Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015

"The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule
that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
this month’s column".

See:
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>
>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015
>
>"The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
>point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule
>that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
>even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
>to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
>Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
>inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
>what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
>brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
>this month’s column".
>
>See:
>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
National Security. It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
not the FCC or ITU.

If "some other" nation were to pull a "L^2" on us, we would consider
that an Act of War.

Lg

On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>>
>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015
>>
>> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
>> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule
>> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
>> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
>> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
>> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
>> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
>> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
>> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
>> this month’s column".
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...-balance-12015
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
> National Security. It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
> not the FCC or ITU.

It doesn't matter what you've said.

It's a matter of law and policy.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Aug 30, 9:19*am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>
> >>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> >> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
> >> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule
> >> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
> >> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
> >> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
> >> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
> >> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
> >> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
> >> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
> >> this month’s column".
>
> >> See:
> >>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
> > National Security. *It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
> > not the FCC or ITU.
>
> It doesn't matter what you've said.
>
> It's a matter of law and policy.
>
> --
> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

There is law and policy in place requiring the Secretary of Defense to
protect the integrity of GPS.

I don't know exactly what the Secretary can actually do to comply. He
certainly has authority to control DoD emissions within the RNSS band
but the Lightsquared band is not under his auspices. Certainly,
behind the scenes classified issues with P and M code reception are a
factor. How important are those signals to DoD within the US
mainland? We probably will not know the Secretary's role in the final
decision.

--- CHAS

On Aug 30, 12:46*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:19*am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>
> > >>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> > >> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
> > >> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCCrule
> > >> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
> > >> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
> > >> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
> > >> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
> > >> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
> > >> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
> > >> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
> > >> this month’s column".
>
> > >> See:
> > >>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> > > I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
> > > National Security. *It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
> > > not the FCC or ITU.
>
> > It doesn't matter what you've said.
>
> > It's a matter of law and policy.
>
> > --
> > gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> There is law and policy in place requiring the Secretary of Defense to
> protect the integrity of GPS.
>
> I don't know exactly what the Secretary can actually do to comply. *He
> certainly has authority to control DoD emissions within the RNSS band
> but the Lightsquared band is not under his auspices. *Certainly,
> behind the scenes classified issues with P and M code reception are a
> factor. *How important are those signals to DoD within the US
> mainland? *We probably will not know the Secretary's role in the final
> decision.
>
> --- *CHAS

I really doubt L^2 is working with any possibility of simply being
given a go ahead with its current plans as submitted to the FCC.
Regardless of L^2 political connections, the FCC will get into so much
trouble with US Senate, US House, DOT, DOD, FAA. Lawsuits will be
filled seeking to block its deployment by multiple (civilian and
governmental) organizations. The fallout will be huge. Imagine the DOD/
DOT suing the FCC (might be the first time ever).

We (GPS user community) did the necessary work. I don't believe we
need to worry further. Any L^2 headlines between now and the FCC
rendering a decision will be useless. Remember the media loves to stir
controversy... The more controversy the more audience = more ad
revenue.

This battle has been fought. Now we must be pacient until they make
their next move.

Marcelo Pacheco

On 2011-08-30 11:46 , HIPAR wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:19 am, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>>
>>>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question...
>>
>>>> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
>>>> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCCrule
>>>> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
>>>> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
>>>> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
>>>> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
>>>> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
>>>> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
>>>> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
>>>> this month’s column".
>>
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question...
>>
>>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
>>> National Security. It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
>>> not the FCC or ITU.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you've said.
>>
>> It's a matter of law and policy.
>>
>> --
>> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> There is law and policy in place requiring the Secretary of Defense to
> protect the integrity of GPS.

But it is not his sole jurisdiction, and he must follow the legal process.

> I don't know exactly what the Secretary can actually do to comply. He
> certainly has authority to control DoD emissions within the RNSS band
> but the Lightsquared band is not under his auspices. Certainly,
> behind the scenes classified issues with P and M code reception are a
> factor. How important are those signals to DoD within the US
> mainland? We probably will not know the Secretary's role in the final
> decision.

I started to mention in the prior post and then dropped it ... so here
goes: while L2 may be a huge problem for the civil segment, I don't know
to what degree, if any, that military receivers are grossly affected.
between A/J, A/S, wider BW and L2 (just to warm up) they might not feel
it is that much of an issue.

I doubt SecDEF can affect FCC policy decisions without it being a matter
of record.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Aug 30, 2:57*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2011-08-30 11:46 , HIPAR wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 9:19 am, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>
> >>>>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> >>>> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — a key
> >>>> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCCrule
> >>>> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
> >>>> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
> >>>> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As the Federal
> >>>> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
> >>>> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
> >>>> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange trip that
> >>>> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
> >>>> this month’s column".
>
> >>>> See:
> >>>>http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question....
>
> >>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
> >>> National Security. *It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
> >>> not the FCC or ITU.
>
> >> It doesn't matter what you've said.
>
> >> It's a matter of law and policy.
>
> >> --
> >> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> > There is law and policy in place requiring the Secretary of Defense to
> > protect the integrity of GPS.
>
> But it is not his sole jurisdiction, and he must follow the legal process..
>
> > I don't know exactly what the Secretary can actually do to comply. *He
> > certainly has authority to control DoD emissions within the RNSS band
> > but the Lightsquared band is not under his auspices. *Certainly,
> > behind the scenes classified issues with P and M code reception are a
> > factor. *How important are those signals to DoD within the US
> > mainland? *We probably will not know the Secretary's role in the final
> > decision.
>
> I started to mention in the prior post and then dropped it ... so here
> goes: while L2 may be a huge problem for the civil segment, I don't know
> to what degree, if any, that military receivers are grossly affected.
> between A/J, A/S, wider BW and L2 (just to warm up) they might not feel
> it is that much of an issue.
>
> I doubt SecDEF can affect FCC policy decisions without it being a matter
> of record.
>
> --
> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

L1 P(Y) is of huge importance to the DoD for IFR landing of military
aircraft. JPALS isn't operational yet, but L^2 is about the future,
not the present.

Its ultra important on every drop of GPS guided munitions for testing.

Every time the military needs better than 10 meters accuracy from GPS
they need accurate dual frequency (iono free) pseudo ranges.
The DoD certainly needs the ability to fire GPS guided munitions in
CONUS in many national security scenarios, and having to first destroy
dozens of interfering L^2 towers can't become part of the plans
(specially if those towers sit right on top of a building full of US
citizens).

L1 P(Y) is much more robust than L1 C/A in general, but we don't know
how sensitive your average L1 P(Y) GPS military receiver is, we have
seen many times civilian GPS equipment being more advanced than their
military counterparts due to the military being much slower in
testing, deploying and updating equipment (i.e. there are still
military GPS receivers out there that are limited to 5 or 6 satellites
at once and are unable to choose the best 5 or 6 satellites for doing
their business).

DoD = department of DEFENSE. Defense of the homeland in military
scenarios are at least as important as the ability to wage war
offensively against the enemy.

I believe the DoD needs for GPS will be enough to make the L^2
deployment impossible. And those classified discussions on this
matter, that neither the DoD nor the FCC can comment on will be enough
to kill L^2 at the L1 band.

Marcelo Pacheco

On 2011-08-30 14:31 , macpacheco wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2:57 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-30 11:46 , HIPAR wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 9:19 am, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2011-08-29 21:35 , Nicholas wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:23 -0500, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Watching and Waiting. And Questioning. GPS in the Balance
>>
>>>>>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question...
>>
>>>>>> "The difference between navigation and communication signals — akey
>>>>>> point not well or not at all understood in Washington — and an FCC rule
>>>>>> that could cause LightSquared to foot substantial GPS refitting bills
>>>>>> even if it prevails to interfere, were two of several subjects that came
>>>>>> to light in last week’s “LightSquared Watch” webinar. As theFederal
>>>>>> Communications Commission goes through its deliberations, two
>>>>>> inside-the-Beltway experts joined me to speculate on what may happen,
>>>>>> what we might do about it at that time, and the long, strange tripthat
>>>>>> brought us to this point. These matters, and your questions answered, in
>>>>>> this month’s column".
>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/...g-and-question...
>>
>>>>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a matter of
>>>>> National Security. It should be in the hands of the Dept of Defense,
>>>>> not the FCC or ITU.
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter what you've said.
>>
>>>> It's a matter of law and policy.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>>
>>> There is law and policy in place requiring the Secretary of Defense to
>>> protect the integrity of GPS.
>>
>> But it is not his sole jurisdiction, and he must follow the legal process.
>>
>>> I don't know exactly what the Secretary can actually do to comply. He
>>> certainly has authority to control DoD emissions within the RNSS band
>>> but the Lightsquared band is not under his auspices. Certainly,
>>> behind the scenes classified issues with P and M code reception are a
>>> factor. How important are those signals to DoD within the US
>>> mainland? We probably will not know the Secretary's role in the final
>>> decision.
>>
>> I started to mention in the prior post and then dropped it ... so here
>> goes: while L2 may be a huge problem for the civil segment, I don't know
>> to what degree, if any, that military receivers are grossly affected.
>> between A/J, A/S, wider BW and L2 (just to warm up) they might not feel
>> it is that much of an issue.
>>
>> I doubt SecDEF can affect FCC policy decisions without it being a matter
>> of record.
>>
>> --
>> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> L1 P(Y) is of huge importance to the DoD for IFR landing of military
> aircraft. JPALS isn't operational yet, but L^2 is about the future,
> not the present.
>
> Its ultra important on every drop of GPS guided munitions for testing.
>
> Every time the military needs better than 10 meters accuracy from GPS
> they need accurate dual frequency (iono free) pseudo ranges.
> The DoD certainly needs the ability to fire GPS guided munitions in
> CONUS in many national security scenarios, and having to first destroy
> dozens of interfering L^2 towers can't become part of the plans
> (specially if those towers sit right on top of a building full of US
> citizens).

The point (as I mentioned) is:

a) the Y code is spread out much wider in spectrum and the correlation
sequence is 10x wider. This is akin to gain.
b) the A/J capabilities of military receivers are much more robust than
civilian
c) the Y code is available on L2 - this is sufficient to most needs

and of course where L^2 are, the US military is not going to be too
concerned.


>
> L1 P(Y) is much more robust than L1 C/A in general, but we don't know
> how sensitive your average L1 P(Y) GPS military receiver is, we have
> seen many times civilian GPS equipment being more advanced than their
> military counterparts due to the military being much slower in
> testing, deploying and updating equipment (i.e. there are still
> military GPS receivers out there that are limited to 5 or 6 satellites
> at once and are unable to choose the best 5 or 6 satellites for doing
> their business).

And these receivers have much stronger A/J capabilities.

>
> DoD = department of DEFENSE. Defense of the homeland in military
> scenarios are at least as important as the ability to wage war
> offensively against the enemy.
>
> I believe the DoD needs for GPS will be enough to make the L^2
> deployment impossible. And those classified discussions on this
> matter, that neither the DoD nor the FCC can comment on will be enough
> to kill L^2 at the L1 band.

If DoD were really up in hackles over L^2 they would not be shy at all
to say so even if justification portions were classified.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.