LightSquared Threatens Legal Action If System Denied
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._205511-1.html

As we reported in June, Genachowski assured Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
the FCC "will not permit LightSquared to provide commercial service
until it is clear potential GPS interference concerns have been
resolved." In its most recent letter to Genachowski, LightSquared makes
it clear it expects the GPS industry to modify its equipment to ensure
it doesn't allow signals from outside the frequency ranges assigned to
GPS to interfere with their operation. There are about 500 million
GPS-reliant devices in use in the U.S. LightSquared has admitted that a
small percentage of them, mostly high-performance measuring and timing
devices, are legitimately interfered with by its signals and says it
hired an engineer to design a cheap and simple fix for those units.

See:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._205511-1.html

Let me understand this:

Last Thanksgiving, Lightsquared/FCC get caught trying to sneak the LTE
license modification through the system. The GPS community finds out
and screams bloody murder citing technical concerns of system
compatibility.

FCC to Lightsquared, 'Sorry, everyone's watching us now .. we need to
do this thing by the book. Unfortunately we cannot grant your LTE
terrestrial waver until we prove there is no GPS interference problem.
Please organize a test and all will be well'.

Contrary to Lightsquared/FCC expectations, testing reveals major
interference problems. The waver cannot be granted so Lightsquared
must operate in accordance with the conditions of the license they
purchased from Terrastar. That's not an acceptable outcome.

Lightsquared to GPS industry, 'Everything was going well for us until
you butted in. Our problems are your fault. We're suing you all'.

Lightsquared to FCC, 'You encouraged us to spend lots of money getting
ready to support President Obama's broadband initiatives. We expect
you to make things right for us'.

Was it proper for FCC to direct Lightsquared to spend it's own money
for the interference test? Isn't the FCC supposed to conduct a
engineering analysis before rule making with technical ramifications?
What was the finding of their engineers concerning this matter?

--- CHAS

On 10/6/11 3:56 PM, HIPAR wrote:
> Let me understand this:
>
> Last Thanksgiving, Lightsquared/FCC get caught trying to sneak the LTE
> license modification through the system. The GPS community finds out
> and screams bloody murder citing technical concerns of system
> compatibility.
>
> FCC to Lightsquared, 'Sorry, everyone's watching us now .. we need to
> do this thing by the book. Unfortunately we cannot grant your LTE
> terrestrial waver until we prove there is no GPS interference problem.
> Please organize a test and all will be well'.
>
> Contrary to Lightsquared/FCC expectations, testing reveals major
> interference problems. The waver cannot be granted so Lightsquared
> must operate in accordance with the conditions of the license they
> purchased from Terrastar. That's not an acceptable outcome.
>
> Lightsquared to GPS industry, 'Everything was going well for us until
> you butted in. Our problems are your fault. We're suing you all'.
>
> Lightsquared to FCC, 'You encouraged us to spend lots of money getting
> ready to support President Obama's broadband initiatives. We expect
> you to make things right for us'.
>
> Was it proper for FCC to direct Lightsquared to spend it's own money
> for the interference test? Isn't the FCC supposed to conduct a
> engineering analysis before rule making with technical ramifications?
> What was the finding of their engineers concerning this matter?
>
> --- CHAS

Seems to be the case!

In article
<34c9fb68-4df5-40ec-bdb8-(E-Mail Removed)>,
HIPAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Let me understand this:
>
> Last Thanksgiving, Lightsquared/FCC get caught trying to sneak the LTE
> license modification through the system. The GPS community finds out
> and screams bloody murder citing technical concerns of system
> compatibility.
>
> FCC to Lightsquared, 'Sorry, everyone's watching us now .. we need to
> do this thing by the book. Unfortunately we cannot grant your LTE
> terrestrial waver until we prove there is no GPS interference problem.
> Please organize a test and all will be well'.
>
> Contrary to Lightsquared/FCC expectations, testing reveals major
> interference problems. The waver cannot be granted so Lightsquared
> must operate in accordance with the conditions of the license they
> purchased from Terrastar. That's not an acceptable outcome.
>
> Lightsquared to GPS industry, 'Everything was going well for us until
> you butted in. Our problems are your fault. We're suing you all'.
>
> Lightsquared to FCC, 'You encouraged us to spend lots of money getting
> ready to support President Obama's broadband initiatives. We expect
> you to make things right for us'.
>
> Was it proper for FCC to direct Lightsquared to spend it's own money
> for the interference test? Isn't the FCC supposed to conduct a
> engineering analysis before rule making with technical ramifications?
> What was the finding of their engineers concerning this matter?

Based on my personal experience some years back, but with several
companies, making performance tests for FCC compliance, it is totally
the responsibility of the petitioning company to perform all tests, bear
all costs, collate all data, and submit results. The FCC then examines
the results, and if they find them acceptable, will approve. Or
possibly, ask for more tests.

Isaac