the comments on that article are priceless
I would not be surpised if LSQ has hired a PR firm that "comments" on all these articles. In every article, the comments section has 2 or 3 posters who parot the LSQ talking points to perfection ... "poorly designed recievers", "they were fully approved to operate", "10 cent filters solve the problem", etc., etc.
Having read the comments I do believe you are correct. Some sound like talking points direct from Light Squared.
exactly my thoughts
Lightsquared talkingpoint wonks
It's clear that LSQ and a certain GPS vendor may be facing some changes in their plans. They have a kind of similar approach in favoring loudness over substance.
Remember that it's an election year and LSQ still has millions to spend. All of those pro GPS federal agencies can change their tune or go dead silent with a phone call.
As for the GPS vendor, he has never had an actual marketing plan in history, but has just been our comet, coming in from the Oort Cloud or somewhere periodically with amazing news, published in multi page glossy magazine spreads about his latest developments which will revolutionize GPS. An opportunist, who possibly has picked a losing position.
We will likely know sometime this year.
Lightsquared talkingpoint wonks
OK, so which GPS company are you talking about?
That is a great question, how will that GPS manufacurer do in the future, I had looked at purchasing his equipment previously and now I would probably not consider it because of his stance on LS
It is not easy being green
GPS users warn wireless 4G would disrupt signals
A Question I should have asked much earlier .......
How far afield of Continental USA would this affect GPS Users ?
Thank you,
Derek
> How far afield of Continental USA would this affect GPS Users ?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Derek
It is my understanding that this would've been a global affect. LSQ was to provide 4G coverage anywhere on the planet.
YOS
Dugger
Not exactly true ... Lightsquared launched a geostationary satellite over north america that is supposed to give a wide coverage. I don't think that is expected to interfer with GPS, and if it did, then LSQ has a valid point.
I beleive the problem is Sat-Phone coverage is expensive, and LSQ is trying to overcome this problem by hanging their equipment on existing cell towers in a deal with Sprint. They want to offer the cheaper ground based service to avoid the cost of their satellite, and lack of demand for that service, running them into bankruptsy (like all the sat-phone companies before them ... ). Thing is, they want to use the same bands, and while GPS and Sat-Phones can and have coexisted nicely in the past, GPS can't overcome ground based transmitters blasting from nearby cell towers on adjacent freqs.
So, to answer the original question, space based LSQ transmisssions might cover Canada, but it's how close to a proposed LSQ cell tower that you are that's the real concern. I'm not sure a range has ever been specified as to how far away is far enough. Perhaps someone else knows. The other issue that's been raised is that hand held LSQ phones broadcasting back to the cell towers would be a problem. Not sure what the range is on that, either, though.
It's not clear to me how much area their terrestrial towers would cover. If they installed them outside the US, it would be a separate regulatory matter in each country. Canada could prevent them from installing any and avoid interference outside some distnace from the border.
The global coverage would be via satellite signals, which aren't the interference problem, but would have limited capacity.
This arcticle explains how the coverage in the US would have worked, or not.
Looks like they had previously postponed their international ambitions., but it worries people in other countries if they are next ont he hit list.
And it would be the handset for the satelite portion of their plan that could cause interference to GPS on the ground, and we'd never know if one was nearby or not.
It certainly is an issue here in Europe too,
it was discussed at our yearly survey & GIS convention in November last year.
It was (and is) not clear to me if, here in Europe, it would be Lightsquared or some other company with the same intentions we will have to deal with.
But if the US that did set up the GPS system then so many years later is not able to keep the system free from interference from LSQ and fails to keep the global bandwidth operational (whatever the reasons may be) who are we then in Europe (and in the rest of the world) to stop such companies.
chr.
Testing was Rigged!!!
Testing was Rigged!!!
FCC was also rigged.:-(
Thomas, who is a paid consultant for LightSquared
From the linked piece:
"Thomas, who is a paid consultant for LightSquared"
