LightSquared Requests New GPS Rules, AT&T Factors In

The controversial cellular start-up LightSquared requested Monday that the FCC create and implement rules clarifying the current "uncertainty" surrounding GPS devices and the adjacent spectrum they listen in on. 

LightSquared claimed impropriety last month in the tests performed by nine federal departments and agencies which summarized in a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) there are "no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LigthSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months - or years - without significantly interfering with GPS."

Jeff Carlisle, Light Squared's executive vice president of regulatory affairs and public policy holds that because GPS devices are unlicensed, they should not be protected under FCC rules from interference from adjacent and nearby users. 

According to Urgent Communications, it is unlikely that this filing will change any part of the decision-making process.  GPS advocates claim that although the devices are not licensed, they are operating on authorized spectrum, and the real issue is LightSquared stepping beyond the normal use of satellite spectrum to terrestrial use.


Read LightSquared's filing for yourself here.

LightSquared Threatens Legal Action

Jeff Carlisle, VP of regulatory affairs and public policy at LightSquared, told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that the company's next step will be legal action if the Commission rejects their planned nationwide broadband network. 

In a briefing on Monday, Carlisle also told reporters that any interference caused by the LightSquared network is due to the GPS devices picking up frequencies outside of their designated band.  Even when operating on the lower 10 MHz of spectrum furthest away from GPS frequencies, the 40,000 sites that would make up their nationwide network would render most high-precision devices useless without some type of filter. 

Last month, LightSquared announced that it will market Javad GNSS filters for positioning applications by November 2011, followed by filters for precision timing devices by March 2012.  There's no doubt that the company will profit considerably from this new technology, and many are asking whether or not this profit will come from taxpayers' pockets or if LightSquared will be footing most the bill to prevent interference from their network, similar to Sprint Nextel's rebanding debacle. 

Economics of the Wholesale Network
According to Total Tele, LightSquared needs $3.5 billion to remain cash positive over the next two years, an amouint which CEO is confident they will be able to raise.  LightSquared claims to have $150 million earmarked for fixing the interference issue, but some wonder if that will be sufficient.   The company's network will allow wireless carriers to purchase signal wholesale for $6/G (giving them at least a 50% revenue margin on their charges to customers).  The company's recently signed deal with Sprint Nextel saves them $13 billion on buildout from the ground up.


With LightSquared's filter solution Public Safety and Homeland Security communications departments would be compromised in the name of private interest, either just logistically or as some fear, logistically and financially. 

The question FCC officials must ask themselves is simple:  will the benefit of a nationwide broadband network (allowing companies like AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon to increase their profit margin) outweigh the cost of retrofitting each high-precision Public Safety GPS receiver? And once they have the answer, will they stand up for what they determine to be in the public's best interest?

Pay No Attention to the Billionaire(s) Behind the Curtain!

LightSquared, the wholesale satellite and terrestrial carrier at the center of the GPS interference issue signed an agreement with Javad GNSS to eliminate interference issues with high-precision GPS devices imperative for operations of first responders. 

The solution?  A high-precision GPS device which is said to be invulnerable to the interference created by their nationwide LTE network, designed and sold by the company itself.  The military personnel  and first responders should be thrilled to spend tax dollars purchasing this new, albeit beneficial, solution - directly from the creators of the problem. 

This is just the most recent proposal from LightSquared, a finale to the attempted side-stepping, then spectrum shifts, then the claim of a 10-cent filter that can be installed to eliminate interference. 
Phillip Falcone, the billionaire backer of LightSquared, claims that 10-cent filter installed into each affected device would resolve the interference issue, but despite GPS advocates' requests to obtain the device for testing, it has never appeared.  Certainly General William Shelton, head of Air Force Space Command, would like to see this simple solution at work.  He gave a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last week, outlining the results of the interference testing. 

Shelton claims that he was pressured to give a testimony more favorable to LightSquared, but instead of bowing to the pressure, he expounded the details of adverse effects LightSquared's proposed network has on GPS devices, and it's not pretty. 


LightSquared blames the GPS industry for the problem, claiming the manufacturers should have heeded the 2008 Department of Defense recommendation on filtering technology for new GPS devices.  Developing filtering standards may be a good idea with or without LightSquared's network in the picture, however at this time there are no filtering standards in place to abide by, only recommendations.  Whether or not abiding by these standards will solve the interference problem remains to be seen.


Falcone is now attracting the attention of House Republicans concerned about impropriety of White House interactions for LightSquared to obtain Federal loans.  The mogul's $30,400 donation (as well as his wife's and his C.E.O. at LightSquared's matching donations) to the Democratic campaign organizations certainly appear to be unethical, or atleast bad timing, as they were made on the same day as a meeting with White House staffers in 2009. 


LightSquared is also catching the attention of Republican Senators wondering how this most recently proposed solution will be funded.  In his open letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) expresses his concerns regarding how the FCC is handling LightSquared:    "My concern regarding LightSquared’s application to create a terrestrial 4G network is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appears not to have taken sufficient steps to safeguard the American taxpayer and appears to have let LightSquared off the hook regarding the multi-billion cost to retrofit GPS receivers to block out LightSquared’s terrestrial network."


Sen. Grassley also goes on to question who will be footing the bill for the retrofitting GPS receivers, the answer to which impacts tax payers, the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as other military and Public Safety/Homeland Security agencies. 

It should be noted that the House Representative, Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) calling these donations into question receives donations to his own campaign of tens of thousands of dollars from AT&T.
Politics don't belong in public safety, but unfortunately issues such as this one could have a significant effect on operations of our military and first responders.  Personally, we don't care who wins the fight as long as it's in the best interest of the public.  LightSquared expects to have 25 of their new devices available within the next two weeks, and the investigation into the company's dealings with the White House is well under way. 


Read the most recent report on the interference study, straight from the source.

More Wholesale Agreements for LightSquared

After the announcement of a 15-year, multibillion dollar agreement with Sprint Nextel, LightSquared announced last week that it signed its 14th multiyear wholesale agreement- with VoX Communications. 

According to Frank Boulben, LightSquared's chief marketing officer, the company is currently the only carrier offering 4G LTE on a wholesale basis, making them attractive to customers across the country hoping to compete with AT&T and Verizon 4G. 

LightSquared is reportedly in contract negotiations with 22 other entities and initial talks with 30 others.  The company's nationwide broadband network is scheduled to launch during the second half of 2012.  Where 4G is not available during deployment, customers will be able to use Sprint's 3G network, enabling nationwide coverage even if deployment is not yet complete.

LightSquared has signed agreements with wireless carriers that lack a 4G migration path but are still hoping to compete with Verizon and AT&T and with some wireline communication providers.  Internet service providers and some retailers such as Best Buy have expressed interest.  The previously offered satellite push-to-talk services for Public Safety will continue from LightSquared, and the company plans to enhance this capability with push-to-talk offered via applications over LTE.  The goal is to offer all of these capabilities on a single device powered by Qualcomm chipsets and possibly other vendors.  The cost of ownership for first responders carrying two handsets would be decrased with one unified device offering regular cell service, data, and satellite service.

Analyst Claims Key Staff Excluded from FCC's LightSquared Proceedings

Patrick Comack, an analyst from an investment research company in Florida says that FCC staffers he spoke to directly were "very upset" about the waiver granted to billionaire Phillip Falcone's satellite broadband company LightSquared to test its planned nationwide network.

The Commission strongly denies the claim, stating the allegations are based on personal motives. 

The January 2011 waiver in question granted LightSquared conditional authority to proceed with construction for their network, despite warnings from the GPS industry that the network as planned would cause harmful interference with key aviation, aerospace, and other GPS technologies.  The conditions of the waiver prohibited the network's activation until "harmful" interference issues with GPS were resolved.  Their warnings have turned out to be accurate based on multiple reports from third party agencies.  LightSquared's recent proposed solution was met with criticism from various GPS and Public Safety advocates, due to its ineffective nature. 

Comack has stood by his allegations in subsequent interviews.  He says he does not have any personal investments in telecommunications, satellite, or GPS companies.  His company does not invest in them either.  His primary job is to make recommendations to other clients about which stocks to buy or sell.  He currently has a "buy" recommendation on Clearwire, because he believes it will compete well with LightSquared.  In the past he has projected that Sprint Nextel will ultimately buy Clearwire, which would be a big win for his investors. 

According to the Washington Post article, the FCC's spokeswoman Tammy Sun said, "These are patently false allegations from an individual whose interests are clearly compromised.  The FCC's expert staff will continue to run an open, transparent and inclusive process to address interference issues around LightSquared's proposal, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in economic investment."

Sun said that there were three departments that jointly drafted the waiver that set LightSquared on the development fast-track.  Comack's claim does not deny that these departments were consulted, but says that the review process that normally takes place on a decision of this nature was not followed, and there are key expert staffers in the International Bureau who are upset that they were not consulted, as is normal protocol.

Comack says his recommendation to invest in Clearwire does not point to a compromise of his credibility.  In his response to the counter-allegations, he says, "Why would I lie?  I'm putting myself out there."

The most recent solution LightSquared has proposed calls for GPS technology providers themselves to use filtering technology to avoid interference. 

Congress has recently stepped into the process and passed a ruling that prohibits the FCC from spending any resources even considering the network while reports are still showing the possibility (and likelihood) of harmful interference.

European Commission Concerned About Light Squared

In a letter addressed to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a European Commission (EC) official outlined concerns about the LightSquared nationwide LTE network, which has been under fire for reported GPS interference and frozen at the FCC by Congress. 

Europe's satellite system, Galileo, is planned to launch by 2015.  In the letter the EC explained that a terrestrial network in mobile satellite service (MSS) spectrum would alter the nature of transmissions in that band.  The neighboring MSS signals are currently operating at similar receive power levels.  If LightSquared launches their network as planned, these transmissions would increase in magnitude- which could severely disrupt the reception of the Galileo system as well as GPS operations.  Galileo receivers in place in the United States will likely be affected by harmful interference from LightSquared base stations, according to the European Space Agency analysis. 

In June, LightSquared submitted a report to the FCC outlining the interference issues, and a three- part solution to the problem.  The report was met with much criticism by authorities across the industry, including the Coalition to Save Our GPS. 

Andrew Seybold: LightSquared System is a Potential Disaster

This post was used with Andrew Seybold's permission, from Andrewseybold.com.

 Okay, I admit it. I don’t believe LightSquared should be permitted to use what was supposed to be satellite spectrum for a terrestrial broadband network. Not only that, I don’t believe LightSquared has a sound business plan. Building more than 40,000 cell sites, maintaining them, and reselling the bandwidth to others who want to sell it to their customers does not pencil out in my book. The margins will be too slim, especially given the fact that prices for both voice and broadband services keep falling in the United States so margins will continue to be squeezed. But apart from a faulty business plan, the main reason I am opposed to LightSquared’s plan to build this network is that if there is the slightest chance it will interfere with GPS receivers, it simply should not be permitted to be built.


"...if LightSquared is permitted to build out its system it can only result in a potential disaster that will take years and cost billions of dollars to resolve if it can be resolved at all."


The history of wireless is littered with examples where the FCC acted on a request by a vendor, approved the deployment of a system, and later learned that the new system created interference to other services. The most notable of these mistakes by the FCC is the ongoing saga of the Nextel service. Nextel started out providing Specialized Mobile Radio services (SMR) for two-way radio systems as Fleet Call and then was re-invented to become a full cellular service but not in a cellular band. In fact, as Nextel went around the country and bought up other SMR operators’ systems (each one covering a specific local area), it amassed channels that were intermingled with other SMR operators, as well as fire and police radio systems.

Nextel’s founders worked hard to convince both Congress and the FCC that this type of system would be compatible with the existing users in the 800-MHz frequency band. Since there were only two cellular operators for a city at that point in time, both the FCC and Congress approved the concept in order to bring more competition into the cellular market. During the discussions, fire, police, and many SMR operators pointed out that Nextel’s cell towers would cause interference to these other services but their warnings fell on deaf ears.

If you were the FCC Chairman, would you permit LightSquared to continue? I, for one, would not.

The system was rolled out and, in fact, it caused significant interference to others in the same band including public safety. The reason was simple: SMR and public safety systems made use of tall towers or mountain top sites and only a few of them per city. The radios were high power and the systems worked well. Then Nextel began building towers using the cellular model, which is lots of towers at low locations in order to provide service over wide areas. The result was that when an SMR or public safety radio was within sight of a Nextel cell site, or even close to one, the cell site put out so much power 24/7 that the Nextel signals interfered with public safety and SMR radios and in many cases put public safety personnel in danger.

The solution, which is still ongoing today, was to re-band this portion of the spectrum moving Nextel’s frequencies to a contiguous block of spectrum instead of permitting Nextel to be intermingled with the other services. A lot of this re-banding, as it is called, has been completed but not without Nextel and now Sprint/Nextel having to spend billions of dollars and huge logistical issues for both public safety and SMR systems. Some areas of the country have not completed the re-banding process, including along both our borders where the process must also include coordination with either Mexico or Canada, and then there are many areas where there are disputes about the cost of re-banding or radio replacement.

Nextel got its way based on the belief in Washington at the time that we needed more than two cellular operators in order to create more competition and therefore lower prices. After Nextel was approved, the PCS spectrum (1900 MHz) was auctioned again to ensure more competitors in every market. Fortunately, the 1900-MHz users were relocated by the auction winners so there were no further interference issues.

Fast forward to 2011. The FCC’s broadband report says that we need more commercial and unlicensed broadband spectrum. The FCC’s OBI (Omnibus Broadband Initiative) has cited that in the United States we will be more than 200 MHz of broadband spectrum short to meet the demand by 2013, and the FCC says it will “find” 300 MHz of spectrum within five years and another 200 MHz within another five years. Further, there are two other attitudes in DC that influence the decision-making process. The first is the belief (which I disagree with) that broadband services will replace all wireless services going forward and therefore broadband is the most important form of wireless communications going forward. The other belief is the more competition there is in every market in the United States the lower the pricing will be for all customers. Neither of these beliefs is grounded in reality or can be proven but that does not matter. What matters is perception.

When LightSquared went to the FCC, as you can see, the FCC was already predisposed to approve both more broadband spectrum availability and more competition, especially since LightSquared is to be a wholesaler of broadband services. This will permit smaller competitors to compete against the larger nationwide network operators, at least on a local basis. It is no wonder that the FCC issued LightSquared its waiver to convert satellite spectrum into a full-blown terrestrial network as opposed to a previous ruling that would permit LightSquared to augment its satellite coverage with a few terrestrial sites. The warnings from the experts, once again, went unanswered, and the FCC issued the waiver.

Now, after the fact, the FCC and LightSquared are facing opposition from Congress, a collation of GPS companies, the aircraft industry, the Department of Justice, the Public Safety community and even the farmers who use precision GPS in growing their crops. Perhaps the good news is that the network has not been built yet and the hue and cry is growing louder by the day. The results of the first set of tests proved, beyond a doubt, that the first portion of the spectrum LightSquared intended to use for terrestrial broadband would have wiped out GPS reception within a few miles of each cell site and in the air as well.

Now LightSquared has filed its report, all 1200+ pages of it, and working my way through it is a challenge. It has said it will move to a different portion of its spectrum that is further away from the GPS band, and claims that in this portion of the band it will not interfere with 99.5% of the GPS devices. The fact that it WILL interfere with even, as they state, 0.5% of the devices should be reason enough not to grant permits to build the network. The other item of interest to me is that LightSquared now claims that it is the fault of the GPS vendors for building GPS receivers without the proper type of filtering in them.

I take issue with this point because the GPS band is in the satellite band and the GPS system was never intended to have to worry about interference from terrestrial transmitters. Because the GPS band is 20 MHz wide and uses spread spectrum technology, filtering these devices will take a lot of engineering if it is even possible. Meanwhile, if LightSquared is permitted to build out on this spectrum there is no guarantee there will not be interference to more than the 0.5% of devices it claims. The statistics it cites are not based on extensive testing, nor is this number substantiated properly in anything I can find.

The bottom line, to me, is that when non-technical people make decisions about wireless technology, which they do not understand or comprehend, and for the reasons stated above, if LightSquared is permitted to build out its system it can only result in a potential disaster that will take years and cost billions of dollars to resolve if it can be resolved at all.

There is no doubt that we need additional broadband spectrum to meet the growing demand for broadband services. However, endangering GPS, which is used for many different things including locating us when we call 911, is not the right way to go about this. We must take all the time needed to make 100% sure that there is no potential of interference, not 99.5%. I believe the best option is to deny LightSquared’s waiver, withdraw it, and let it find or purchase other spectrum that might be available at auction.

Clearwire is trying to raise money and has expressed a willingness to sell some of its spectrum holdings. I suggest that LightSquared make a deal with Clearwire and see if it can make its business model work on spectrum that does not have the potential to disrupt so many things we do each day, including saving lives. If you were the FCC Chairman, would you permit LightSquared to continue? I, for one, would not.

Andrew M. Seybold

LightSquared's Solution Plan Met with Criticism

LightSquared announced plans to rework its nationwide broadband network, migrating to the lower 10 MHz of its L-band spectrum holdings as a solution to multiple reports of GPS interference.

LightSquared was recently granted an extension on studies required by the FCC on the company's alleged interferenced with GPS signals, and the company cosummated a $20 billion network sharing deal with Sprint Nextel. 

Although the company plans to be a major player in the future of LTE, their network has been plagued with GPS interference since its first tests.  Instead of using the satellite spectrum adjacent to GPS channels, LightSquared recently worked a deal with Inmarsat, allowing it access to the lower band sooner than expected.  This solution could possibly save the company's business plan to launch its network in the first half of next year. 

In its statement, LightSquared claims that its tests have shown that the lower 10 MHz of spectrum is "largely free" of interference.  The company admits that some high precision GPS devices are specifically programmed to operate on the channels owned by LightSquared, and their studies show these devices will be still be affected. 

Although the FCC declined to comment, one of the founders of the Coalition to Save Our GPS was very outspoken in his response to LightSquared's plan.  Jim Kirkland of Trimble claims that the spectrum still interferes with many GPS devices, including the aforementioned high precision receivers. 

The second part of lightSquared's solution involves amending its FCC license to reduce its maximum authorized base-station transmitter power by 50%. 

The company claims that this plan is one that will allow them to proceed with the launch of their network, while protecting GPS signal.  Although the FCC has continually backed LightSquared's progress towards the launch, Coalition and other GPS advocates still hold that critical GPS capabilitiers will be compromised.

Sprint Goes to Bed with LightSquared

According to fiercewireless.com, Sprint Nextel signed a 15-year deal with LightSquared to build and share the company's nationwide network.  The agreement is worth an estimated $20 billion and will secure a spot for Sprint as a wholesale user of LightSquared.  Sprint will help to develop, deploy, and operate the new 4G LTE network, according to Philip Falcone of Harbinger Capital Partners, which funds lightSquared's project. 

Sources such as the Wall Street Jouranl and the New York Times also reported on the partnership, which will make serious waves in the wireless communications industry.  Sprint competitors Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility are already in the process of deploying their LTE networks.  Sprint's current partner Clearwire provides use of its WiMAX network, but market analysts say the LightSquared partnership is a step back from the long-time agreement.  It has also been hypothesized that Sprint will continue its use of WiMAX as a support to its long-term data needs.

The recent reports of GPS interference from LightSquared are somewhat reminiscent of the ten year old reports of Public Safety interference from Sprint, cause of the long, grueling nationwide rebanding project.  For the sake of a company that has a significant history of interference with critical infrastructure spectrum, here's to hoping LightSquared is successful in finding solutions to the interference issue.

Andrew Seybold: Will LightSquared Survive?

The following commentary was posted on June 6, 2011 on AndrewSeybold.com:
Okay, so LightSquared has the blessing of the FCC Commissioners to build out a wholesale LTE network using satellite spectrum that is mostly terrestrial and a small part satellite (the data rates for satellite will disappoint for sure). It is obvious to me that the FCC Commissioners never asked the Chief Engineer or his staff if there would be any problem with the service in the next band down, which happens to be the GPS band, before issuing the waiver to LightSquared.

GPS is a receive-only service that relies on the ability to “see” three or more satellites to report a current location. If more satellites are in view, the system can also determine the altitude of the device and the speed and direction of its travel. However, if the GPS signals are being interfered with near LightSquared’s cell sites (it is proposing more than 50,000), those who rely on GPS will have problems. Recent tests of the LightSquared network in New Mexico verified that interference issues do exist.

If people cannot receive a GPS signal, actually multiple GPS signals, then the system does not function. Not only do the people with GPS receivers no longer know where they are, neither does their boss. If they have to call 9-1-1 for an emergency, those answering the phone don’t know where they are either. The radio signals from satellites (GSP satellites and others) are not very strong and any interference to them will wipe them out and prevent them from being received. Except for those designed for military service, GPS receivers don’t have very good receivers. They are not able to filter out interference well (they have not needed to in the past), and in order to get the price point for GPS systems low enough to be built into every cell phone and handheld and dash-mounted device, the receivers have not been built to reject signals in the next band over. So if LightSquared is permitted to move forward with its nationwide rollout, the consequences could be devastating to anyone who relies on GPS services for location, attitude, speed, and direction of travel.

Adding all of these things together, my outlook for LightSquared is bleak to say the least. If I add in the fact that its spectrum, which has the potential to interfere with GPS receivers, has therefore lost most of its value as an asset, it is difficult to understand how the company believes it can succeed.

First responders use GPS on a daily basis for finding locations. For example, medevac helicopters are directed to a location to pick up seriously injured patients. If they cannot use their GPS system they are blind and don’t know where to respond. Taxis use GPS so their location can be known to the company, truckers use GPS to find locations, FedEx, UPS, and other delivery services use GPS, and many of us have GPS systems built into our vehicles or we own a GPS device that sits on our dashboard. If the LightSquared spectrum is built out, the chances of wide-spread interference are very real.

Since the FCC issued the waiver to LightSquared, the company contends that it can minimize any interference, but the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal Government agencies have called for the rescinding of the LightSquared waiver to operate a terrestrial system in spectrum that was originally set aside for satellite communications. Even Congress is now in the battle with more than 30 Congressional leaders calling for the FCC to revoke the waiver. In recent New Mexico tests this interference was confirmed.

Meanwhile, LightSquared has indicated that it is heading for an IPO and that it has contracts to provide wholesale fourth-generation broadband to a number of smaller network operators including SI Wireless, Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and others. These companies, none of which have enough of their own spectrum to build out LTE or 4G networks, are planning on wholesaling network capacity from LightSquared. But if the spectrum LightSquared is counting on for its network is not available, what does LightSquared do and what does its partners do?

Well, LightSquared is in talks with AT&T and Sprint to wholesale 4G capacity on these networks. This seems like a logical idea until you step back and look at the economics involved. If LightSquared buys capacity from AT&T, for example, then LightSquared becomes, in reality, a Mobile Virtual Network Operator or MVNO. If it then sells this capacity to its partners, its partners will have to pay a premium for the capacity they could probably obtain directly from AT&T for less than they will pay LightSquared and LightSquared’s business model becomes even more tenuous than it was before.

If LightSquared builds out its network, even with tower sharing and other cost savings, a nationwide network will cost it about $15 billion to build and that is on the low side. Verizon has stated that it has already invested that much and it has existing infrastructure to use to help lower the costs of deployment. Once the network is built, the average monthly cost per cell site for rent, power, insurance, and other costs will be about $6K per month and that is also on the low side). This means LightSquared’s monthly site costs will run about $24 million or nearly $300 million per year. That is before profit and does not include company overhead and other costs. LTE requires either fiber or microwave to and from each cell site and that cost will also be substantial.

If LightSquared leases capacity on someone else’s network it will not have to pay construction or ongoing operational costs, but then its margins will be a lot slimmer, having to buy capacity and then resell it to its partners. I don’t think this business model is very viable either, and if the demand for broadband continues and the company LightSquared is buying capacity from starts having capacity issues of its own, will LightSquared actually get all the capacity for which it has contracted? My guess is that LightSquared becomes a secondary citizen on the network and that if capacity becomes an issue, it will be the first to have to give some up. The other capacity issue is that if LightSquared resells this capacity to four or five other network operators, will they have enough capacity to service their own customer base as broadband demand continues to increase? Either way, it seems to me that this is a very risky business model.

The history of MVNOs is littered with failures. The ones remaining have, for the most part, been purchased by the network operator that was providing capacity to the MVNO in the first place, and once it was determined that the business model was flawed, the MVNO either folded its tent and went home or its customers were absorbed into the parent network. Historically, the MVNO business has not been successful and I don’t see this model as one that leads me to believe things will be different this time around.

Adding all of these things together, my outlook for LightSquared is bleak to say the least. If I add in the fact that its spectrum, which has the potential to interfere with GPS receivers, has therefore lost most of its value as an asset, it is difficult to understand how the company believes it can succeed. Yet It remains bullish and is talking about a future IPO and how bright its income future is. I, for one, don’t believe LightSquared will remain a viable entity. It appears to have been blinded in its judgment by the fact that wireless broadband is growing rapidly, there is no end in sight for this increased demand, and the FCC has recognized that more broadband spectrum will be needed as soon as possible.

The FCC and others in the Federal Government seem to believe we need additional competitors in the wireless space; having more competition will continue to drive down the cost of voice and data services to business and consumer users. In reality, today’s wireless customers in the United States continue to pay some of the lowest rates for wireless voice and data services in the world. Yes, we are entering a new era where unlimited data plans are being withdrawn in favor of plans that limit the amount of data allocated to a single user on a monthly basis, but this is necessary in order for network operators to provide more of their customer base with more access to broadband, and it is one way that broadband demand can be managed in order to accomplish this goal.

The FCC continues to look for additional spectrum as it should since we do need it and we need it as soon as possible. I am sure that LightSquared’s proposal to the FCC was met with much enthusiasm since it would provide additional broadband capacity at the very time it is needed. But if the LightSquared spectrum is deemed unusable for terrestrial broadband service, as I believe it will be, then LightSquared does not bring additional capacity with it when it launches its service. It will simply place a bigger burden on the existing spectrum in terms of capacity demand.

LightSquared would be better served to try to purchase spectrum that is not being used for broadband at the moment. Clearwire has a lot of unused spectrum in the 2.5-GHz band and it needs money, the FCC can auction the AWS-2 and 3 Bands, and the FCC already has spectrum in a number of areas in the country that did not sell at auction or that was taken back because the winning bidder either did not meet the payment requirements of an auction or did not meet the build-out requirements.

We need more wireless spectrum for broadband and we need it soon; the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is about spectrum assets just as the Cingular/AT&T merger was before it. There are only a few ways to obtain more broadband capacity for customers—use more spectrum if it is available, build more cell sites closer together, or a combination of the two. Spectrum is, indeed, a finite resource and demand for wireless broadband services is growing quarter-over-quarter, but that does not mean we should jeopardize an important system such as GPS in order to help fill the void. Instead we need to look at how to get more spectrum that is better suited for wireless broadband into the market as quickly as possible.

We should learn from our past. When Nextel was born by converting spectrum used for land mobile radio systems (LMR) to a cellular architecture, the network caused a lot of interference to existing Land Mobile Radio systems in the same portion of the spectrum. The fix was to reband this spectrum and put all of the Nextel channels together so they would no longer interfere with LMR customers, many of which are public safety agencies. This fix has been in the works for more than five years, has cost Sprint/Nextel more than $3 billion, and will not be completed in some areas of the United States for a few more years. We cannot afford to have this type of interference issue surface again because a company or a federal agency believes that more broadband competition is vital to our wireless broadband future.

LightSquared should not be permitted to build a network in the spectrum adjacent to the GPS service. Every transmitter ever made transmits not only on the portion of the spectrum for which it was designed, it also injects noise into the adjacent spectrum. This is simply the way radio frequency devices work. If there are two broadband systems next to each other most of the time, this interference can be minimized. However, when you put a broadband system right next to the GPS service on which the receivers are searching for low-powered signals from multiple satellites, you are asking for trouble. The goal should be to provide additional spectrum for broadband without causing problems for other services. I do not believe that can be accomplished in this case.

Andrew M. Seybold

Used with Andrew Seybold's permission.

Public Safety: Possible Solution for GPS Interference

A network synchornization company, Symmetricom, proposed a solution to the recent claims of interference by new technology from LightSquared.  The company plans to launch a nationwide LTE network using existing L-band satellite spectrum, which may cause problems for first responders, as well as anyone using GPS.  Other options such as installing filters and moving GPS antennas have been considered, but Symmetricom recommends using a packet-based primary-reference source synchronization solution (PRS), such as its Time Provider 1500 product, which uses utilizes IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP). 

Because GPS is not required at Packet PRS locations to ensure accurate timing, Symmetricom believes the solution will completely eliminate any interference.  Time Division Duplexing (TDS) has formerly been the standard for synchronizing networks, but networks migrating to ethernet has "broken the chain of synchronization," and requires implementing real-time clocks to sync. 

To read more about Symmetricom's proposed solution, see last week's Urgent Communications article.

Spectrum: LightSquared Under Scrutiny for GPS Interference

Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) published a letter on April 14th requesting support from their colleagues to ask the FCC to take more responsibility for the controversial LightSquared network that reportedly causes interference and even blockage of GPS signals.  The issue, which currently falls into the hands of a subagency, causes great risk to public safety, and would benefit from the care of the full commission. 

The FCC's International Bureau granted LightSquared a conditional waiver to proceed with construction, but the Coalition to Save Our GPS, composed of trade groups and individual corporations, quickly opposed the unprecedented speed with which the waiver was granted. 

The LightSquared website still says the company expects to begin the commercial launch of its network later this year.  The network would comply with the wireless LTE standard, making it more powerful than previous 3G cellular networks. 

Read more at Transport Topics.