The LightSquared Debacle in Layman’s TermsPosted on October 13th, 2011 6 comments
I’ve been reading about the LightSquared debacle for months. My aviation-related sources have been covering the GPS industry’s objection to LightSquared and how it would be disastrous for the GPS receivers, essentially causing a loss of satellite lock or at minimum causing accuracy issues that could lead to disaster. The story received a boost in interest when it was found that there was some political chicanery associated with the White House administration pressuring a reversal in the testimony of an Air Force general. It’s hard to ferret out the underlying reason how this problem got this far, with so much money being invested in a technology that LightSquared should have known would hit a wall during its deployment, namely when it produced interference with a critical service like GPS that is adjacent to its bandwidth allocations. So I decided to do some research and summarize it here.
The problem of radio interference isn’t new. The FCC and similar organizations in other countries were created primarily to help prevent interference problems by licensing radio spectrum and settling disputes among the radio spectrum’s users. All radio transmitters generate some amount of radio frequency (RF) energy on adjacent bands. All receivers are influenced by signals that are in adjacent bands because there is no such thing as a perfect filter to ignore nearby signals. So one must ask the question, is this an interference problem on the part of LightSquared, or a susceptibility problem for the GPS manufacturers? And since there is no such thing as a perfect filtering technique, how much can it help to apply filters to GPS receivers? Can the problem be solved with a 5-cent change to GPS receivers as suggested by LightSquared, a solution promptly dismissed as absurd by the GPS industry? I can tell you one thing that does not work, and that is to expect an industry to accept a problem introduced by some third party AFTER its products have already shipped and are in the hands of its customers. Sure, you can ask for a change to future products, assuming the change actually produces the desired result and isn’t too costly, but if an industry is entrenched, and I think that after 2 decades of shipping millions of products, GPS can be categorized as such, you can’t expect them to accept a problem that wasn’t a problem until your service came along.
Nor can you expect all existing customers to ‘upgrade’ their equipment just to solve some newly introduced interference issue. Yet this is apparently what LightSquared was expecting. And I find that attitude arrogant and ridiculous. Anyone whose money is invested in a technology that expected such a system to work should expect to see his investment lost by those who dismissed or talked around these issues when they were first brought up.
One might tend to lay the blame on LightSquared and its naivete, but I think the FCC is just as culpable. The FCC needed to realize that any service that occupied frequencies adjacent to GPS must necessarily be compatible with it. GPS satellites transmit signals from a distance of about 12,500 miles above the earth. Because of this vast distance, the signals are at a very low level once they arrive on earth, about -130 dBm (which is about 180 x 10^^-18 Watts). The land-based LightSquared 4G transmitters can use as much as 70 dBm (10,000 Watts). So you can see that there is a vast difference of roughly 2 x 10^^20 in signal strength between the two services. The low signal strength is one of the reasons why most Space-to-Earth signals require dishes or other types of high gain antennas pointed at the satellites to amplify only those signals and simultaneously ignore any signals originating from other directions. But GPS receivers cannot do that. First of all, the constellation of 24 satellites is in constant orbiting motion, and secondly, a GPS receiver needs an antenna that can receive from several satellites at once in order for it to do its job so it cannot use a directional antenna. A GPS receiver has none of the amplification and signal isolation benefits provided by a directional antenna. This means that the signals that a GPS receiver has to deal with are extremely weak, and are actually below the noise floor, and must be dug out of this noise floor using sophisticated signal processing techniques.
As shown in the graphic above, (source) the bands adjacent to the GPS spectrum were intended to be used for similar purposes, that is to send signals from space to earth or earth to space, and based on what I’ve been reading about LightSquared, this was how they intended to use the spectrum initially. But most broadband solutions that depend on satellites are not very compelling due to the 44,000 mile round trip the signals they need to make to the geosynchronous satellites. This trip adds about a half second delay which is too high a latency to provide a satisfactory experience compared with terrestrial broadband solutions, especially with modern Internet applications some of which cannot tolerate that kind of latency. People tend to use satellite broadband only when there are no terrestrial broadband offerings in their area.
In 2004, presumably to make its service more financially attractive, LightSquared’s predecessor lobbied for and received authorization by the FCC to deploy thousands of land-based transmitters in the same frequency range as their satellite-to-earth band. I think that this authorization from the FCC is where things went awry. LightSquared, when it was a space-based wireless service that could hypothetically offer 100% coverage over the U.S. had a formidable calling card, namely that it could provide mobile wireless service to previously under-served rural areas. Telling a government bureaucrat that you’re going to provide ‘service to rural and the under-served’ is tantamount to telling them you’re going to cure world hunger or help the blind to see. Everyone knows there is little or no profit in serving the under-served, it just makes for a good story to soften up government bureaucrats so they’ll grant you favors. Indeed, earlier this year, the FCC allowed LightSquared to offer devices with just the terrestrial capability, making them nothing more than just another mobile wireless provider, which might be viewed as a clever bait-and-switch maneuver since those devices would no longer have the large size and expense of a hybrid phone. This would allow them to rake in some real profits by taking business away from the incumbents of lucrative mobile wireless services rather than being just some quirky satellite phone and data service.
So more than any other factor, it was the decision to take its space-based frequency allocation and have the FCC re-authorize it for terrestrial transmitters that made it incompatible with GPS receivers. Even a very low-power transmitter that is in close proximity to a receiver will have signal strength that is many orders of magnitude stronger than one that is located 22,000 miles away. But if you can influence politicians by explaining away the problem, and hoping that the GPS industry looks upon it as an opportunity to force their customers to purchase new receivers that deal with the interference, then it would be a win-win for all parties, except those who have to buy new GPS receivers, namely consumers, who have no lobbyists to protect them. But it appears that all the hand waving about potential technical solutions may not make the GPS interference problem go away. There may be no filtering technique available at any cost that would fix it and still allow a GPS receiver to maintain the accuracy customers rely on. And so, in order for a company and its investors to enrich themselves, they appear to have no qualms about completely destroying another much larger industry that provides an invaluable service to many sectors of the economy. Some might think of this as free market capitalism. I think of it as sociopathic behavior so extreme that it makes me ashamed for the company and the politicians who did the company’s bidding.
I have to wonder whether it’s even possible to provide an economical hybrid mobile wireless device that can be used with geosynchronous satellites and land-based cells. Iridium provides mobile phone service based on satellites, although that service nearly went broke and was only revived when its multi-billion dollar investment in satellites was picked up for pennies on the dollar. But Iridium is a completely different technology since its satellites are in low earth orbit, just 485 miles above the earth, and so the distance is about 2% as far from the earth as a geosynchronous satellite thereby requiring much less power from the mobile device to establish a connection. But these phones and service are very expensive compared with standard mobile phones. The phones tend to be large and bulky and cost upward of $1200. The service is metered at $1.30/min or more in addition to a $50 monthly fee. Compared with standard mobile phones this would not be a competitive offering, so getting the go-ahead from the FCC to have terrestrial transmitters was a key win for LightSquared because a phone that communicated with geostationary satellites would be very large, power hungry, and costly.
The amount of power and antenna you’d need to communicate with a geosynchronous satellite would be difficult to implement in a handheld device that fits in one’s pocket, if it could be done at all, unless they intended for it to go through some form of a roof-mounted gateway. But then it wouldn’t really a true hybrid mobile device as this service had been promoted. And you couldn’t use a satellite handset from inside a car or house without a roof-mounted antenna and transceiver due to blockage of the satellite signals, making the service appear like something that may feel like a throwback to 1980′s technology.
Hughes has offered a satellite/terrestrial mobile phone solution called GMR1-3G for some time. The hardware looks like something you’d need if you were deployed to some remote corner of the earth. In fact, LightSquared initially had planned to use that service before switching to something called EGAL which stands for Earth Geostationary Air Link from Qualcomm. EGAL appears to be some new hypothetical hardware/service that has yet to be deployed. Interestingly, Qualcomm is the company that came up with the estimate of 5 cents for the filter that would fix the GPS issue.
It is usually not a good sign when a company gathering large sums from investors is basing its future success on a yet-to-be proven technology while simultaneously ramrodding its agenda by forcing a government agency to grant approval and thumbing its nose at its spectrum neighbors. These folks need a wake-up call. Maybe the sound of a few billion dollars of their investment swirling around a drain will provide that wake up call for Lightsquared and its investors and anyone foolish enough to embark on a similar venture in the future.
UPDATE (2011-11-11) If you would like to know more about the testing that was done that showed the significant interference on GPS receivers, the Coalition to Save our GPS has a complete list of test reports on their website. The summary is that during these tests, nearly all GPS devices tested couldn’t receive a signal when they were within a few miles from the tower, even though the LightSquared transmitter was operating at 10% of the power they would be permitted to use. In addition, LightSquared claimed that if they simply moved their signals to the first 10Mhz of their allocated bandwidth, then 99% of the GPS receivers would not have been affected, even though there is not a single shred of evidence from this test that would support that claim.
6 responses to “The LightSquared Debacle in Layman’s Terms”
Phillip Johnson October 15th, 2011 at 08:23
Well written Lee.
Why do people continue to supply false information? The facts are that GPS manufactures have known for nearly a decade that their signals were bleeding into other signals that could be auctioned. The future use of these bands had never been dedicated. So now LightSquared is being penalized for the ignorance and negligence of these companies to ensure that their signal was being maintained within the band that had been allocated.
The GPS signals have not been bleeding into the LightSquared spectrum. The LightSquared signals have been bleeding into the GPS spectrum. As I mentioned in the article, no filters are perfect and so there will always be some amount of signal that is generated outside of one’s assigned spectrum and the FCC has limits for the amplitude these signals can have but the limits probably never took into consideration a service whose signals are already below the noise floor. The FCC may need to have new limits when it comes to services that are adjacent to the GPS spectrum. Now that LightSquared has ‘improved’ its filters, it’s complaining the GPS manufacturers needs to improve their filters, but there are millions of GPS units already in the field and these cannot be fixed.
LightSquared is not offering anything new or compelling, just than another mobile service. With all the advertising we see from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, attempting to steal each other’s customers, it seems as if we have plenty of spectrum available already for that purpose. The satellite portion of LightSquared’s system appears to have been simply a bait-and-switch ruse to give the illusion they could provide 100% coverage so as to provide service to rural and under-served customers. These land-based transmitters aren’t part of that feature, they just interfere with the GPS signals that so many of us depend on every day.
Your biased article indicates you didn’t do much balanced research on this. Your technical explanation of the problem is sound. However your opinon is off the mark.
Check out this representationof the GPS filter response: http://www.pnt.gov/public/2011/03/munich/hegarty.pdf
This problem exists because GPS manufacturers purposely built cheap recievers with poor filter response. If you bought an FM radio that could not tune a station due to poor filtering, would you blame the FM stations?
Second, the US is in desperate need of more spectrum. Yes we have enough cell companies. But we dont have enough bandwidth. If we do not free up additional spectrum, you will see your phone bill rise and cell phones will become something only the rich can afford. Lack of spectrum will revert our communication standards back to the 80′s.
Thanks for your comment. I did look around for supporting documentation on LightSquared’s technical issues, but found nothing other than the company spokesman (who appears to be non-technical) blaming the GPS industry for ‘dragging its feet’, ‘using cheap filters’, without any supporting evidence that these hypothetical filters would actually fix the problem. Even the pdf you point to contains no real data, it’s hand-constructed artwork without any technical terms you’d associate with RF filters, like how many poles the filter has, how sharp its skirts are, etc. The real issue here is that LightSquared is attempting to do a ‘bait-and-switch’ where they got permission to use some earth-to-space bandwidth for signals that were intended to travel from earth to space and then convinced some government bureaucrats it would cause no problems to put up 40,000 high powered land-based transmitters on those frequencies. It is insane to think something like that wasn’t going to cause a problem. Indeed, if you read the technical reports, and the GPS industry has invested heavily in understanding the issues and performing actual testing, and convincingly shows this essentially would kill GPS as a service near any populated areas and along highways in the U.S. where these towers would be constructed. The signals from the Las Vegas test even reached out several hundred miles into space and affected low-earth-orbiting satellites that use GPS for guidance.
LightSquared participated in these tests and for some reason was only able to provide a transmitter that operated at 10% of the power they are seeking to use so the problems are likely much worse than the testing indicated. Then they implied that the problem only affected ‘high precision’ GPS equipment, which was patently false, it affected the majority of garden-variety GPS receivers tested within MILES of the transmitter. Then, they made up another story that if they confined their bandwidth to the first 10Mhz of their allocation, everything would be OK, even though there was no data from the test to support that claim.
I find the analogy about the FM receiver to be quite flawed. GPS receivers are able to work just fine as long as there are no interference sources that swamp out their signals. A better analogy would be that of a company seeking government permission to dump carcinogens into a water source people depended on for drinking water and then tell people affected by it that they just need to install filters on their water taps. Then tell them that the filters haven’t yet been designed, that their cost and effectiveness is unknown, and feel that satisfies all parties so let’s move on and let us proceed.
Your carcinogen analogy is priceless. It is a typcial fear mongering argument spread by GPS trolls. LightSquared will not kill anyone. Why go there?
You have a fundamental misconception of the issue. The MSS spectrum licensed to LightSquared is adjacent to GPS. LightSquared worked with the GPS industry in eary 2000 to design a cooperative deployment agreement. And yes, GPS industry not only approved but supported the deployment. The LightSquared signal does not leak into the GPS band whatsoever. In fact the filter is designed for a sharp fall off and a 4MHz guardband was put in place for additional protection.
The bottom line is that GPS receivers use the lightsquared spectrum without permission. GPS receivers should have been built to access the GPS section of the spectrum. Instead, they decided to consume additional bandwidth they did not own in order to keep cost down and improve accuracy to prop up corporate margins. Now the GPS undustry uses the argument that since the MSS band was low power in the past that they had a right to use the bandwidth? How screwy is that? Just because your neighbor has vacant land, it does not give you the right to build a garage on it. The issue is so clear, yet misguided GPS sympathizers claim a right to use spectrum they do not own and have no right to use.
Leave a reply