This is from an email from Frank Webb of JPL to Yehuda Bock of CSRC (California Spatial Resource Center), which Mr. Bock then forwarded to the CSRC email list...
Frank wrote, (copy and paste directly from the email) "...I was in DC at the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board meeting last week (agenda at http://www.pnt.gov/advisory/2011/06/) at which the LightSquared issue was discussed. Mr. Robert Frazier, Spectrum Planning and International Office, FAA presented "Initial Results of RTCA Testing & Analysis of LightSquared Effects on GPS". He was followed by Mr. Jim Kirkland, Vice President and General Counsel, Trimble Navigation, and Mr. Jeff Carlisle, Exec. VP for Regulatory Affairs & Public Policy, LightSquared.
The discussion following the clear evidence of interference focused mostly on who was licensed to do what by the FCC when, how that seems to have evolved, the impact, and mitigation strategies. As the spacenews article indicated, there was no disputing of the fact that there is interference,
"Jeff Carlisle, LightSquared’s vice president of regulatory and public affairs, did not dispute the specific technical methods or findings of either report. But he said the interference issue could be mitigated by network modifications including lowering the power ceiling for the ground-based transmitters of LightSquared’s network"
There seemed to be a general sense among the board members that common sense should prevail and, as the spacenews article stated, "The only remaining viable solution ... would be for LightSquared to acquire the rights to another part of the electromagnetic spectrum in which to deploy its ground network..."
Frank"
All this time, I was wondering why doesn't the FCC just trade the spectrum Lightsquared has now for a more viable range so they can build the service without any interference. I suppose money is a factor and the FCC isn't going to JUST TRADE anything. It would seem that this press for approval by Lightsquared is using up time and resources of those organizations that have to prove the proposed service will render GPS technology nonfunctional.
This situation with Lightsquared is going to be an example of who has the power to control what the FCC decides.
Will it be to allow Lightsquared to do what they want?
Will congress or anyone else be able to control the FCC?
Will the public's concerns be any factor or will the public be told what to do by the FCC as in the past?
I did learn that from an email from a senator that it may require a rewrite of federal communications law to resolve the issue.
Apparently, the income that the cities receive from telecommunication r/w fees and tax revenues have a lot of impact on what happens.
Here is a link to a letter from 33 US Senators to the FCC. This was from May, but I hadn't seen it until just this week.
https://surveyorconnect.com/https://surveyorconnect.com/images/uploaded/Senate_letter_to_FCC_.pdf
Some commentators believe the "Trade" solution was Lightsquared's strategy all along. If they make a big enough problem, maybe they will get the right piece of expensive spectrum in trade for the cheap spectrum they bought license for.
My gut tells me that common sense will prevail and that the ground portion of LightSquared will be assigned another part of the band. I also expect the FCC to say "Woops, our bad, but we have already issued permits", so we will swap your permitted band for this other area which should have cost 10 times more than you paid. This could have been the strategy all along by LightSquared. I'm not a big conspiracy person but when it comes to big business and our government then it would not surprise me in the least.
I suppose if they stay the course though then I'll just put up my Tom-Tom GPS and resort to the earlier Viking model called "Erik-Erik". 