2 ms·

It appears that unlike AT&T and Verizon, LightSquared (formerly known as SkyTerra) did not purchase this spectrum from the FCC. They are only licensed to use th

by thechut 15y ago

It appears that unlike AT&T and Verizon, LightSquared (formerly known as SkyTerra) did not purchase this spectrum from the FCC. They are only licensed to use that spectrum for low bandwidth satellite communications. The way I see the situation, LightSquared is trying to change the licensing on their spectrum in order to build a wireless network without having to actually pay for any of the spectrum. It seems there may even be somewhat of a conspiracy about getting the spectrum approved. See this press release from Chuck Grassley (R-IA): http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=38201 http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dat... The details seem very murky, I welcome anyone that has a better understanding of how wireless networks work to please inform me.

aidenn0 15y ago
Basically they are trying to exploit a loophole in the system: If you have a satellite transmission network, you are allowed to use terrestrial stations to fill-in the gaps. They are essentially trying to deploy a terrestrial network by defining it as an extension of a fairly minimal satellite network. All of that is just regulatory issues though. What really matters is interference; I don't (and the FCC doesn't seem to) care if a transmission comes from the ground or a satellite, so long as it doesn't mess with anybody else's services. The two points of view are: 1) LightSquared is operating within their spectrum requirements, so while there are GPS receivers that will go haywire when they deploy, those GPS receivers are faulty (as they don't properly deal with neighboring transmissions on frequencies outside their band). 2) GPS should be granted a special exception to the rules about accepting interference as GPS is very important and the GPS signals are very weak, so therefore a receiver with little filtering on the front end is far superior to one more tolerant of high power signals on neighboring frequencies. Both arguments have their merit, so it should be interesting to see how things play out. The more you look into how GPS works, it's a wonder that it works at all which such low powers (and satellites in the middle of a radiation belt, no less!)
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Valid points. If I recall correctly, the Obama administration is also pushing for a nationwide wireelss network (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&q=obama%20wants%20wireless%20networks#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=obama+wants+wireless+networks&btnK=Google+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a26525a7a7e68331&biw=1280&bih=875 http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&q=obama%20w...) , and I believe Lightsquared made a pretty good pitch to them to be able to use the spectrum. I also knew a lawyer who was doing work for the FCC, that was examining the possibility of buying back some of the lesser used satellite bands, for both the lightsquared type of work, as well as for mobile carriers.

by thechut 15y ago

aidenn0 15y ago

Basically they are trying to exploit a loophole in the system: If you have a satellite transmission network, you are allowed to use terrestrial stations to fill-in the gaps. They are essentially trying to deploy a terrestrial network by defining it as an extension of a fairly minimal satellite network. All of that is just regulatory issues though. What really matters is interference; I don't (and the FCC doesn't seem to) care if a transmission comes from the ground or a satellite, so long as it doesn't mess with anybody else's services. The two points of view are: 1) LightSquared is operating within their spectrum requirements, so while there are GPS receivers that will go haywire when they deploy, those GPS receivers are faulty (as they don't properly deal with neighboring transmissions on frequencies outside their band). 2) GPS should be granted a special exception to the rules about accepting interference as GPS is very important and the GPS signals are very weak, so therefore a receiver with little filtering on the front end is far superior to one more tolerant of high power signals on neighboring frequencies. Both arguments have their merit, so it should be interesting to see how things play out. The more you look into how GPS works, it's a wonder that it works at all which such low powers (and satellites in the middle of a radiation belt, no less!)

ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Valid points. If I recall correctly, the Obama administration is also pushing for a nationwide wireelss network (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&q=obama%20wants%20wireless%20networks#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=obama+wants+wireless+networks&btnK=Google+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a26525a7a7e68331&biw=1280&bih=875 http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw&q=obama%20w...) , and I believe Lightsquared made a pretty good pitch to them to be able to use the spectrum. I also knew a lawyer who was doing work for the FCC, that was examining the possibility of buying back some of the lesser used satellite bands, for both the lightsquared type of work, as well as for mobile carriers.