LightSquared GPS Interference Controversy: Senate Investigation Won’t
End with FCC Decision
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936

> Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been looking into whether the FCC fast-tracked its review of the Virginia firm’s proposal to build a 4G broadband network with signals that would be, tests now show, powerful enough to interfere dramatically with GPS receivers.
>
> “We would continue even if the FCC said ‘No’ to LightSquared,” a Grassley staffer told Inside GNSS. “The investigation is about the FCC and the process they used. The question is — did the FCC expedite the process?”

See: http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936

On 2012-01-27 20:24 , Sam Wormley wrote:
> LightSquared GPS Interference Controversy: Senate Investigation Won’t
> End with FCC Decision
> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936
>
>> Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been looking into whether the FCC
>> fast-tracked its review of the Virginia firm’s proposal to build a 4G
>> broadband network with signals that would be, tests now show, powerful
>> enough to interfere dramatically with GPS receivers.
>>
>> “We would continue even if the FCC said ‘No’ to LightSquared,”a
>> Grassley staffer told Inside GNSS. “The investigation is about the FCC
>> and the process they used. The question is — did the FCC expedite the
>> process?”
>
> See: http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936

Between the government on one end and the one true faith of capitalism
on the other, Falcone may be sent packing yet.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Jan 27, 8:24*pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LightSquared GPS Interference Controversy: Senate Investigation Won’t
> End with FCC Decision
> * *http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936
>
> > Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been looking into whether the FCC fast-tracked its review of the Virginia firm’s proposal to build a 4G broadband network with signals that would be, tests now show, powerful enough to interfere dramatically with GPS receivers.
>
> > “We would continue even if the FCC said ‘No’ to LightSquared,” a Grassley staffer told Inside GNSS. “The investigation is about the FCC and the process they used. The question is — did the FCC expedite the process?”
>
> See:http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2936


Did the FCC expedite the process? Certainly we all know they did.
Now to prove collusion, not so easy.

a) FCC contends the comment period was appropriate for a 'minor'
license modification. They are the regulatory experts on licensing
matters.

b) FCC waived the ATC gating requirements allowing Lightsquared's
wholesale clients to provide terrestrial only subscriber hand sets.
After admitting Lightsquared didn't fulfill in force ATC gating
requirements, they waved them in the 'public interest'. FCC is
intrusted with setting telecommunications policy in the public
interest.

c) When GPS hell broke out, they made the waiver conditional providing
themselves some isolation from their previous orders. Nobody can
fault them for that.

So they have latitude to 'tap dance' around controversial issues in
the public interest. Lacking that proverbial smoking gun, nobody can
really touch them.

Interestingly, Lightsquared might press a legal issue by withdrawing
their request for handset waivers, issuing dual mode handsets and then
building their 40,000 base station network in accordance with the ATC
enhanced license that came with the purchase of their satellite.
Let's see how FCC handles that in the 'public interest'.

--- CHAS