Slashdot Mirror


FCC Paves the Way For Improved GPS Accuracy (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) paved the way for improved GPS and location accuracy today, approving an order that will allow U.S. phones to access a European satellite system. The order allows non-federal consumer devices to access the European Union's version of GPS, which is also known as Galileo. The system is available globally, and it officially went live in 2016. By opening up access, devices that can retrieve a signal from both Galileo and the U.S. GPS system will see improved timing estimates and location reliability. The iPhone 8 was the first Apple product to support it. Other phone models from Huawei and Samsung support the system, too. "Since the debut of the first consumer handheld GPS device in 1989, consumers and industry in the United States have relied on the U.S. GPS to support satellite-based positioning, navigation, and timing services that are integral to everyday applications ranging from driving directions to precision farming," the FCC said in a release. Now, the U.S. system will be able to commingle with the European one, making the way for better reliability, range, and accuracy.

42 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Permission to listen to a radio signal? by thue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do you need permission to listen to radio signals? I thought the FCC were only concerned with sending radio signals? Why would they care?

    GNSS satellites orbit at 23,222km, so I would assume the signals were more or less globally available in any case.

    1. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm really confused here, especially since there have been a bunch of phones shipping with dual GPS/Galileo support for a while now. Was this previously illegal? The FCC already approved all of these devices.

      Pixel 2, iPhone 8, Galaxy S8, etc.

    2. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would they care?

      Do you have a dog? If you throw a stick and tell the dog to fetch, would you be upset if it refused?

      This is the same. DoD built GPS, and they told the Europeans not to build a parallel system. The Europeans didn't do what they were told.

      So DoD threw a hissy fit, and had the FCC ban the use of Galileo signals within the US. Does the FCC have the authority to do this, since the devices are only receiving and not transmitting? That isn't clear, but it was not challenged.

      Many phones disable Galileo in software. So they use the extra signals when outside US territory, but disable it within US territory. So just a software patch should be enough to enable the extra accuracy.

    3. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by spth · · Score: 5, Informative

      The developer of the GPStest app elaborates on that in a blog post:

      https://galileognss.eu/why-gal...

    4. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Many phones disable Galileo in software. So they use the extra signals when outside US territory, but disable it within US territory.

      So they have to get an approximate location using GPS only first, and then, if you are outside US territory, can enable signals received from other satellites? Sounds like a PITA.

    5. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by spth · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the FCC a phone receviing a Galileo signal is a ground station in contact with foreign satellites, which is only allowed with after a lengthy FCC approval process

      https://techcrunch.com/2018/11...

      Apparently in October 2013, the EU applied to the FCC to allow reception of Galileo signals in the US. Apparently, the FCC has now partially granted (bands E1 and E5), partially denied (band E6) this request (http://insidegnss.com/fcc-poised-to-approve-broad-use-of-galileo-in-u-s/).

      Yes, the FCC is aware that people in the US are already receiving signals from foreign satellites without asking the FCC first:
      "it becomes clear that many devices in the United States are already operating with foreign signals. But nowhere in our record is there a good picture of how many devices in this country are interacting with these foreign satellite systems, what it means for compliance with our rules, and what it means for the security of our systems." (Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel)

    6. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by queequeg1 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by contacting a foreign satellite? These phones aren't sending signals to satellites, are they? I didn't think that's how GPS (or Galileo, or otherwise) worked. They just receive signals from satellites.

    7. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Um, no. "Potential enemy states" aren't going to worry about a f*kin FCC license when they are engaging in hostile activities. Furthermore, this link(from a previous post) explains that its the ground station that needs the license. There is nothing about restricting the transmitter (satellite).

      F* you , Tweedy Pai. This rule is just an attempt to keep people from bypassing US broadcasters markets by aiming a dish at a Canadian TV satellite. You people are rapidly approaching the Stasi and North Koreans. I expect the authorities to be kicking down my door any moment, looking for illegal receivers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Why do you need permission to listen to radio signals?"

      People went to concentration camps for listening to the BBC depending on their location for a couple of years.

      Ditto for listening to west-radio in the GDR.

    9. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      How about the Russian and Chinese systems? People in the US tell me that the Russian GLONASS works fine for them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So they have to get an approximate location using GPS only first

      Not at all. There are many ways to get a location. If I disable GPS (and all other systems) on my phone I'll still have it accurately identify where I am to a couple of 10s of meters thanks to Google location services. If I disable those as well then I'm only accurate to a couple of km depending on the location services provided by the tower/network.

    11. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      There are rules and then there are rules.

      You can demodulate anything you want, although listening to cellular phone frequencies in the US is dubious and most receivers that can demodulate cellular have been banned. You can make your own if you're clever.

      Using something as a reference signal, however, has implications. GPS provides two references, locus and apparent time. Time + several heard satellites give you location. This is a calibration. It now extends to using Galileo (as you cite, in certain bands), to be a calibrated source for the vector + time.

      I listen to signals every day from across the D-F2 layers bounced from other parts of the planet, and you don't need a license to do so. Those different modulation methods, various forms of radio, pass through your body 24/7. Feel free to demodulate them.

      Using a signal to guide your autonomous vehicle, drone, aircraft, etc., is another situation altogether. Certain reference signals (goodbye, WWV) are calibrated & backed up by law as referential signals from known sources. You could use "illegal" or extra-legal signals, but not in legal ways... and face liability if say, your drone crashed into a power transmission line.

      You can also interact with certain satellites, more if you're a licensed radio operator... but not with GPS satellites. GPS satellites can also send even more information, but most of this info is meaningless to civilians, or their autonomous vehicles, aircraft, etc.

      Hacking these satellites is possible, but not recommended. If you want to see an X-Files sort of response to a hack, just try it. Vectoring VHF/UHF+ signals from a (group of) satellites, the seeming reverse of GPS, is easily possible, meaning hacking attempts and the exact location of such hackers can be easily surmised. Having Galileo as a "backup" in this case, is a bit of godsend. And now with 11,000+ additional sats going up in the next few years, the sky will be crammed with at least 5x the number of radio-emitting signal sources over your head. Enjoy.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re: Permission to listen to a radio signal? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I knkw they are blowing smoke,but for the saje of argument, what potential danger could receiving such a signal do to their systems? Not talking about getting the location wrong. Talking about their systems..

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re: Permission to listen to a radio signal? by houghi · · Score: 1

      These kind of things never happened under Gengus Kahn and he killed a hoigher percenntage of people.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      This is given you have cell phone service. You can be in airplane mode and use your GPS. How does your device know whether you can receive Galileo signals in airplane mode?

    15. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      FTFA,

      Thankfully, the Galileo saga appears to be coming to a close. On October 24th, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the Commission will vote in November (presumably in their November 15th open meeting) on allowing American devices to use signals from Galileo. Given the positive tone of the announcement, it seems that Galileo may be headed for official approval

      Anyone heard any news? Otherwise, maybe it's time for several tens of thousands of relevant people to request, fill out and return, some forms :

      United States Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) Title 47 â Chapter I â Subchapter B (pause, take a deep breath) â Part 25 â Subpart B â Section 25.131 â (j) says: Receive-only earth stations operating with non-U.S. licensed space stations shall file an FCC Form 312 requesting a license or modification to operate such station.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:Permission to listen to a radio signal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Interesting side note: Airplane mode used to disable the GPS reception on early mobile phones.

      But in your edge case the get a GPS fix before enabling Galileo still make sense. Just because you have enough GPS satellites for a fix doesn't mean you have significant accuracy so you can still benefit from more satellites. This is especially true in crowded cities where location seems to jump around a lot. Ironically this is a big problem mostly in America rather than Europe since European cities generally aren't a sea of skyscrapers.

  2. Allow? by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Allow" access to broadcast signals? What authority does the FCC have to prevent reception in the first place? Also, the summary is notably lacking any mention of the Russian GLONASS system, which many smartphones support in addition to GPS.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Allow? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      They're wanting to make sure the satellites don't intefere with our elections.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Allow? by kdayn · · Score: 1

      Yes, the FCC talks about allowing receive-only ground stations. I was surprised by the fact, that they think that they control the receiving side.

    3. Re:Allow? by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      From a link in another post here, which mentions GLONASS at the end: https://galileognss.eu/why-gal...

      But beware: I had a new Garmin Edge 1000 with GPS + GLONASS for a month, when one day it suddenly started failing to get its location. After some googling, I discovered that it was a known issue that GLONASS occasionally has issues, and when that happens, instead of falling back to using only the GPS signal, the dumb Garmin unit just fails completely. Disabling GLONASS restored its ability to find its location.

  3. Accuracy or precision? by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    It's late, but I initially interpreted this to be precision and thought how much more precise do I need it? Isn't it precise to within a few feet already?

    But accuracy is different.

    I actually did think it was fairly accurate, but if sometimes it shows you being miles off even then I haven't heard many stories about it.

    Or maybe this just gives us more data and only slightly moves the needle from very accurate to slightly more very accurate.

    I'm too tired to RTFA to see what they're talking about.

    1. Re:Accuracy or precision? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Galileo is purportedly accurate to 1 cm (for 'commercial service') but even the unencrypted signal is accurate to 1 meter. GPS to 5 meters.

      When driving, the GPS receiver is generally correcting by snapping you to a road. Most people using GPS have probably experienced the software guess wrong about whether you took an off-ramp or not. This accuracy would not exhibit that sort of mistake.

      When in my house, my GPS shows me as maybe in my house, maybe in the yard, maybe in my neighbor's house. It really doesn't know.

      Do I need that precision? I don't know but I certainly could notice it.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Accuracy or precision? by spth · · Score: 1

      These positioning systems work well, when you receive a good signal from enough satellites. Accuracy can also be improved by differential systems such as EGNOS (again broadcast by satellites). In the air, on plains or on mountains there is no problem.

      The situation is different in valleys. With just GPS one can easily get a position that is off by 100 meters, and also get no signal from the satellites broadcasting the correction information for differential GPS.

      To solve the first issue, you need signals from more satellites, so using Galileo, GLONASS, etc in addition to GPS helps.

    3. Re:Accuracy or precision? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Driverless cars that know how far they are from the curb without looking

      A car can't get out of measuring the environment directly. Even with position data, the 'map' would be inevitably out of date a lot of the time. It wouldn't be able to account for debris in the road, or workers temporarily painting new lines on the road, all that stuff.

      Sure, other applications are there, but I don't think self-driving cars are in as dire need, since they must gather contextual data directly either way.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:Accuracy or precision? by sjbe · · Score: 1

      It's late, but I initially interpreted this to be precision and thought how much more precise do I need it? Isn't it precise to within a few feet already?

      It varies but more precision is useful. A lot of tools you probably use routinely like the navigation system in your car could be made simpler and better if they didn't have to guess your location much of the time. The GPS in my car doesn't actually know for sure if I'm on a road much of the time but it guesses based on various clues (direction and speed of travel among them). But it's wrong sometimes. My house is about 1000 meters from the road my driveway connects to but it's close to another road on the back side of my house. So when I do route finding it guesses incorrectly that I'm going to take this other road and adds about 2 kilometers to my route until I get away from my driveway. I've often been traveling down a service road next to a highway and the GPS thinks (guesses really) that I'm on the highway even though I'm not and it screws up the route because of that fact. In some cases I'm only 5-10 meters away from the highway but that's enough to be a problem sometimes.

      Of course being precisely wrong is generally worse than being approximately correct.

      But accuracy is different.

      Accuracy is different. Standard joke about the difference. A statistician is shooting arrows at a target. He clusters 6 arrows in a 1 inch circle a foot to the left of the target. He then shoots another 6 arrows in a 1 inch circle to the right of the target and then yells "Bullseye!". Each cluster is precise - precision means repeatable results. Both clusters together are accurate. Accuracy is the average of the results in relation to the target you are trying to hit. You can have great accuracy without great precision or great precision without great accuracy. The trick is having both.

    5. Re: Accuracy or precision? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      I sometimes misplace my phone inside my house, and "find my iphone" on the computer will often let me find it simply based on how accurate the location shown on the map is.

    6. Re:Accuracy or precision? by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      I've been looking at marine chartplotters and they actually advertise the GPS sample rate they can achieve. My guess is if you have a 30 Hz sample rate you will get a lot more precision as you wind up averaging out the outlier data points.

    7. Re:Accuracy or precision? by Megane · · Score: 1

      GPS absolute position isn't good, but that's because of localized variances in reception. But as I understand it, the relative position is good enough to detect a 2cm movement, and it has been used for devices to detect seismic fault movement. You may not know exactly where you are, but you can know that you moved a little bit, and how far.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  4. Something my 30 dollar MN8's have done for years by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

    Odd that this is still even a thing as all of my old MN8 GPS modules have done for at least 2 years now.

  5. FCC Fact Sheet and Draft Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A FCC Fact Sheet and Draft Order is at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354772A1.pdf .

  6. Does consumer Galileo have COCOM limits? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    I for one would like to know when I'm higher than 59,000 feet, or going faster than 1200 mph.

  7. B**SH&& by maxrate · · Score: 1

    FCC tries to look like a hero by saying 'you can receive Galileo signals that are already there' - signals that have long been allocated globally for the EU use of the system. At least that's my interpretation.

  8. Re:Something my 30 dollar MN8's have done for year by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Apparently uBlox NEO-M8N (what it's actually called) has indeed had Galileo and not bothered to disable it in the USA. Found this while websearching. I guess I should order one up for my homebrew tracker. I got a M6 instead, which does glonass but not galileo, just because it was cheaper.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:Something my 30 dollar MN8's have done for year by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Owning the receiver is not illegal in itself (a transmitter may be illegal to own). It is only a crime to USE it. Therefore it the customer responsibility to configure that ublox module correctly (which I'm sure everyone does...).

    It's not really clear that it is a crime to use it, has that actually ever gone to court? I'm pretty sure that it hasn't, and that if it did, the outcome would be the opposite of what the FCC wants.

    uBlox modules are not only famously unconfigured when you get them, but they are also commonly counterfeit. Which is another problem with a M6 that, AFAICT, crops up less with the M8N. Lots of M6s are fake, and don't have as much flash as they are supposed to. Therefore, you can't upgrade their software. The counterfeits still work for most purposes, though. I've got one in a quad.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. What actually ENFORCES this? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    I have a Nexus 6P... rooted, running LineageOS. It shows only GPS and Glonass in ChartCross GPStest+. I'm dying to know which subsystem is responsible for enforcing the "this user is in the US, hide Galileo" rule.

    The only thing I can think of is that it's part of the Qualcomm radio modem driver... the one opaque binary in the N6P's software stack. I can't see how it could be enforced by Android itself... the moment anyone at XDA saw a brazen difference in kernel code like "boolean galileoAvailable &= !inUS;", it would have been loudly & proudly ripped out and proclaimed as the ultimate l33t hack as a badge of honor within hours.

    Insofar as legal authority goes, my guess is that the FCC implied Galileo-disablement as part of its phone certification requirements, and no mfr. wanted to risk delaying a phone by a month or more by failing certification over it by challenging the FCC's authority to enforce it (the industry is largely self-regulating... vendors pay accredited labs to certify compliance, and those labs generally take the view that "anything that MIGHT be forbidden IS considered to be forbidden." because they don't want to jeopardize THEIR OWN accreditation status.

  11. Re:Something my 30 dollar MN8's have done for year by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

    They have been GREAT receivers for my multirotors for a long time. My old m6n's would normally get from 6 to 8 sats with a hdop of around 1.8 to 3 and my m8n's get about 18-20 sats with a hdop of around .8 plus they work a lot better indoors. I also like how they allow me to load sat data for 2 or 3 weeks onto them which is a lot better then the 3 days to a week on my old modules. The ublox software "u-center" really allows you to pretty much configure everything on the m6n/m7n/m8n modules and is not a bad piece of kit.

  12. been getting GLONASS tracking for years by satsuke · · Score: 1

    Odd, every phone I've had over the last several years has had no problem receiving GLONASS telemetry data.

    If I remember correctly, it's required to sell phones in Russia without paying an exhorbitant tax.

    Want to see for yourself? -- go download "GPS Status" on the android app store and see how many non US-GPS satellites it hears.

  13. Re:Cell phone accuracy has nothing to do ... by satsuke · · Score: 1

    Open up your GPS information page .. you'll see that your phone's receiver is able to "see" a dozen or more satellites at once with a clear view of the sky.

    Dedicated receivers can outperform a phone of course, but that's not the point of your post.

  14. FCC improving? by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 1

    Pai Man at the FCC could quit lying and everything related to the FCC would be more reliable.

  15. Is it really more accurate in practice? by tap · · Score: 1

    GPS + GLONASS has been around for a long time now.

    No one used anything but GPS because it was free and it worked well enough. But that made having GLONASS as an non-US-controlled alternative to GPS useless. It's there, but nothing uses it. So the Russians required cell phones to have it to be sold in Russia, which was the lacking motivation for GNSS vendors to support GLONASS and now everyone does.

    And is the result more accurate GNSS from the extra system? Not really. If you're in a location where GLONASS works better, then there's an improvement. But GPS is better most of the time. Adding the GLONASS position solution doesn't improve it. It just adds more error. Assuming you have good GPS reception, GPS alone is more accurate than GPS + GLONASS.

    It'll probably be the same with Galileo.

    It's also the case that the commodity GNSS chipsets didn't care about GLONASS support before they had to add it. They don't care about more accuracy. It's not something that sells phones.

    If they did care about accuracy, then GPS has new signals called L1c, L2 and L5. They are better than the old C/A signal everything uses. Been around for years. Using a dual band receiver to get L1+L2 or L1+L5 would allow cancelling out the ionospheric delay. That would provide the biggest increase in accuracy to GNSS that remains to be had (besides post-processing). Survey level GNSS systems do this. But commodity GNSS doesn't care. Won't sell more phones.

  16. Re:Good thing we know iPhone supports it by dohzer · · Score: 1

    The iPhone 8 was the first Apple product to support it. Other phone models from Huawei and Samsung support the system, too.

    Ha. I see what you're doing there. Trying to word it to sound like Apple had it first, while sticking to the truth. Well done.