Adverse Possession or Acquiesence?

With a very limited amount of information given in the last paragraph I would say it depends. It could be a case of estoppel....heck it could be a wide range of things.

It almost sounds as though the last paragraph should have never been in the article to begin with. The author really didn't do a good job in building up to a point and then give a scenario of what to do.

Sorry, my bad

I should have used the humor category.

But it is the first article I've read that gives an account of the "lightsquared" side of things.

No my bad needed...I have

followed it for a little ways and it seems there are so many kinks to be worked out that any article would seem premature.

Guess we'll see much later what the FCC will require and how all the manufacturers will respond.

I dunno....we can watch for now. I doubt all the negatives that have been mentioned will actually see this thing play out...

After reading this latest "bit". I would have to say that Lightsquared has already taken the FCC to dinner on the third date and is now in bed with them.

No my bad needed...I have

It's a simple solution really. Just have a surveyor re-write the description to match where the GPS signals actually are:)

Does this mean that my phone that will be on the 4G network is going to be confused when I am using it for GPS positioning and calling at the same time?

Keith

Keith,

That shouldn't be a problem. Your phone can tell the difference. It knows the curved signals are navigation and the straight ones are communication:)

No my bad needed...I have

> It's a simple solution really. Just have a surveyor re-write the description to match where the GPS signals actually are:)

Sounds like the GPS signals are in the right place, it's just than when the manufacturers built their fences to enclose the signal, they saw that big empty field next door and thought "no one lives there, so what's the harm in fencing in a few extra feet"

Duane

Ah ha, no problem!

The analogy is wrong. It isn't about boundaries (frequencies), but conflicting uses. Try this one:

The FCC had zoned the area for agricultural use (satellite signals), but allowed some commercial use (terrestrial signals) if the buildings were small. GPS users all planted their gardens on the agricultural lots. Now the FCC is letting Lightsquared build high-rises (powerful terrestrial signals) on their lot and it shades the GPS users so it makes their land unproductive.

I get it that a couple of Lightspeed's mouthpieces are spinning a story and rubbing it in the face of those that depend upon GPS as a way of life and they do not really care what problems it will cause, just so it does not affect what Lighspeed is planning.

O'Malley
It is my belief that the FCC bed must be getting very crowded.

No my bad needed...I have

Thems strong words. I prefer to think that rather than steal it they figured the taxpayer would pay for it eventually.

Duane

I know. And those darn signals don't know where they've been. It's so perfect; an encroachment to wind up with an enroachment. That legal point is a link and a half (60 feet, whatever) over where it's always been.

That's what was so funny, I thought.

But on a serious note; who benefits more from widely available, and cheap broadband?

Who benefits more from precise positioning garaunteed at low cost?

Poor v. Rich?

I think I see a pattern here.