Unbeliveable - Ligado Decision is Done, Move On

Well this does dovetail nicely with our "dismiss the experts, science is a hoax" attitude that has become the hallmark of the U.S. as of late. "MOAR DOLLERZ" is the motto of this administration anyways. National security can take a hike.

Anyone else see a class-action lawsuit in the future if Ligado can't deliver on its promise to fix any interference they cause?

The FCC auctions off their frequencies and Ligado's check must have cleared the bank.

@rover83  Comments in the Senate Hearing from Pentagon, and the Lead guy on GPS could not have been more clear that Ligado would "ensure federal receivers, if affected (my words) would be replaced".  Oh really?  All the military high precision guidance systems in our warfighting machines, aircraft, vessels?  What about the non-federal high precision aircraft nav systems, which were found to stop logging during tests.  Now that were so close to having high precision landing using WAAS (FAA), wouldn't it be lovely to swap out all nav systems in aircraft when they fly over a ground based Ligado tower.

Unbelievable.

Wow. This administration...

@stlsurveyor

...by the greedy, for the greedy

@stlsurveyor

Think we've entered the age of the Principate, I think it was inevitable.

Posted by: @rover83

Anyone else see a class-action lawsuit in the future if Ligado can't deliver on its promise to fix any interference they cause?

I'd like to believe that. Unfortunately the Jed Rakoffs and Stanley Sporkins of the world have probably seen their time

@gisjoel

The real kicker is that 5G has been overrated and overhyped from the beginning. The former FCC chairman called it 25% technology, 75% marketing, and I think he was being charitable. For certain specific commercial operations it might be beneficial, but the average consumer will not get anything more than slightly faster mobile data.

Which will only further the "more garbage, faster" trend we are on. Sturgeon's Law would have read "99% [rather than 90%] of everything is crap" if it had been formulated in the internet age.

Crazy. Lightsquared 2.0, that has been greasing the wheels of the FCC and corporate firms to their side waiting for the changing political landscape.?ÿ

?ÿ

I'm a bit confused concerning the present situation.?ÿ The FCC approved Ligado's application in mid-April.?ÿ After congressional hearings thirty-two United States senators?ÿwrote to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on May 15 expressing concerns with the commissionƒ??s determination on Ligado Networks. The senators asked the FCC to address these concerns and stay their order while they were doing so.

Has anything happened since then??ÿ If not, it's still possible the FCC will respect congress and stay or rescind their order.?ÿ Also the executive branch can stay/rescind the FCC's order unilaterally.?ÿ Trump's a pro-military guy, so let's see if he steps up to the plate.

My position is any high[sic] power terrestrial transmitters should not ever be permitted in/near the SAT/NAV quiet bands for two reasons, unintended consequences in the near term (Ligado's promise that they'll "fix" any interference by upgrading affected GNSS user's equipment is not plausible), and the long term protection of the SAT/NAV band for future innovation.

Posted in the PNT report today.

Ligado:

?ÿNTIA Argues Ligado Overstates FCC's Spectrum Purview

By: Julia Arciga

Law360

11 June 2020

?ÿTrump administration officials are accusing Ligado Networks of overstating the Federal Communications Commission's authority over a spectrum band typically used for satellite transmission and of encouraging the FCC to steamroll other government branches seeking to?ÿpause a commission decision allowing the company to deploy a ground-based 5G network.

?ÿThe National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the Commerce Department and part of the executive branch raised its complaints in a filing to the FCC in response to Ligado Networks' June 1 filing in support of a commission decision allowing the company to roll out a land-based 5G network on the the swath of spectrum known as the L-Band.

?ÿLigado claimed the FCC had "exclusive authority" over the nonfederal uses of the L-band.

?ÿNTIA, on behalf of the Department of Defense, has petitioned the FCC to stay implementation of the Ligado plan until efforts by opponents to reverse the deployment plans are played out.

?ÿNTIA called Ligado's defense of the FCC ruling "error-prone" and "weak."

?ÿThe Commerce Department unit noted that the FCC has?ÿnever claimed "exclusive or absolute jurisdiction over the L-Band."

?ÿThe NTIA and the FCC are allegedly "coregulators of the spectrum" that are supposed to "work together to ensure that spectrum policy decisions promote efficient use ƒ?? consistent with both the economic interests and national security of the nation." According to the NTIA, Ligado failed to point out instances where the FCC did not defer to the NTIA in critical matters.

?ÿThe NTIA also?ÿsaid the FCC?ÿdecision?ÿauthorizing Ligado to operate 5G infrastructure within the band was issued?ÿwithout any "prior notice or explanation" to it. The NTIA and others in government, like the Pentagon, have been pushing against the rollout due to concerns that the plan to reorganize the L-Band could interfere with critical GPS functions.

?ÿThe filing said the FCC and Ligado "ignore[d] the necessary nature of the interagency deliberative process" and accused them of objecting to the contention of multiple executive branch departments as if they were "connected at the hip."

?ÿ"This unusual breach of unique and traditional collaboration among co-regulators is especially troublesome in matters impacting national defense and safety of life services," the filing read.

?ÿIn its effort to pause the 5G rollout, the NTIA claimed Ligado's own studies indicated the proposed network would result in "adverse impacts to GPS receiver functions." The agency claims the FCC has failed to properly look into this question.

?ÿThis comes after various parts of government ƒ?? from executive branch agencies to lawmakers ƒ?? have sounded the alarm over Ligado's 5G rollout. Senators called the FCC's order "hurried," while the Pentagon and the Transportation Department has claimed the order would cause "irreparable harms to federal government users" of GPS.

?ÿBoth sides in the fight have agreed the FCC acted within its purview when it approved Ligado's plan in April, and opponents of the plan are now focusing on pausing the proceeding for further study or simply working within the established dispute framework. The NTIA filed a petition to reconsider the order on behalf of the executive branch, and separately filed a petition to put the order on ice, in late May.

?ÿThe NTIA and the FCC declined to comment Thursday.

?ÿRepresentatives for Ligado did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

?ÿ

@gisjoel Glimmer of hope I suppose. 

This is going to hurt.

Inhofe To Introduce New Legislation That Could Cost Ligado

By: Aaron Mehta and Joe Gould

C4ISRNET

18 June 2020

?ÿ

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is cranking up the heat on Ligado Networks with new legislation that would require the company to cover the costs of any Global Positioning System user ƒ?? government or commercial ƒ?? that is hurt by the companyƒ??s newly approved use of L-Band spectrum, C4ISRNET has learned.

?ÿ

A bill from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., would escalate the potential cost facing Ligado as it moves to set up a system of networks that government agencies and commercial trade groups alike have said could damage GPS reliability inside the United States. Itƒ??s the latest gambit from opponents to slow or halt altogether Ligadoƒ??s planned spectrum use

?ÿ

Inhofe is expected to introduce the Recognizing and Ensuring Taxpayer Access to Infrastructure Necessary (RETAIN) for GPS and Satellite Communications Act as early as next week. A Senate source familiar with the process said the chairman wants ƒ??a good number of cosponsorsƒ? lined up before introducing the language.

?ÿ

The FCC voted unanimously April 20 to approve the plan from Ligado networks to use L-Band, described as the range of frequencies between 1 to 2 GHz. L-Band is vital to GPS and other international navigation systems because it can easily penetrate clouds, fog, rain and vegetation. Ligado owns a license to operate the spectrum near GPS, which it says it will use to build a 5G network to boost connectivity for the industrial ƒ??internet of thingsƒ? market.

?ÿ

However, opponents ƒ?? including the Department of Defense and a number of non-defense industry trade groups ƒ?? argue that Ligadoƒ??s plan would create wide ranging disruptions for GPS usage, hurting both warfighters and commercial ventures in the United States. Ligado has pushed back at those claims.

?ÿ

ƒ??GPS and satellite communications doesnƒ??t only impact our military ƒ?? we rely on it for so much of our day to day lives, which is why we need to take steps to protect not just DoD from the harmful decision, but all agencies, private entities and consumers too,ƒ? Inhofe said in a June 18 statement to C4ISRNET.

?ÿ

ƒ??When Ligadoƒ??s effort to repurpose spectrum causes interference in the infrastructure of those systems, as tests have shown it will, consumers and taxpayers canƒ??t afford the burden of updating countless systems. That cost should only be borne by the responsible party: Ligado. With all the money they are paying their lobbyists, they should be prepared to pay this too.ƒ?

?ÿ

Ashley Durmer, a Ligado spokeswoman, told C4ISRNET that ƒ??Sen. Inhofe doesnƒ??t need to worry about interference from Ligado; the spectrum experts at the DOD, the NTIA and the FCC all agree on that. And Ligado will honor each and every license condition imposed on it by the FCC.

?ÿ

ƒ??The legislation he may propose could slow down 5G and cost jobs, but it wonƒ??t change the fact that DOD is using its influence to take spectrum that does not belong to it,ƒ? she added.

?ÿ

Extra Costs

?ÿ

Under the FCCƒ??s order, Ligado must pay to upgrade or replace any government devices that are hurt by their system, a remedy the company says it has a plan in place for. That order would not cover the private sector.

?ÿ

But Inhofeƒ??s bill would go much further, requiring the company to cover costs by all users who claim interference. And while the FCC order requires only that Ligado pay to replace the receiver, Inhofeƒ??s language would cover costs including, but not limited to, any engineering, construction, site acquisition, research, personnel or contracting staff, and labor associated with the replacement efforts.

?ÿ

For example, if DoD needed to design a new receiver, Ligado would be obligated to cover not just installation costs, but design costs down to hourly wages of engineers working the project. Given the vast majority of GPS users are non-governmental, such language would greatly increase the costs to Ligado,

?ÿ

In addition, Ligado would be obligated to ƒ??upgrade, repair, or replace potentially impacted covered GPS devices and satellite communications receivers, including costs of any modification, repair or replacement of equipment, spares, associated ancillary equipment, software, facilities, operating manuals, training, or compliance with regulations,ƒ? under the legislation reviewed by C4ISRNET.

?ÿ

Notably, the restrictions cover Ligado and ƒ??any subsequent holder of a license in the 1525ƒ??1559 megahertz band or the 1626.5ƒ??1660.5 megahertz band.ƒ? That language comes amid widespread industry speculation that Ligado hopes to sell its L-Band frequencies, with Verizon seen as the most likely customer.

?ÿ

Tim Farrar, an independent technology consultant, said that if passed, ƒ??this draft legislation would allow the DoD to burden Ligado with significant costs for future testing and equipment replacement based on a low threshold of any interference whatsoever.

?ÿ

ƒ??Unlike the FCC order, that would also be the case even if the spectrum was sold to Verizon for use in an L+C plan and no base stations were ever deployed using the 1526-36MHz L-band downlink,ƒ? he added.

?ÿ

Inhofe and Ligado

?ÿ

The RETAIN GPS act is Inhofeƒ??s second legislative push against Ligado to emerge in the past week, following the SASCƒ??s version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which would slow the use of DoD funds to support Ligado in any way and requests an independent technical assessment from the National Academies of Science and Engineering.

?ÿ

Because the new legislation falls outside Inhofeƒ??s purview as SASC chair and under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, he will need to attract co-sponsors from that committee. Commerceƒ??s ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was among 31 signatories to Inhofeƒ??s May 15 letter to the FCC, which urged a reversal of its approval for Ligado.

?ÿ

The next question Inhofe faces is whether the bill will find support in the House. Both House Armed Services Committee chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, have been critical of the FCCƒ??s Ligado vote, and a trio of key subcommittee members last week asked the commissionƒ??s Inspector General to launch an investigation into a potential conflict of interest within the FCC.

?ÿ

Inhofe first indicated a willingness to push legislation in mid-April, shortly after C4ISRNET first reported that the FCC was poised to approve Ligadoƒ??s request. He also held a May 6 SASC hearing which hosted only Defense Department witnesses opposed to Ligadoƒ??s plan. There, Inhofe blasted the FCC for what he described as a duplicitous move to avoid opposition from federal agencies.

?ÿ

ƒ??A few powerful people made a hasty decision over a weekend, in the middle of a national crisis, against the advice of every other agency involved and without cluing the president in on any of this,ƒ? Inhofe said, adding he had talked with U.S. President Trump and ƒ??I can assure you that is the case.ƒ?

?ÿ

ƒ??We want to get this thing reversed,ƒ? Inhofe said at the hearing.

@gisjoel Good news!  It appears the Legislature is taking action to block the FCC's ruling.

@stlsurveyor  By 'this administration' are you referring to The Department of Deference, The Department of Commerce, The Federal Communication Commission or the Pentagon. They all had a different take. I guess you meant it's Trump's fault whichever one turns out to be wrong.

@oldpacer Incorrect in your assumption. I never mentioned, or implied, Trump. I will not take the political click bait.

I am just amazed that the entire "administration", as you have described above, would allow a private corporation, that is only looking for profit to push out a product that will have negative effects on a system that is clearly instrumental in the daily activities of all mankind. Total disregard for the obvious negative impacts.  Hard stop on this topic to stay out of politics. Out.