Lightsquared Interference -- Final Report to FCC

It's a huge report segmented into smaller documents. I hate to think
what it cost. Everyone who has followed this farce knows the report
can only illustrate the obvious.

Search for filings of 06/30/2011 on the FCC website:

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/related_filing.hts?f_key=-216679&f_number=SATMOD2010111800239

Lightsquared contends the report proves conclusively that GPS
receivers are not properly engineered. Such arrogance!

--- CHAS

On 2011-06-30 17:51 , HIPAR wrote:
iling.hts?f_key=3D-216679&f_number=3DSATMOD2010111800239

It's a PR battle for them now.

In any case, it is against the law for the FCC to even read the=20
document, never mind act on it.

"" Congressional Committee Blocks FCC Approval of LightSquared
June 27, 2011

The House Appropriations Committee today approved the fiscal year 2012=20
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. One=20
amendment to the bill prohibits funding for the Federal Communications=20
Commission (FCC) to remove conditions on or permit certain commercial=20
broadband operations until the FCC has resolved concerns of harmful=20
interference by these operations on GPS devices. The amendment was=20
adopted on a voice vote.

According to an eWeek news analysis, the prohibition means that the FCC=20
is effectively barred from any further consideration of LightSquared=92s =

plan, since even meeting to discuss the plan spends federal funds=20
through employee salaries. Until LightSquared comes up with a plan that=20
completely protects existing GPS navigation devices from interference,=20
LightSquared cannot operate its satellite-based broadband service. ""

http://tinyurl.com/3w7u72g (GPS World).

--=20
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:10:33 -0400, Alan Browne

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/related_filing.hts?f_key=-216679&f_number=SATMOD2010111800239

With a $216 Billion dollar market at stake, don't expect LS to fight
fairly. That kind of money can buy a lot of politicians, leaving a
large amount left over.

Lg

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:10:33 -0400, Alan Browne

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/related_filing.hts?f_key=-216679&f_number=SATMOD2010111800239

With a $120 Billion dollar market at stake, don't expect LS to fight
fairly. That kind of money can buy a lot of politicians, leaving a
large amount left over.

Lg

wrote:


I looked at some of it. The document is 318 pages long, and I am
surprised that Lightsquared is so forthcoming in regards to what is
WRONG with their ideas.

But they make unreasonable assumptions, for example, regarding how
long it would take to design a filter that would mitigate frequency
interference on the GPS band, or even if it can be done at all.

The figure of 8 to 15 years to design and develop this device for
receiver front ends and the LS transmitters is given by the
non-Lightsquared workgroup, as such a design or device doesn't yet
exist, even on paper. They also assert that GPS receivers don't have
a proper front end filter for selectivity.

Yet LS turns around and interjects some BS regarding using legacy
devices, which is ridiculous. If legacy devices WORKED, they wouldn't
be in this Battle of the Bands. And they also claim that figure is
exaggerated since other *threats* to life and safety have been
mitigated in much less time (re: aviation).

Remember: If you can't convince the people with Logic, dazzle them
with bulls--t!

LS gets an A+ for the dazzle effect.

Lg