Or we could just roll over and start sending money. Some people are goin to get very rich off the LightSquared thing and it is not going to be us. Maybe not Javad either cause he might be an unwitting fall guy. LS will get the approval it wanbts, the sepctrum will be worth billions, they can do an IPO, cash in, and not really have to follow though with the build out. They can watch other struggle with that while they sit on thier pots o' gold and chuckle while we have to pay for upgrade after upgrade. Javad may not get any larger market share than he has now. Many people will never forget that he bacame a shameless shill for LS. If forced into the upgrade cycle, the other manufacturers (which of course have been working on filtering solutions) will find a way to undercut his scheme and retain their current customers. Then several years from now when whoever takes on the spectrum will move to the upper band, and then we'll have to pay for another upgrade. Weehooo! Some hero.
Amen, but like I said before Javad has probably worked closely with LS to develop the filter*, so when we're sending our equipment to Topcon and Trimble to get retrofitted, Javad will be getting the royalty checks ...
Like many others have said, I've respected Javad for his advancements with GPS, but I find it funny now that he's blaming GPS manufactures for "overlooking" the filter and not predicting satalite spectrum would be reassigned to a cell phone company. Who designed the orignal Ashtech gear? Who designed the original Topcon gear? Who designed the original Javad Gear?
If it is a design problem, he's the one mostly at fault, and the one who stands to profit from it.
*patent pending
That scenario is not likely; there does not appear to be any exclusivity. If the plan is approved and there is interference, the other manufacturers are free to develop any type of filter they can. He cannot patent "filtering" as a whole, there are many ways to do it. He may not even be the first to solve the lower band issue, you can bet they've all been working on it since the waiver last hit the streets in January, but he is simply the one crowing the loudest and shilling for LS. Anyone can go ahead and patent thier own take on a problem, but what he has proposed so far is not anything extraordinary (common filtering items and techniques). And it is all moot until there are truly independent tests in real-world condiditons (just how much loss of performance might there be?).
Does not even begin to solve the upper band issue, which the tests this summer showed to be far more devastating than any lower band potential.
This is all to win hearts and minds and try to paint someone as a hero and give LS a tiny little bit of PR advantage. The rubber hits the road with the actual high precision and avaiation tests this spring (and he has no aviation solution). Everything else is just chest pounding.
Someone needs to present that list of Javad quotes that was posted here the other day to Javad himself showing how he has turned 180 degrees. I'd love to see what his explanation is.
Well, he's definitely trying to patent it. I don't blame him, he should try to patent it. And like you've said, the other manufactures are probably working on a work-a-round, as well ... they are just keeping it quiet and not posting "We Love Lightsquared" on their websites ….
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/8682/2/
He said, "Long before the LightSquared controversy, JAVAD GNSS recognized the threat from interference. There are many interferences, with jammers being the worst. The interferences have existed for a long time, but until now, there was no way to see them."
Recent JAVAD GNSS videos address this issue. The first details spectrum allocation and how interference can occur, and the second how the company uses its patent-pending Spectrum Analyzer to identify what and where GNSS interference is occurring. If possible, JAVAD GNSS's patent-pending Inband Interference Rejection mitigates such interference (and also civilian jamming interference).
Look carefully, he had a spectrum analyzer tool a year ahead of this issue (that has nothing to do with this issue). Anyone can buy a big expensive spectum analyzer and carry it aorund with them, the beauty of his tool is it was built-in and yes that is cool, but it does not solve in-band interference. As he demonstrated in some of his promotional videos a year ago his tool can look for in-band interference (jamming, other trnsmisisons etc) but simpy detected with the idea that that part of the band could be dropped out of the solution.
The LSQ filtering is a completely seprate issue, getting the two mixed up only serves as a good marketing tool. His solution which he showed at several press events is essentially a cermic filter and 4 cacade filters that are common components. He is right in patenting his "take" on in-band detection and whatever mitigation he proposes.
He did not invent filtering, or even in-band detection, he is patenting his particular combination of tools. He will not have exclusive rights to all filtering solutions related to the LSQ issue. That is like saying he invented filtering in the same ay that some folks are buying the assertion that LSQ invneted LTE and are the only hope for further LTE broadband.
If people are forced into paying for filters they should not be buffaloed into beliveing that anyone has exclusive rights to all filtering just because they were the first brag about it. LSQ partner PCTEL makes filters for the LSQ issue and have promoted it and they can patent their approach. The only way another manufacturer will have to potentially pay for any patent that comes out of this is if theyt absolutely copy the approach and these components are very common.
This is all moot, the big gorilla in the room is the upper band. What happens when that hits the fan?
Got a front row seat, popcorn in hand ready to watch the show!
SHG
Less than 300 people tuned in, pretty low attendance for an important issue.
My main take is that Javad should not be giving these type of technical presentations to the masses, wordy, bogged down in detail, blah blah, OK, he has a partial technical solution and will continue to develop better filters, BUT mostly he is just an egotistically me me me me me person that is trying to sell his solution to the rest of us while ignoring a myriad of implementation problems, pretty sure he must be on the LSQ payroll.
SHG
Yeah, he did that webinar just for the opportunity to sing his own praises-shameless!
Your review is right on the money Shelby. It was interesting for him to explain that all receivers are poorly designed (including his) and that anything that looked outside the L1 band was just introducing noise with no mention of the MSS spectrum. Also his attempts at humor were extremely poor and his financial analysis of a surveying business was laughable (if I wasn’t already crying). I did ask for him to fully disclose his relationship with Lightsquared…we’ll see if that gets answered 😉
Time for another round of letters to my representatives.
Doug
>> It was interesting for him to explain that all receivers are poorly designed (including his) and that anything that looked outside the L1 band was just introducing noise ...
Haven't seen the presentation yet, but if he really said that, it sounds like the exact opposite of what he said a few months ago (probably before LSQ started cutting him checks ...)
Javad from a May 23rd, 2011 press release:
>> We have very wide bandwidth and wide AGC to receive every drop of information and get GPS signals with clear edges to mitigate multipath the number one source of error in high precision applications. Multipath is everywhere. As long as the Earth is below the antenna, or other objects near it, there is multipath!
>> GPS bands should be protected against any aggression so we can get the best of the GPS signals. We should not narrow our bandwidth and degrade performance of GPS to defend against systems like LightSquared. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to protect GPS, this national asset, and the many billions of dollars invested in it.
It sounds here like he saying the wider the bandwidth the receiver looks, the better it performs, and mitigates multipath. And narrowing the bandwidth will degrade performance. Am I reading this wrong?
Agreed that Eric got ripped on air time.
The moderator kept trying to cut him off, BUT he just had to show the John Deere slides of the combines, he had no ability to adapt his presentation on the fly or skip any slides, most of which were pretty meaningless to I would guess most of his audience today.
He lost ALL credibility with me on his last 20-30 slides or so when he left the technical side and started pushing an agenda. The guy may be a brilliant engineer, BUT he left a totally bad taste in my mouth after watching this for 90 minutes.
Personally the only way I would buy one of his receivers or his fix ever, would be if the alternative is to close shop.
SHG
