry worked cooperatively with previous incarnations of
LightSquared, known variously as Motient, Mobile Satellite Ventures
Subsidiary LLC, and SkyTerra, to facilitate the provision of ancillary
terrestrial component (ATC) service: a terrestrial service authorized by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as an ancillary component of
an integrated satellite offering.

[Definition of ancillary: Providing necessary support to the primary
activities or operation of an organization, institution, industry, or
system.]

The Record. Since at least 2003, the FCC has contemplated terrestrial
operations as an ancillary supplement to a primarily satellite-based
service. And since 2003, the GPS industry has been aware of this, and
cooperated with it. The plan involved no foreseeable harm to the GPS
signal or millions of GPS users. In fact, its very design to protect its
own satellite signals also protected GPS signals from interference.

LightSquared’s predecessors — Motient, MSV, and SkyTerra, in succession
— presented a series of technical proposals in limited proceedings, and
the FCC accepted a series of incremental modifications of its technical
rules, all against the backdrop of the fundamental requirement: that the
terrestrial operations would be ancillary to and fully integrated with a
primary satellite service. The GPS community evaluated changes in the
technical rules in this context and did its best to cooperate in
technical modifications that would apply to terrestrial operations
subject to these fundamental constraints.

More to the point, those predecessor companies had to protect their own
primary satellite operations from interference. The protection that
their own satellite operations required was also sufficient — at that
time — to protect GPS receivers. Because of these companies’
self-interest in protecting their own satellite signals in-band, the GPS
industry focused its efforts on limiting out-of-band emissions from the
anticipated ATC operations to GPS reception in the adjacent spectrum
band, as evidenced by the agreements reached between the parties involved.

Ring in the New. The present situation is completely different. The
current owners of LightSquared — entities affiliated with the New York
hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners — took over SkyTerra in March
2010. That’s when everything changed. A new senior management team, a
new business plan, and a new technological implementation: 40,000
powerful terrestrial transmitters adjacent to the L1 band in which GPS
operates. Nothing previously seen by the FCC or the GPS industry even
hinted at this approach.

LightSquared now proposes an extensive deployment of terrestrial
transmitters, operating independently of its satellite offering, which
will create interference to GPS far beyond what was contemplated by
prior FCC policy and applicable rules. GPS operators understood and
agreed that satellite operators in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS)
band could deploy terrestrial service on an ancillary basis to
complement satellite-based services in areas where satellite reception
was weak. But there was never any agreement to, nor awareness of, the
kind of dense and very powerful terrestrial network that LightSquared
now seeks to install.

LightSquared spokesperson Carlisle paints his organization as involved
in prior communication to and negotiations with the GPS community in
connection with the ATC rules. This disguises an essential point. That
was a different organization, with a different ownership and leadership,
a different business plan, and a different technology to back it up.

Carlisle himself says so in a November, 2010 update letter to the FCC,
which is when the rumbling really began.

“In the six years since LightSquared’s [initial terrestrial] application
was granted, control of the company has been transferred and its
business plans have evolved.”

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski picked up the ball in a recent letter
replying to Senator Charles Grassley’s concerns about LightSquared
interference. "It should be no surprise to anyone involved in the
LightSquared matter that the company was planning for some time to
deploy a major terrestrial network in the spectrum adjacent to GPS.”

If an untruth is repeated enough times in enough different places, it
begins to pass itself off as the truth.

Two to Ponder. The evolution of LightSquared’s business model involves
two key elements, both of them at odds with established FCC policy, not
to mention GPS viability — and thus not reasonably anticipatable by anyone.

First, LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial broadband operations cannot
be described as ancillary to the primary purpose for which its
predecessors, Motient, MSV, and SkyTerra, received their spectrum and
licenses — that is, to provide a service that was primarily a mobile
satellite service.

Second, a requirement for the ATC service in the MSS band was that any
terrestrial service be integrated with the satellite service.
LightSquared’s new business model contemplates no meaningful integration
of terrestrial service with satellite service.

The deviations from established policy and rules required to accommodate
LightSquared’s new business model were not mere technicalities. They
represent a fundamental change to a complex and interrelated set of
rules and policies that were carefully designed to protect GPS users
from interference.

On Its Head. The November 2010 Lightsquared letter to the FCC described
a new business model that turns the original concept on its head.
LightSquared for the first time revealed plans to build a “nationwide
network of 40,000 terrestrial base stations,” and stated that “the
capacity of its fully deployed terrestrial network across all base
stations will be tens of thousands of times the capacity of either of
[its] satellites.”

Under the only combined satellite/terrestrial service plan described in
the letter, an end user would be provided with basic usage (that is,
usage before additional charges apply) of one gigabyte of terrestrial
wireless broadband usage but only 500 kilobytes of satellite date usage,
less than what is needed to send a single email in many cases.

It appears that the purpose of Lightsquared’s satellite service is, now,
to provide ancillary service in remote areas not covered by the
ubiquitous primary terrestrial network, or in the event that the
terrestrial network is destroyed — exactly the opposite of what the FCC
authorized and the GPS industry had understood and agreed to.

In 2003, the FCC stated that: “We will authorize MSS ATC subject to
conditions that ensure that the added terrestrial component remains
ancillary to the principal MSS offering. We do not intend, nor will we
permit, the terrestrial component to become a stand-alone service.”

LightSquared now claims, and at least one FCC commissioner wants
Congress to believe, that the GPS industry should have anticipated that
what was bedrock when the FCC adopted its ATC rules would become
quicksand by 2011. But there is no language in prior Commission orders
that might have put the GPS community on clear notice that the rules of
the game were likely to be changed in such a fundamental way.

The Distortion. LightSquared has mischaracterized the GPS community’s
earlier cooperation as permission to extend the technical rules, without
further consideration, to the fundamentally different, new and far more
threatening mode of operation now proposed by its 2010 re-incarnation.

When the FCC first authorized ATC, it made it clear that in the event
that services in bands adjacent to ATC operations, like GPS, suffered
harmful interference, it would be the responsibility of the ATC
operator, not the GPS provider, to cure that interference. If
LightSquared cannot demonstrate that it will not cause – or that it
alone will ameliorate – harmful interference to GPS operations, it must
not be permitted to initiate service.

A cursory examination of Carlisle’s and Genachowski’s backgrounds
reveals nothing pertaining to engineering or technical knowledge. Both
are lawyers. Such professional experience has proven to go far in
Washington D.C., of course. That and a line of talk.

Interestingly, Carlisle served as deputy chief and then chief of the
FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau from 2001 to 2005 — the period during
which the earlier, less harmful ATC agreement was reached. Carlisle
managed the development of FCC policies on broadband and competitive
entry into the local exchange market, and was the architect of FCC
policies on bankruptcy of common carriers.

Genachowski has a long-term and reportedly close relationship with
President Obama, who appointed him to the FCC chairmanship. His
background as a Supreme Court law clerk has led some to speculate that
he may play a strong role in determining legal strategy on FCC court
cases. His official bio states that "Prior to his FCC appointment,
Genachowski spent more than a decade working in the technology and media
industries as an executive, investor, and board member."

The GPS industry is amply on record as supporting the goal of ensuring
that all Americans have access to broadband services, and President
Obama’s goal to make more spectrum available for wireless broadband
operations. *However, pursuit of those goals cannot jeopardize the many
critical functions performed by GPS in the national economy, security,
or defense, and the overall U.S. infrastructure*.

We can argue about what history brought us to where we are now. Does
it really matter?

Is the argument that Lightsquared should be allowed to operate because
the GPS industry was reticent? Should that industry be punished for
its inaction. Should the millions of GPS users suffer for the sins of
the industry?

Of course not. It's a red herring.

--- CHAS

The industry did the right thing. The original solution (by the prior
spectrum holder) was a 75W signal, now Lightsquared wants to broadcast
a whopping 1500W signal. As previously negotiated safeguards against
interference don't apply anymore due to the power discrepancy. The
original 75W signal was a secondary signal coexisting with MSS (Mobile
Satellite Service) operating on the same frequency. FCC and
Lightsquared continue to use the ancillary term with the new signal
with no regard to the fact that it's no longer ancillary (there's no
satellite system operating on the same frequency anymore). What FCC
and Lightsquare is trying to do is to subvert a frequency NEVER
intended for a high powered signal to operating at said frequency.
To me it sounds clear the FCC commissioner either has been told to
make this happen (by the White House ?), have taken a bribe from
Lightsquared or it just completely incompetent. Completely
unacceptable, and completely unjustified situation.

Marcelo Pacheco