LightSquared Flunks GPS Interference Tests: What Now?
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2689

"The gloves have come off now that test results show clearly the
probable effects on GPS of LightSquared’s proposed wireless broadband
network: widespread, debilitating interference to GPS receivers.

"Grassley Steps Up the Pressure

"The Hill activity most potentially damaging to LightSquared’s plans in
the near term, however, is not legislative. It is a request from Senator
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, for copies of FCC communications about LightSquared.

"Grassley said in a July 5 letter that the FCC had intentionally ignored
his April request for copies of communications between the commission,
the White House, LightSquared, its primary backer Phil Falcone and the
Harbinger hedge fund he controls.

"In the second letter, which was sent to the FCC and posted as a press
release, Grassley said that Falcone was being investigated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation, violations
of the “short sale rule,” and for taking a $113 million loan from his
hedge fund without investor permission. He also asked if the commission
had “safeguards to ensure that valuable spectrum allocations are not
made to serial violators of our nation’s securities laws.”

"Grassley does not appear to be backing down. A Grassley spokeswoman
told Inside GNSS in an email about the meetings that their office
“reiterated that one of the reasons behind the senator’s document
request to the FCC was to ascertain whether the agency conducted due
diligence on behalf of the public in advancing the company’s project,
including whether the FCC should grant approval to a company whose
primary funding source is under multiple SEC investigations.”

See: http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2689

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:32:09 -0500, Sam Wormley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Grassley said that Falcone was being investigated by the
>Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation, violations
>of the “short sale rule,” and for taking a $113 million loan from his
>hedge fund without investor permission

Park his a$$ in prison next to Bernie Madoff.

On Aug 4, 11:04*pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:32:09 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Grassley said that Falcone was being investigated by the
> >Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation, violations
> >of the short sale rule, and for taking a $113 million loan from his
> >hedge fund without investor permission
>
> Park his a$$ in prison next to Bernie Madoff.

The only way that Falcone will really loose is if the FCC turns down
their deployment on the L-band and doesn't give them any cheap access
to spectrum elsewhere.
The FCC should tell Lightsquared that they can only deploy at a
drastically lower power level and only after further testing proves no
interference from both LS towers and handsets. And that if they wish
to get spectrum elsewhere, they're welcome to buy it in spectrum
auctions, with no special treatment.
One can dream he will go to jail, but this is no Madoff scheme. He
probably has done many bad things, but those are usually solved with
fines. Specially with his hot connections to POTUS, FCC chair and many
others.

Marcelo

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:53:08 -0700 (PDT), macpacheco
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Aug 4, 11:04*pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:32:09 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Grassley said that Falcone was being investigated by the
>> >Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation, violations
>> >of the short sale rule, and for taking a $113 million loan from his
>> >hedge fund without investor permission
>>
>> Park his a$$ in prison next to Bernie Madoff.
>
>The only way that Falcone will really loose is if the FCC turns down
>their deployment on the L-band and doesn't give them any cheap access
>to spectrum elsewhere.
>The FCC should tell Lightsquared that they can only deploy at a
>drastically lower power level and only after further testing proves no
>interference from both LS towers and handsets. And that if they wish
>to get spectrum elsewhere, they're welcome to buy it in spectrum
>auctions, with no special treatment.
>One can dream he will go to jail, but this is no Madoff scheme. He
>probably has done many bad things, but those are usually solved with
>fines. Specially with his hot connections to POTUS, FCC chair and many
>others.
>
>Marcelo

Falcone could always have an "accident."

a 200 pound bag of cement could fall out of the sky and land on his
head...
The brakes of his car could always fail.
He could have a gas leak in his home that turns it into a fireball.
Heaven forbid! Just sayin' ya know?

Lg

On Aug 10, 8:21*pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:53:08 -0700 (PDT), macpacheco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:
> >On Aug 4, 11:04*pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:32:09 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Grassley said that Falcone was being investigated by the
> >> >Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation, violations
> >> >of the short sale rule, and for taking a $113 million loan from his
> >> >hedge fund without investor permission
>
> >> Park his a$$ in prison next to Bernie Madoff.
>
> >The only way that Falcone will really loose is if the FCC turns down
> >their deployment on the L-band and doesn't give them any cheap access
> >to spectrum elsewhere.
> >The FCC should tell Lightsquared that they can only deploy at a
> >drastically lower power level and only after further testing proves no
> >interference from both LS towers and handsets. And that if they wish
> >to get spectrum elsewhere, they're welcome to buy it in spectrum
> >auctions, with no special treatment.
> >One can dream he will go to jail, but this is no Madoff scheme. He
> >probably has done many bad things, but those are usually solved with
> >fines. Specially with his hot connections to POTUS, FCC chair and many
> >others.
>
> >Marcelo
>
> Falcone could always have an "accident."
>
> a 200 pound bag of cement could fall out of the sky and land on his
> head...
> The brakes of his car could always fail.
> He could have a gas leak in his home that turns it into a fireball.
> Heaven forbid! *Just sayin' ya know?
>
> Lg

I'm pro death penalty, but only for serial killers, fellons that
escape prisons, drug dealer leaders, and many other physically
nefarious criminals. The proper penalty for assholes like Falcone and
Madoff should be ripping the perp and his entire immediate family of
all of his posessions minus just enough they're not broke (say one
year net income for a lower middle class worker). And then make them
pay twice as much taxes as the honest people for the rest of their
lives. I would find much more satisfying and far more of moral lesson
for the other financial crooks to see his wife/husband, children poor
than have they killed.

Marcelo

I'm not interested in having anyone punished or disgraced. Let's be
satisfied if Lightsquared is dismissed for 'practical' reasons
allowing this annoying matter to become history.

--- CHAS

On 2011-08-12 11:41 , HIPAR wrote:
> I'm not interested in having anyone punished or disgraced. Let's be
> satisfied if Lightsquared is dismissed for 'practical' reasons
> allowing this annoying matter to become history.

Exactly.

It was a PITA for the GPS industry to repel (I know several people
involved at aerospace companies and one at the FCC), but repelled it is.

There is the lingering threat of other co's who attempt to fill in
spectrum close to GPS. In the end it may be wise for the FCC, backed by
law making, to reserve guard band each side of the GPS spectrums.

IAC, once burned, twice shy. The FCC is not going to make a fast track
allowance to the next co. that comes along; and other companies that may
attempt it will have the current 'history', as you say, of how to waste
a lot of money and go nowhere.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2011-08-12 11:41 , HIPAR wrote:
> I'm not interested in having anyone punished or disgraced. Let's be
> satisfied if Lightsquared is dismissed for 'practical' reasons
> allowing this annoying matter to become history.
>
> --- CHAS

I should add that L^2 won't go quietly into the night. They could sue
the government for not allowing them to exploit their property (spectrum
license).

OTOH, the spectrum allocation for GPS could simply be revised to be
larger to keep future encroachment out.

Call it spectral imminent domain.

Compensate L^2 for their spectrum license and move on.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Aug 12, 1:35*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2011-08-12 11:41 , HIPAR wrote:
>
> > I'm not interested in having anyone punished or disgraced. *Let's be
> > satisfied if Lightsquared is dismissed for 'practical' reasons
> > allowing this annoying matter to become history.
>
> > --- *CHAS
>
> I should add that L^2 won't go quietly into the night. *They could sue
> the government for not allowing them to exploit their property (spectrum
> license).
>
> OTOH, the spectrum allocation for GPS could simply be revised to be
> larger to keep future encroachment out.
>
> Call it spectral imminent domain.
>
> Compensate L^2 for their spectrum license and move on.
>
> --
> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

L^2 is welcome to deploy ATC with a 75W signal as originally
negotiated by the prior owners. Perhaps a little more powerful than
that. But certainly not 10000W irradiated signal (not even a 1000W
signal). That frequency allocation was never meant primarily for
ground usage. They wouldn't be forbidden from using their spectrum,
but instead forbidden from using MSS spectrum for a primarily ground
based signal.

We need to fight their B*S* with maximum intensity. Give L^2 no
opportunity to repeat their lies without going quickly rebutted.

There's always the risk of something being perceived as truth just by
repeating it again and again (and nobody to refute that loudly).
That's the L^2 approach. Maximum fact distortion.

It's their fault they bought satellite spectrum and tried to use it in
a different way from the intended use.

Marcelo

On 2011-08-12 13:04 , macpacheco wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:35 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-12 11:41 , HIPAR wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not interested in having anyone punished or disgraced. Let's be
>>> satisfied if Lightsquared is dismissed for 'practical' reasons
>>> allowing this annoying matter to become history.
>>
>>> --- CHAS
>>
>> I should add that L^2 won't go quietly into the night. They could sue
>> the government for not allowing them to exploit their property (spectrum
>> license).
>>
>> OTOH, the spectrum allocation for GPS could simply be revised to be
>> larger to keep future encroachment out.
>>
>> Call it spectral imminent domain.
>>
>> Compensate L^2 for their spectrum license and move on.
>>
>> --
>> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> L^2 is welcome to deploy ATC with a 75W signal as originally
> negotiated by the prior owners. Perhaps a little more powerful than
> that. But certainly not 10000W irradiated signal (not even a 1000W
> signal). That frequency allocation was never meant primarily for
> ground usage. They wouldn't be forbidden from using their spectrum,
> but instead forbidden from using MSS spectrum for a primarily ground
> based signal.
>
> We need to fight their B*S* with maximum intensity. Give L^2 no
> opportunity to repeat their lies without going quickly rebutted.
>
> There's always the risk of something being perceived as truth just by
> repeating it again and again (and nobody to refute that loudly).
> That's the L^2 approach. Maximum fact distortion.
>
> It's their fault they bought satellite spectrum and tried to use it in
> a different way from the intended use.

It is, however, true to say, that GPS receivers are over-sensitive
outside their allocated band. This is not esp. a fault of the GPS
industry (they didn't write the ICD or have the spectrum allocated, the
DOD did) but a reality of physics that makes it difficult to reject the
out of band portions potentially containing a much stronger signal while
passing a much weaker signal to the GPS receiver.

Due to that fact, the original spectrum allocation for GPS should have
been wider.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.