Bookmark this page:
   Re: Lightsquared and possible GPS interference
| Terje Mathisen | 02-13-2011 |
  Re: Lightsquared and possible GPS interference
| Howard Lester | 02-13-2011 |
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
here's a better article -
with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
On 2011.02.12 22:06 , ps56k wrote:
Seems incredible to me that this is being thrust through without more
technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
until more is known.
I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
or turned off.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
Seems incredible to me that this is being thrust through without more
technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
until more is known.
I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
or turned off.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne wrote:
This is simply baffling:
It really looks like the FCC is dead set on a course where the US will
pay to run a GPS system which will only work properly outside the US!
:-)
Terje
--
> On 2011.02.12 22:06 , ps56k wrote:
>> here's a better article -
>> with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
>> with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
> Seems incredible to me that this is being thrust through without more
> technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
> users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
> For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
> until more is known.
> I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
> navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
> or turned off.
> technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
> users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
> For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
> until more is known.
> I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
> navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
> or turned off.
This is simply baffling:
It really looks like the FCC is dead set on a course where the US will
pay to run a GPS system which will only work properly outside the US!
:-)
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
On 2011.02.13 15:56 , Terje Mathisen wrote:
Exactly.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2011.02.12 22:06 , ps56k wrote:
>>> here's a better article -
>>> with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
>>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
>>> with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
>>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471
>> Seems incredible to me that this is being thrust through without more
>> technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
>> users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
>> For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
>> until more is known.
>> I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
>> navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
>> or turned off.
>> technical due diligence and consultation with GPS manufacturers and key
>> users. The FAA and Coast Guard should be howling over this.
>> For that matter a lawmaker should be introducing legislation to delay it
>> until more is known.
>> I also don't see an off ramp that says if there is interference to
>> navigation users that the Lightsquared system has to be reduced in power
>> or turned off.
> This is simply baffling:
> It really looks like the FCC is dead set on a course where the US will
> pay to run a GPS system which will only work properly outside the US!
> It really looks like the FCC is dead set on a course where the US will
> pay to run a GPS system which will only work properly outside the US!
Exactly.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
On 2/13/2011 3:56 PM EST, Terje Mathisen wrote:
Highly doubtful... GPS is a US military asset, and DOD will NEVER
relinquish their control over the system. Civilian impacts are of
little concern to them, but when the interference starts affecting their
systems and operations that's another story...
> ... looks like the FCC is dead set on a course where the US will
> pay to run a GPS system ...
> pay to run a GPS system ...
Highly doubtful... GPS is a US military asset, and DOD will NEVER
relinquish their control over the system. Civilian impacts are of
little concern to them, but when the interference starts affecting their
systems and operations that's another story...
- LightSquared GPS Interference Controversy : Senate Investigation Won’t End with F CC Decision
- Satellite Navigation
- 2012-01-27
- GPS Interference Test Results May Not Slow FCC Decision on LightSquared Deal
- Satellite Navigation
- 2011-07-29
- Politically-connected LightSquared Pushes Wireless Internet Plan despite GPS Interference Concerns
- Satellite Navigation
- 2011-08-29
> with a couple of techmnical tidbits -
> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2471