A Satellite Navigation and Global Positioing Systems forum. Sat Nav Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Sat Nav Banter forum » GPS and Sat Nav Newsgroups » sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation) (sci.geo.satellite-nav) Discussion of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Topics include the technical aspects of GNSS operation, user experiences in the use of GNSS, information regarding GNSS products and discussion of GNSS policy (such as GPS selective availability).

Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 31st 14, 10:58 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 775
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3906


LightSquared, a Virginia firm that planned to build a nationwide
wireless broadband network until its signals were shown to interfere
with GPS receivers, has proposed a bankruptcy plan with financing
that depends on FCC approval. To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.


  #2  
Old February 1st 14, 04:00 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.


The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low sidelobes.

--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson

  #3  
Old February 1st 14, 08:26 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Joop[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.


The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.


On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


  #4  
Old February 1st 14, 08:38 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 2014.02.01, 16:26 , Joop wrote:
On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.


The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.


On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


Unfortunately, to the degree that the above is true, the horse bolted
the barn a long time ago.


--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson

  #5  
Old February 2nd 14, 08:49 AM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
J. J. Lodder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

Joop wrote:

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.


The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.


On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


Fourier forbids,

Jan
  #6  
Old February 2nd 14, 10:09 AM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Joop[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 2-2-2014 10:49, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Joop wrote:


On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


Fourier forbids,


With "wideband and unfiltered" i mean a bandwidth much larger that is
needed to pass a GPS signal. And thereby making it very suspectible to
overloading from earthly (nearby) non-gps signals.

  #7  
Old February 2nd 14, 01:32 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 2014.02.02, 04:49 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Joop wrote:

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.

The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.


On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


Fourier forbids,


Fourier forbids simplicity, not compromise.

--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson

  #8  
Old February 2nd 14, 05:30 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
J. J. Lodder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.02.02, 04:49 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Joop wrote:

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.

The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.

On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.


Fourier forbids,


Fourier forbids simplicity, not compromise.


There is no compromising with a near neighbour
who is many decades stronger,

Jan


  #9  
Old February 2nd 14, 07:04 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

On 2014.02.02, 13:30 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.02.02, 04:49 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Joop wrote:

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.

The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.

On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.

Fourier forbids,


Fourier forbids simplicity, not compromise.


There is no compromising with a near neighbour
who is many decades stronger,


You can filter with very sharp cutoff in front of the receiver at a cost
in components and receiver size. In some applications (esp. surveying)
it's not desirable as such filtering will reduce precision by a small
amount.

Whether it would have a great affect on aviation receivers, I'm not all
that sure - esp. since high precision approach would be with LAAS which
would easily compensate for whatever losses would occur with the sharp
cutoff filter.

OTOH, there are 10's of thousands of TSO'd GPS receivers installed so
the cost of retrofit and certification would be enormous.

For the telecoms industry it would be of high impact as well. (190,000
towers in the US alone - each tower having at least one GPS receiver -
usually several as there are several providers per tower).

The real issue is that spectrum was allocated for space based
transmission so by the time the signal reached the earth (incl.
airspace) the signal level would be tolerable to GPS receivers.

--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson

  #10  
Old February 2nd 14, 08:30 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
J. J. Lodder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default Congress, FCC Moves Closing Out Options for LightSquared

Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.02.02, 13:30 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

On 2014.02.02, 04:49 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
Joop wrote:

On 1-2-2014 18:00, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.01.31, 18:58 , Sam Wormley wrote:
To meet the financing conditions of the
plan, the commission must take half a dozen actions, including
approving the use of certain segments of spectrum and permitting
signal power limits comparable to other 4th Generation LTE wireless
communications networks.

The whole thing is magnificently perplexing.

It would seem to little old me that the best use of that spectrum is as
originally planned: from geostationary satellites with no more than a
few uplink locations with very directional antennas with very low
sidelobes.

On the other hand - the radio spectrum is getting more and more crowded
every day. It would be good for radio interoperability in general if
GPS receivers would be able to cope with strong signals on nearby
frequency's, or - at least - step away from using wideband and almost
unfiltered preamplifiers at the antenna.

Fourier forbids,

Fourier forbids simplicity, not compromise.


There is no compromising with a near neighbour
who is many decades stronger,


You can filter with very sharp cutoff in front of the receiver at a cost
in components and receiver size. In some applications (esp. surveying)
it's not desirable as such filtering will reduce precision by a small
amount.

Whether it would have a great affect on aviation receivers, I'm not all
that sure - esp. since high precision approach would be with LAAS which
would easily compensate for whatever losses would occur with the sharp
cutoff filter.

OTOH, there are 10's of thousands of TSO'd GPS receivers installed so
the cost of retrofit and certification would be enormous.

For the telecoms industry it would be of high impact as well. (190,000
towers in the US alone - each tower having at least one GPS receiver -
usually several as there are several providers per tower).

The real issue is that spectrum was allocated for space based
transmission so by the time the signal reached the earth (incl.
airspace) the signal level would be tolerable to GPS receivers.


Fourier dictates that his sidebands will be in your band.
No amount of filtering at the receiver side can cure that,

Jan

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 Sat Nav Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.