Bookmark this page:
- WashPo-on-the-LightSquared-fiasco
- 06-05-2011
   Re: WashPo on the LightSquared fiasco
| Alan Browne | 06-05-2011 |
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
http://tinyurl.com/3dnrdvw
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:16:13 -0400, Alan Browne
One f*cking company should NOT be allowed to compromise the safety and
security of the entire USA, and International Commerce. Bomb
LightSquared and get it over with. Use Seal Team 6
>http://tinyurl.com/3dnrdvw
One f*cking company should NOT be allowed to compromise the safety and
security of the entire USA, and International Commerce. Bomb
LightSquared and get it over with. Use Seal Team 6
On 2011-06-05 14:25 , Nicholas wrote:
I'm sure that's on the short list somewhere.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:16:13 -0400, Alan Browne
>> http://tinyurl.com/3dnrdvw
> One f*cking company should NOT be allowed to compromise the safety and
> security of the entire USA, and International Commerce. Bomb
> LightSquared and get it over with. Use Seal Team 6
> security of the entire USA, and International Commerce. Bomb
> LightSquared and get it over with. Use Seal Team 6
I'm sure that's on the short list somewhere.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
wrote:
So the FCC defines radio services (particular communication
applications) and it allocates spectrum to the services. Then it sets
technical standards for the emissions of a service. These include
authorized emission designations, transmission power and required
attenuation of spurious signals falling outside the band edges of a
service spectrum allocation. FCC has authority to organize this kind
of work as it pertains to commercial communications entities.
Everyone agrees Lightsquared is capable of technical operations
conforming with the terms of their license. Lightsquared cites their
nine million dollar bandpass filter that technologists agree works as
advertised. So they argue it's not their fault if GPS reception is
disrupted. GPS community, please don't argue faliciously that there
woundn't be a problem if we wern't there because we are in our rights
being there.
Interestingly, the legacy military L1 P code exhibits spectral
components that fall into the Lightsquared spectrum! So they might
also ague mutual signal interference would naturally occur for that
signal and it's the DoD should cease transmissions.
How does one define interference? Co-Channel interference is
obvious .. it's what you here when driving out of range of one station
and into coverage of another station on the same channel. That's not
the GPS/Lightsquared case.
Adjacent channel interferance is a more difficult topic. That's like
when you drive past a station transmitter that captures or overloads
your receiver tuned to the next channel. That's more like the GPS/
Lightsquared case. You need a better filter on your receiver.
Then there are examples of crossmodulation and intermodulation
distortions when harmonics of several channels mix in the 'front end'
of a receiver causeing products that fall into the desired channel
thus disrupting its reception. NASA noted that problem during its GPS
receiver testing.
Lightsquared contends problems are GPS receiver dynamic range design
based over which they had no control .. they are correct in that
contention.
Then ther's that J (jamming) word. Does that mean disruption of
reception by any means .. either by direct signal interference within
the channel? Or, by defeating the circuitry of a receiver though
overload? An electronics warfare specialist will probabally say 'Yes
and Yes'. But the J word is inflamitory retoric as it connotates
purposful disrubtion of a system. That wasn't Lightsquare's motive.
They just want to build their network and start making money.
It's going to be interesting.
--- CHAS
> http://tinyurl.com/3dnrdvw
So the FCC defines radio services (particular communication
applications) and it allocates spectrum to the services. Then it sets
technical standards for the emissions of a service. These include
authorized emission designations, transmission power and required
attenuation of spurious signals falling outside the band edges of a
service spectrum allocation. FCC has authority to organize this kind
of work as it pertains to commercial communications entities.
Everyone agrees Lightsquared is capable of technical operations
conforming with the terms of their license. Lightsquared cites their
nine million dollar bandpass filter that technologists agree works as
advertised. So they argue it's not their fault if GPS reception is
disrupted. GPS community, please don't argue faliciously that there
woundn't be a problem if we wern't there because we are in our rights
being there.
Interestingly, the legacy military L1 P code exhibits spectral
components that fall into the Lightsquared spectrum! So they might
also ague mutual signal interference would naturally occur for that
signal and it's the DoD should cease transmissions.
How does one define interference? Co-Channel interference is
obvious .. it's what you here when driving out of range of one station
and into coverage of another station on the same channel. That's not
the GPS/Lightsquared case.
Adjacent channel interferance is a more difficult topic. That's like
when you drive past a station transmitter that captures or overloads
your receiver tuned to the next channel. That's more like the GPS/
Lightsquared case. You need a better filter on your receiver.
Then there are examples of crossmodulation and intermodulation
distortions when harmonics of several channels mix in the 'front end'
of a receiver causeing products that fall into the desired channel
thus disrupting its reception. NASA noted that problem during its GPS
receiver testing.
Lightsquared contends problems are GPS receiver dynamic range design
based over which they had no control .. they are correct in that
contention.
Then ther's that J (jamming) word. Does that mean disruption of
reception by any means .. either by direct signal interference within
the channel? Or, by defeating the circuitry of a receiver though
overload? An electronics warfare specialist will probabally say 'Yes
and Yes'. But the J word is inflamitory retoric as it connotates
purposful disrubtion of a system. That wasn't Lightsquare's motive.
They just want to build their network and start making money.
It's going to be interesting.
--- CHAS
wrote:
As we (WD9INM & KD9OZ) used to say: "Get the fuck off my frequency
!!!! "
I've got $15,000 invested in HAM communications equipment and I'm
going to put up with some asshole who is pointing 4 yagis at me with
2KW peak envelope power? Because he wants to talk to Tora Bora?
"Get the _fuck_ off my frequency" Go get one of your own.
Lg
>But the J word is inflamitory retoric as it connotates
>purposful disrubtion of a system. That wasn't Lightsquare's motive.
>They just want to build their network and start making money.
>It's going to be interesting.
>--- CHAS
>purposful disrubtion of a system. That wasn't Lightsquare's motive.
>They just want to build their network and start making money.
>It's going to be interesting.
>--- CHAS
As we (WD9INM & KD9OZ) used to say: "Get the fuck off my frequency
!!!! "
I've got $15,000 invested in HAM communications equipment and I'm
going to put up with some asshole who is pointing 4 yagis at me with
2KW peak envelope power? Because he wants to talk to Tora Bora?
"Get the _fuck_ off my frequency" Go get one of your own.
Lg
