[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] More on LightSquared

To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] More on LightSquared
From: K8RI <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:56:10 -0400
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
On 3/25/2011 3:19 PM, Diane & Edward Swynar wrote:
> It's absolutely ludicrous that we Amateurs here in Canada have to be ready
> to fend-off assaults upon our ability to erect even simple dipoles atop a
> tower (in light of our exposing our neighbours to RF radiation), when
> outfits like this can rule with absolute impunity, without need of
> environmental assessments, approvals, assessments, etc. etc. etc.

More than that.  This is supposed to be part, or most of the "broadband 
for everyone" and is a pet project from someone at the top of the food 
chain that rules by decree.  Normally any business or individual would 
have to go through all this approval process including RF exposure 
guidelines.  It is being (or was) opposed by the Department of Defense, 
Department of Transportation, Homeland Security, aviation groups, and 
those dealing with public safety and health. It is not a "done deal" or 
does not appear to be, contrary to LightSquared's actions.  The FCC "has 
said" that "LightSquared" must prove they can operate without causing 
interference to GPS, but LightSquared has openly stated they believe the 
GPS receivers can be filtered to keep out their signals. Keep in mind 
this is a network of 40-45KW transmitters operating right next to GPS 
with no buffer space like we had between TV channels.

Just do a search on LightSquared and GPS. You will find a lot of 

However there are some aspects that just don't sound right such as 
LightSquared being given the goahead to install the equipment even 
before the testing is done.  Will the FCC bow to outside pressure 
contrary to technical information? We'll know if just a few weeks. It's 
also interesting that LightSquared's testing showed little if any 
problems yet those of the GPS industry showed major problems.   Sorta 
sounds like BPL in the early days...which may be returning to haunt us.

Without going into all the details, spectrum for ground based wireless 
is very expensive. LightSquared which apparently did not have the 
resources to compete on that playing field, purchased a much less 
expensive chunk of spectrum dedicated to satellite operation. However 
this operation is allowed to use ground based transmitters for 
augmentation of those signals.  LightSquared has proposed something like 
40,000 of these transmitters which can run up to IIRC 45 KW each. This 
spectrum is directly adjacent to the GPS frequencies and was never 
intended to be used in this manner.

LightSquared has also stated they are filtering the output on the 
transmitters so they should not be a source of interference.  Imagine a 
45KW carrier right next to a receiver listening to very weak signals. 
Would filtering at the transmitter help?  Now change that carrier to a 
high speed broad band digital signal and how will their neighbors fare?

> As usual, it's the golden rule again (as in, "He who has the gold, rules").
> The individual radio Ham simply has no chance.

It's more likely a who has the most power.

> I'm surprised that the general populace hasn't be roused-up in arms over
> this. Just where IS everyone on this matter, anyway...?!

The general populace "in almost any country" is not technically inclined 
and has to be carefully informed in a way they can identify with. IOW as 
with computers, aviation, and ham radio, they are completely clueless. 
Remember they could not understand that cordless phones and cell phones 
are really radios so the FCC had to ban receivers that covered that 
range instead of requiring the phones to use encryption which BTW I 
believe almost all do now.


Roger (K8RI)

> ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
> *********************************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:<doc@kd4e.com>
> To:<rfi@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFI] More on LightSquared
>> I believe that their proposal uses a loophole in satellite
>> regs.
>> They are pretending to be a satellite service with ground-
>> based "fills" but are really a ground-based service where
>> the satellite is merely a technique to avoid proper regs.
>> They are proposing some absurd number of 44KW transmitters
>> all over the country.
>> It is clearly a frighteningly-corrupted process with no
>> regard whatsoever for ethics or safety and it needs to be
>> stopped.
>> The company has connections inside the current administration,
>> if that provides some perspective ...
>>>> I still want to know how they get those massive land-based
>>>> transmitters past the EPA ... sure seems like a *dangerous*
>>>> level of RF at *near-microwave* spectrum blasting through
>>>> the air.
>>> I haven't followed this closely ... but is it much different than
>>> cellphone antennas mounted on the sides or roof of an apartment or
>>> office building?
>>> Given enough demand for bandwidth that people will pay for, concerns
>>> about interference and even safety fall by the wayside.
>>> Andy
>> --
>> Thanks!&  73, KD4E
>> David Colburn http://kd4e.com
>> SE-GA Tailgate - April 9th, 2011
>> Have an http://ultrafidian.com day
>> I don't google I SEARCH! http://ixquick.com
>> Shop Freedom-Friendly http://kd4e.com/of.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>