Slashdot Mirror


LightSquared Hires Lawyers To Prep For GPS Battle

itwbennett writes "Following Tuesday's FCC ruling saying that the company's LTE network interferes with GPS, LightSquared's primary investor Philip Falcone is looking to sue the FCC and the GPS industry. Alternately, Falcone is considering ways to appeal the FCC's decision or even swap spectrum with the Department of Defense."

29 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Oh come on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.

    1. Re:Oh come on. by rhombic · · Score: 5, Informative

      They bought a license to transmit a candle's worth of power on a sattelite based band, and are sad that the FCC won't let them send an arclight's worth of signal out from ground based stations. Ars link.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    2. Re:Oh come on. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While that is true, my opinion as someone who has been following the story is that the FCC does have a degree of culpability here because they were involved in LightSquared's plans from the very beginning, and only issued the death penalty after significant amounts of money had been spent even when the evidence they based that decision on had been available for a significant amount of time - to a degree, it can be argued that the FCC led LightSquared, and that is what they should answer for.

      LightSquared should have been told at the very beginning, when the FCC first got involved, that their approach was not acceptable and that they needed a different license and spectrum.

    3. Re:Oh come on. by SOOPRcow · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the FCC first got involved they gave them a provisional approval which required LightSquared to prove that it would not affect GPS devices. LightSquared was unable to prove it. Ars Technica explains it pretty well here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/why-lightsquared-failed.ars

    4. Re:Oh come on. by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fine, but how has the GPS industry been culpable for the actions of the FCC? They submit their recommendations and concerns to the FCC the same as any other interested party, but it's the FCC who makes the call, not the GPS industry.

      How is the GPS industry to blame for being legitimately concerned that Lightsquared technology will interfere with their EXISTING, LICENSED USE OF SPECTRUM?!?!?!!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Oh come on. by vlm · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.

      Its the tech version of a soap opera. You know how my wife loves those TV dramas where diane was flirting with jake while he was dating cindy but actually cody had a crush on diane and it doesn't matter because jake is gay and cindy is lesbo and they're just pretending to be together to stop cindys boss john from flirting with her? Yeah its like that but with RF microwave technology and stuff.

      So lets try this again in female TV drama mode using the standard crypto protocol names. So Bob asked drunken crack addict Alice for a date using a GPG signed irrefutable email and Alice said, eh Bob's kinda cute if you're drunk and high enough, yeah, maybe I'll think about it, so Bob went shopping at (product placement) and maxed out his (product placement) credit card on a (product placement) tux and a (product placement) marriage ring and (product placement) body spray and showed up on her doorstep the morning of his scheduled marriage to her (which she doesn't even know about), ready to get some premarital (sweep week ratings boosting) action. So Alice's brother Charlie finally figures out whats going on, shows up at Alice's door, thinks Bob is completely Fing out of his mind to even imagine Bob will hook up with his sister Alice, and beats the S out of him and throws him to the curb, staples an ASBO to his forehead, and leaves him bleeding in the gutter, and posts it all to /.. Then Alice stops her drug and booze binge long enough to realize she totally F'ed up and posts to facebook that she only lead Bob on because she was on a crack cocaine binge and now she's waaaay too sober to F him and Bob can just go back under his rock now please. Which pisses off Bob who plans to take her anyway no matter if she's willing or not, and pisses off Bob's credit card company because they know Bob will never pay them back a penny unless he gets some. Meanwhile everyone gets pissed off both at Alice for being a trashy crack whore on a binge unable to control herself from leading Bob on, and everyone's also pissed off at Bob for being such a profound jerk for not understanding "no means no" or whatever the trendy phrase is, and everyone's pissed off at Bob's (product placement) credit card provider for giving Bob, who is apparently an idiot, a limitless credit balancing knowing he has no way to pay it off (although when Bob goes bankrupt, "we will all" pay off his loans in higher fees, govt bailouts, etc, so at least they are the "winners" in this scenario)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Oh come on. by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You haven't been following the story very closely, since you obviously don't know that Lightsquared got their original approval on a fast track basis, with very little review time, and across a holiday weekend. They knew full-well that their intended use couldn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. If you think that just happened, without their pushing very hard through back channels, you really don't know how the FCC works. Lightsquared have only themselves to blame for trying to short-cut the process, and expecting political pressure to win out over technical facts (although that last one is often a good bet to make).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Oh come on. by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, no. The FCC only licenses transmitters, not receivers. The only transmitters in GPS are in the satellites. And part B is not a license, it is a section of type 15 UNLICENSED transmitters (specifically unlicensed devices which are unintentional transmitters, like computers).

    8. Re:Oh come on. by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I understand it

      Lightsquared were/are a sattelite communications provider and owned a peice of spectrum intended for sattelite downlink (where signal power at earths surface would be very low) close (spectrally) to GPS. According to wikipedia they got permission to make ancillary use of this spectrum terrestrially and are now trying to get permission to use it for pure terrestrial cellular devices. However terrestrial transmitters mean much stronger signals at the earths surface. Signals that are close in spectrum and widely different in power are problematic due to imperfect filters and nonlinearities in both tranmitters and receivers.

      If they succeed they will make a mint, if they fail then it will likely be a massive hit to thier buisness. Especially if in the process of failing they were to lose the ability to run any terrestrial services in the band.

      It's kind of like buying land/buildings with the intent ot trying to get "planning permission"* to build something and/or to change the use of the property. If you get the permission you can make a shitload of money but if the council decides your planned use is inappropriate for the area you can be stuck with property you can't do much with.

      * This is a UK term, I dunno what the american equivilent is

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    9. Re:Oh come on. by stevew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's highlight this last "LightSquared were Idiots!" because they were trying to do something that any amateur radio operator that has been on a Field Day with more than one station would understand - wasn't going to work without even TRYING the experiment.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
  2. So let me get this straight... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their for-profit system screws up GPS which has been around a LOT longer than they have , the FCC finds this and blocks their system and THEY want to sue the FCC and GPS makers???

    I'm sorry, is this Falcone guy just gold plated arrogant ass who thinks the world should revolve around him, or is he just a plain, good old grade A fsckwit?

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FCC only certifies TRANSMITTERS (both intentional and unintentional transmitters). GPS receivers are not transmitters.

      The "must not interfere" and "must accept all interference" rules which people on here are so fond of quoting have nothing to do with technical requirements. If they were technical requirements the consumer would have no reason to know about them. They are USAGE requirements. "Must not interfere" means that, even if your type accepted device is operating 100% properly, if it is causing interference with licensed operations you must stop using it. "Must accept all interference" means that if something (licensed or unlicensed) is interfering with your transmissions, that is just too bad.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Artraze · · Score: 3, Informative

      > not susceptible to interference from lawful emissions in other parts of the spectrum.

      _Lawful emissions_. GPS uses spectrum within a portion of the L-Band allocated for use in space -> ground communications. This means that future allocations on adjacent bands should be very low power. Indeed, I'd say that's rather the entire point of having a blocked out bit of spectrum for satellite communications: They must be a much lower power, so receivers can't easily filter out much more powerful ground based interference. By blocking ground signals a good distance from satellite ones you make filtration much easier.

      GPS receivers were built with the expectation (if not guarantee) that interfering signals would be roughly at the same power as GPS. However, the transmitters Lightsquared was planning to build would be, literally, one million times stronger than GPS on a good day (-70dBm vs -130dBm). So, I'd hardly call such interference 'lawful' just because the FCC thought they could change the law after the devices were built.

    3. Re:So let me get this straight... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      * LightSquared gets an assignment of free spectrum

      One they had for a while and with terms explicitly preventing them from using the spectrum for terrestrial broadcast.

      * LightSquared invests tons of money

      Irrelevent.

      * The GPS industry has been violating FCC rules by not filtering out non-GPS spectrum _as they are required to_ on all devices. Independent tests say 75% are not FCC-compliant

      LOL what rules? You don't need to meet any GPS specific requirements or approval specific to building a GPS receiver. FCC only has say over units that transmit a signal.

      * The FCC performs tests with models chosen from said 75%

      There is no such thing!

      * The FCC states that the risk is too large and destroys LightSquared's business model, assets and tells them they are not allowed to use their spectrum.

      They can use their spectrum as long as they do it within the limits stipulated when they purchased it including the ATC integrated services rule.

      In my opinion, the willful neglect by the GPS manufacturers requires them to fix it at own cost.

      All of the points are factually incorrect. Please take some time reevaluate.

  3. What an arrogant ass... by alanshot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA: "...Through a lawsuit, the company might seek to force GPS vendors to make their receivers filter out LightSquared's frequencies, the Journal said..."

    Seriously? I would love to hear from this idiot how he proposes to do this for existing units. Horses, barn doors, yadda yadda... I'm no EE/RF guy, but I'm sure its a bit more than simple software patches to the units. And I'll be DAMNED if I have to go buy another unit just because "his" part of the spectrum isnt quite up to par with what he wants to do with it.

    Somebody needs a good cockpunch to remind him that while its often disappointing that you cant achieve your goal due to outside forces, sometimes those forces are just plain beyond your control and you need to move on instead of lawyering up and being a dickhead about it.

    1. Re:What an arrogant ass... by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FYI, it's the GPS fault for making the presumption that the adjacent spectrum would always be quiet. With this ruling the FCC admits that the GPS receivers are in violation of their license.

      LOL the adjacent spectrum was legally declared to be for satellite based transmission (air to ground) only by the FCC. You have it about as backwards as possible.

      Standard /. car analogy would be we drive on the right in the US, Ford want to sell a UK drive on the left car in the US, DOT says ha ha go away, now you want to sue all other car manufacturers for assuming we'd always have right-side-drive in the US therefore they are the problem and if we just allowed people to randomly select whichever side of the road we preferred at that moment using cars where the driver and passenger dashboard can be instantly swapped, then it would all be good in the world.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:What an arrogant ass... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you quit posting this bullshit! They did not 'make a presumption' that the adjacent spectrum would be quiet, there were (and are) regulations saying that the adjacent spectrum IS quiet. And, once again, receivers (of any sort) ARE NOT LICENSED.

  4. Re:What LTE/4G is this? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're confusing things. Lightsquared wants to use a different band than other existing ones, that's the issue here. No LTE implementation in Europe uses the band Lightsquared wishes to use.

  5. Re:What LTE/4G is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think in the EU it is on a different band. I have 9 sats GPS reception even when standing within 5m of a LTE base station antenna. If the frequencies were near, the GPS signal being as weak as it is, it would require a black magic receiver to work.

  6. FCC doesn't know what they are doing by scharkalvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FCC has made many flawed decisions in the past. Their approval of Broadband over Power lines is a classic example. All the testing showed that the system would interfere with EVERY radio service in the HF spectrum, yet they allowed the service to be rolled out. The backlash from this has hopefully killed off any attempt to actually deploy such systems, but the FCC is still insisting that it's technically a good idea.
    So in this case they have done the same thing, given approval to a system that would cause interference with another radio service, already in use. Only now, they've done the right thing by pulling the rug out before the damage could be done. However, by not making the right decision before letting investment proceed they probably DO owe the investors a good chunk of damages, as they should also owe those in the BPL business.

    1. Re:FCC doesn't know what they are doing by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FCC doesn't owe LS investors jack shit. FCC auctions satellite spectrum, LS asked if they could try out magic equipment that could safely xmit from the ground without affecting existing users, It's not the FCC's job to explain physics to moron capitalists, that would actually be quite unfair for the FCC to decide in advance what is and is not possible and prohibit companies from trying "impossible" things

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  7. Tradeoffs by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The GPS on a phone has to operate a few centimeters from a transmitter, and on top of this there is likely all sorts of digital hashing it has to deal with as well, which tends to have wide frequency content (over a short distance). The interior of a smartphone is a relatively harsh RF environment and the GPS needs stronger filtering to operate. This additional filtering (and space constraints that limit component selection) result in more attenuation of the GPS signal, and thus worse fixes. But it doesn't matter because it is just a cellphone, and the GPS is a nice-to-have which can be augmented with other coarse positioning systems when needed.

    Navigation systems need to have a stronger GPS signal, so they have more reliable and precise solutions. The designed their filters to adequately attenuate adjacent frequencies, for what they were licensed for, while minimizing attenuation of the GPS band. Furthermore, given the larger size, they can use RF shielding on the cabin as a way to block the closest sources of interference, and only need to design the filters to block signals from the ground. These are higher quality filters (since they can afford the money/space for better components), they are just engineered with different goals. They could have filtered more, but it would have been counter-productive.

    LightSquared is proposing to transmit with over 10,000 times the power that they are currently licensed for, which is more than 1 million times the power of GPS signals here on the ground. Even if you were to upgrade every GPS system out there with the best filters we can make today, you would still have either increased interference from the proposed LightSquared system, or attenuation of the GPS signals. And LightSquared has yet to offer to upgrade every GPS system out there.

    The fact is that LightSquared picked the worst possible piece of spectrum to convert to terrestrial broadband. They acquired the company who owned it for cheap because everyone else (all the incumbent wireless operators) realized this, and spend their money licensing other (more expensive) spectrum instead. LightSquared has no one to blame here but themselves.

  8. I have a better idea, Mr. Falcone! by aglider · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sue the magnetic field!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  9. The reason this band is cheap. by splutty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a reason why this spectrum is much cheaper than others, in that it's assigned to satellite communication.

    The assumption being made is that if you license this spectrum, you need to make significant costs to actually put satellites into space, so the licensing is cheaper.

    So they want both now (cake meme), cheap spectrum, but not put satellites into orbit (which their original proposal by the way *did* have), but instead use it as ground based spectrum (which is much more expensive to license)

    Car analogy: I buy a classic old timer, so I don't have to pay road taxes (or much less anyway) and much less insurance. Now I put those license plates on a Hummer and still expect to not pay the road taxes and much less insurance...

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  10. No, the idiot is you by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't get what a provisional approval means. The FCC said, we don't know if what you want to do is possible but we are not going to say no right away, if you want, you can proof your claim.

    Had the FCC not done this, they would have been a dinosaur, an unmovable object on the road to progress. Instead they allowed a test, a test to prove that what the FCC believed (that the proposal would not work) was wrong.

    It is like a provisional driving license or are you going to claim that if you get a provisional driving license, the state is obliged to give you a full license regardless of whether you pass the test?

    Provisional licenses are pretty common, often you need a license to do something for real but you first need to do it in a test to do but to test it you need a license. To get around this, you issue a provisional license. It allows test and allows people to challenge assumptions but if you fail the test, so be it. Unless you want to sue your examiner for failing you.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:No, the idiot is you by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't prove conformance without test data. You can't get test data without a limited operational license.

      LightSquared was given a provisional operating license to operate a terrestrial network for the purposes of interoperability testing, and proving with that network that they had the capability to expand that network nationwide without causing interference. They WERE given a license to operate at the suggested power levels, and this license was a provisional time-limited one to see if operating at those levels caused problems. Instead of their network proving that it was possible - their network proved that it was IMpossible. The whole point of the limited provisional license was to permit LightSquared to operate a limited test network without deploying a massive nationwide network and getting THAT shut down after only a few months of operation.

      As to "trading spectrum with the DoD" - holy crap what morons. Sorry, when you're talking about a complete network of satellites, the costs of throwing away that network and building a new one are astronomical. Let's not forget the large base of installed aviation and military GPS equipment - getting certification for aviation-grade GPS systems is a VERY time consuming and expensive process.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:No, the idiot is you by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you expect them to prove they can conform if they don't have a license to run at those levels? Getting a license to operate at low levels, then operating a high levels so you can prove you didn't interfere is not exactly a way to get the FCC on your side. The FCC did it exactly right - "we don't think this will work, but we will give you a license to prove us wrong".

  11. Re:not quite that simple by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The GPS makers took advantage of the lack of adjacent channels to cheap out on the filters. The GPS industry has no license relating to the spectrum in question, they are listening on it by virtue of having poor filters. If the spectrum involved was adjacent to something less important like ISM band (wifi routers etc.) or ham radio, the FCC would probably have said "by better filters you idiots, you only bought the bit you are sitting on ". But this is a case where if you screw up big enough not only to affect yourself, but everyone else, everyone else has your back. To be completely fair though, enough power would overload any filter and designing for the environment is part of it, so the FCC puts quiet things next to sensitive things, and groups loud things together to give similar dynamic range. In short, the FCC is doing their job, the GPS folks kind of didn't but not in any criminal fashion.

    So if I propose a communication system that involves shouting loudly through a megaphone across the street and the environment agency shuts it down, not only could I sue them but all the house-builders who did not provide adequate sound insulation?

  12. Re:not quite that simple by SgtXaos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This idea that the GPS industry "cheaped out on the filters" just won't die, apparently. The fact is, every engineering project is an exercise in trade-offs. Designs must balance the requirements with the budget and laws of physics. When you know the environment, you design towards it. In other words, the GPS makers designed their equipment based on the fact that the nearby spectrum would be low-powered satellite communications. Thus the filters on the front ends of the GPS receivers were built to reject that type of sideband interference. To do otherwise would not not be the correct design decision.

    If everyone had to design their RF sections as you imply, every radio receiver in the world would need a 500 dB/decade "brick wall" filter to reject possibly ANY signal not included in its passband. These filters would be so large and complex as to render mobile devices impractical. The costs involved would make such devices too expensive to sell.

    Please do not continue to drink the Lightsquared kool-aid. It is toxic.

    --
    -- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!