backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Dec 19 at 8:38 PM


LightSquared deals with continued GPS interference  (Source: engadget.com)
U.S. officials say no additional testing is needed to prove the existence of harmful interference

A recent government study found that the LightSquared Inc. wireless service interrupted 75 percent of global-positioning system (GPS) receivers.

LightSquared Inc. is a company looking to offer a wholesale 4G LTE wireless broadband communications network with satellite coverage in the United States. It was founded by Philip Falcone and has had interference issues for years now. Just this year alone, interference concerns were raised by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), USAF Space Command, and the U.S. GPS Industry Council.

Now, a test conducted by the U.S. government has shown that 69 of 92 (75 percent) of receivers experienced "harmful interference" at the equivalent of 100 meters from a LightSquared base station. It was deemed that millions of GPS units were incompatible with the LightSquared service, and it could affect cars, planes, boats and tractors.

The test was performed from October 31 to November 4 for the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Systems Engineering Forum, which advises policy makers about GPS issues. The Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration took part in the testing, as well as companies like Garmin Ltd., Trimble Navigation Ltd., Deere & Co., and General Motor Co.'s OnStar unit.

"LightSquared signals caused harmful interference to majority of GPS receivers tested," said U.S. officials in a draft prepared for the review of the LightSquared proposal. "No additional testing is required to confirm harmful interference exists."

LightSquared has proposed that it operate at a reduced power than the levels used during the testing. With low power usage, LightSquared believes its services would only affect 10 percent of devices.

Sources: Business Week, SlashGear



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 10% ???
By DT_Reader on 12/12/2011 2:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
What you're missing is that if the GPS folks had played by the rules and used proper filtering in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. But when GPS began there was no LightSquared, so they cheaped out on the filters since there was nothing there to filter. Now a legitimate user of the neighboring spectrum wants to open shop and they are screaming "No!" solely on the basis of squatter's rights.

Nothing that LightSquared is doing is wrong, it's the GPS receiver makers who made the mistake, and they want LightSquared to pay for it. We taxpayers pay for it, too, because now that's spectrum the FCC can't sell to anyone, and you can bet the GPS people (the squatters) aren't going to pay for it either.

I say let LightSquared use their spectrum and if anyone has problems they can take it up with the maker of their GPS unit. These tests are meaningless unless they were conducted with GPS receivers that meet their (well known but ignored) filtering requirements.


RE: 10% ???
By JediJeb on 12/12/2011 3:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not to say the GPS Unit makers are not wrong in how they designed their units, but if they did design them properly would we still be giving GPS receivers as stocking stuffers or would they still be considered as high end gadgets only companies and rich people played with?


RE: 10% ???
By semiconshawn on 12/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: 10% ???
By Solandri on 12/12/2011 5:35:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What you're missing is that if the GPS folks had played by the rules and used proper filtering in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. But when GPS began there was no LightSquared, so they cheaped out on the filters since there was nothing there to filter.

No. The spectrum owned by LightSquared was originally used by Inmarsat to communicate with satellites. The satellite signals were about as weak as GPS signals. And the ground station broadcasts to satellites were highly directional. Other bands in that spectrum were reserved for amateur communications to satellites, so again, a similar type of use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared#Spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_band#Telecommunicat...

GPS receivers were designed with filters adequate to remove this low level of noise at those frequencies. In 2004 LightSquared got permission from the FCC to repurpose the spectrum for land-based cellular data services. Essentially, the FCC gave them permission to blast away at those frequencies at energy levels thousands of times higher than originally allowed, omnidirectionally instead of pointed straight up. This is what's causing the interference with GPS. The GPS receivers at the time were designed to filter out the FCC-mandated maximum level of noise from those adjacent frequencies. It's the FCC (at LightSquared's behest) which raised those maximums far beyond levels where existing equipment can cope.

Also, many electrical engineers in the industry have come forward to state unequivocally that the frequencies are so close and LightSquared's proposed broadcast signal strengths so high that it is literally impossible to filter it out so that there is no degradation of GPS service. The units which fared well in the test are probably bigger units with better antennas and more power for electronic filtering and signal processing. If LightSquared's project goes live, you can probably kiss the GPS in your phone goodbye.


RE: 10% ???
By knutjb on 12/13/2011 1:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The units which fared well in the test are probably bigger units with better antennas and more power for electronic filtering and signal processing. If LightSquared's project goes live, you can probably kiss the GPS in your phone goodbye.
What about those in cars, boats, or worse yet aircraft. Changing these kind of standards in such a rushed manner is dubious at best but prevent drilling for oil or running a pipeline without an extra decade just to make sure it's safe. Hmm....


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki