Lightsquared - another comment period

[Keith]

One more comment period?
<table style="width:622px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" align="left">February 24, 2012
*
Dear BoatU.S. Member:
*
Last summer boaters sent a clear message to the Federal Communications Commission Dont Mess with GPS!" As you may remember, a private company, LightSquared, received preliminary FCC approval to offer a new cellular broadband service. Tests showed this service could significantly interfere with GPS signals.
*
Thanks to over 18,000 boaters who submitted comments, along with many other GPS users, the FCC required additional testing in the fall. (Thank you all for your help!) Last week, these tests revealed that the LightSquareds network would interfere with GPS and that there are no practical fixes. As a result, the FCC has proposed to withdraw LightSquared's approval.(http://www.gps.gov/news/2012/02/lightsquared/)
*
The FCC has a new comment period (open to March 1) asking for the publics opinion. Even if you wrote last summer, please take a few minutes now and write the FCC asking them to protect the GPS signal by saying No to LightSquareds current proposal. Given this companys tenacity over the last year, we want to make sure that boaters needs are remembered as the FCC makes their final decision.
*
Important points to make:
<ul>[*]How do you use GPS in your life on the water, on land, or in the air?[*]What would happen to your business/personal life if GPS became unavailable or unreliable?[*]Wireless broadband service is important, but it should not come at the expense of GPS.[*]All the studies show that LightSquareds proposed network would cause interference and that there are no remedies.[*]Tell FCC that you rely on them to protect the integrity of the GPS signal and that you support their recommendation to stop LightSquareds current proposal[/list]You can submit comments directly to the FCC through their online comment form. (We regret we cant streamline this process for you, but it is important enough were still asking for your help.) Heres how:

1. Click on this link for the FCCs Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list
2. Select Proceeding Number 11-109. It should be near the top of the list.
3. In the designated boxes, enter your name and mailing address.
4. In the box that says Type in or paste your brief comments, do so. Click Continue.
5. A review page will load listing all of the information entered. If correct, click Confirm.
6. If you have any trouble, you may contact the FCC ECFS Helpdesk at 202-418-0193 or email at ecfshelp@fcc.gov

Thank you for taking action to protect the integrity of the GPS system.
*
Margaret Podlich
President, BoatU.S.
GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com
703-461-2878 x8363
*
For an update on this and other government affairs topics please visit BoatUS.com/gov
*


</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="10">*</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="10">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

-- Edited by Keith on Saturday 25th of February 2012 05:48:00 AM

 

[psneeld]

sent mine..it's ptetty easy..I cut and pasted boatUS talking points and reworded to mine.

cant believe the Govt would screw with GPS (only nav system) versus just one of many broadband wireless systems??

 

[FF]

"cant believe the Govt would screw with GPS (only nav system) versus just one of many broadband wireless systems??"

These folks are large Obamma donors!

There are many nav systems that are still easy to use.

IF you own a chart.

ADF is a snap as most AM radio towers are plotted on the existing charts.

Contour nav works with little effort , just requires a running plot , and a chart dept sounder.

And of course DR , IF you have the chart , and current chart times and tide book.

Then is the easiest , run from light to light in good visibility.

 

[sbu22]

Agree with you, FF, in part. However, you also have the military and commercial aviation legitimately concerned about bleedover into GPS dependent systems. Should the military spec more robust and less susceptible systems? Of course. Someday there may be someone less benign than a billionaire that wants to make another billion by crapping up the GPS system. http://www.tvtechnology.com/article...-to-military-gps-ops-could-take--years/210288

 

[Marin]

sbu22 wrote:
Agree with you, FF, in part. However, you also have the military and commercial aviation legitimately concerned about bleedover into GPS dependent systems. Should the military spec more robust and less susceptible systems?

The military does not use the same GPS signals that are used by civilian equipment.* The military GPS signals would not be interfered with by Lightsquared's proposed system.*

One of Boeing's defense products is ScanEagle, a small UAS that has been deployed in the Middle East and Afganistan for some years now.* ScanEagle is not flown in the traditional sense but follows predefined courses autonomously.* The entire guidance and navigation system is based on GPS.** I asked the ScanEagle people way back when Lightsqared first came on the scene if it would have any potential impact on the GPS signals they use and they said no, the miliary uses a totally different system that resides on the GPS satelites with the civilian system and uses the same basic positioning data calculated by the satelite.* Lightsquared's proposed system would not be an issue for them.

 

[Keith]

Here we go:

http://m.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/air-force-general-blows-whistle-on-obama-but-media-deaf

A United States Air Force general is blowing the whistle on another alleged White House scandal, but few in the news media seem to be listening. Guess who?

 

[sbu22]

I don't pretend to GPS hardware expertise - however, when quadstars are testifying to Congress that there's a problem with Lightsquared and the military system (and getting beat over the head by the White House for doing so), I tend to think there are legit technical issues.