The more he talks the less I seem to care what he has to say.
I would like to know why no one bothered to come up with his 'overnight' solution of developing a filter as he claims to have done now. He claims it is less expensive, too.
I haven't seen it, but I did see something back in Dec when he was saying the FCC should mandate receivers to have filters....
Isn't the FCC's only domain transmission? Why should they be able to say what kind of receiver you can build if it doesn't interfere with anything else. I think the only entity that could mandate something like that would be someone like the FAA.
Sounds like Javad, who seems to be a smart guy, is getting paid a pretty good chunk of change to point fingers in directions other than lightsquared.
As far as I can tell, none of his "solutions" have been submitted for independent review by any third party. I haven't seen any independent verification of the claims.
Until I do it's just another "cold fusion" snowjob.
Javad said early on (before he had his sudden change of heart, and become LSQ's biggest fan) that filtering would degrade the quality of the solution, and possibly cause more "false fixed" solutions ...
Yes, I'd like to see some independent checks on what he claims works. I've never heard Javad claim that his "lightsquared hardened" antenna does not degrade the solution quality.
Open Letter to Javad
Javad,
In reference to your post titled “GPS Industry Created Smokescreen to Hide Its Failures” I think you have missed the point of the conflict about LightSquared. It is about politics, not engineering and science, as you believe. This has allowed you to be misled by LightSquared into believing it is all about hard science. In America we have set aside certain frequency spectrum for space-based use. There are other frequency spectrums set aside for terrestrial-based use. Properly used there is no fault with science, engineering or politics. LightSquared is pulling political strings to attempt to persuade politicians to allow space-based spectrum to be converted for terrestrial-based use. This is simply political.
I believe you and others can create filters and other types of devices to solve interference problems as you have claimed. The “smokescreen” you describe is non-existent. GPS manufacturers have been paying LightSquared and predecessors for the use of their space-based frequencies to carry GPS augmentation data. There is no “fault for selling products which depend on spectrum that is licensed to another company”. This is how it works in America. GPS companies pay to use space-based frequency licensed to another company. Encroachment is a non-issue.
The goal is not to block LightSquared from creating a nationwide broadband network, but rather to require the space-based spectrum to be used for space-based use like everyone else. We know from past experience that future applications for this space-based spectrum may surface with future discoveries and inventions. Therefore politicians must keep it set aside for space-based use. LightSquared should move forward with their nationwide broadband network just like Verizon, AT&T, and all the others using terrestrial-based spectrum. I am depending on the FCC to disallow anyone from exploiting the space-based spectrum for other uses.
Respectfully,
Jim Luke, PLS, USMS
Open Letter to Javad
Javad is probably saying, "Double drat." Lightsquared shot down cost the instrument manufacturers a lot of future sales, Javad included.
I just read all of that today.
It's hard to evaluate his claims which could be self-serving.