Oh look. LightSquared have figured out how they'll get around the FCC.

[K3WRY at aol.com]

lightsquared--------------------stupid can't be taught
 
joe k3wry
 
 
In a message dated 12/12/2011 11:54:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
philmt59 at aol.com writes:

Thanks  guys. I get the 'adjacent band filtering' problem, so I guess I'm 
just  flogging a stupid, circular argument here: isn't it the job of the FCC 
to  ensure that adjacent band usage doesn't lead to this kind of 
interference  problem? I've already worked out the answer to that. But has no-one the  
understanding, authority and plain common sense to realise that when (and  
let's be generous, if) the whole thing goes Hara Arena fountain-of-ordure,  
somebody who allowed it to happen is going to get a right kicking? I mean,  
this is one major cock-up that even the general public are going to notice, 
it  seems.

[I am unpopular with administrators at the university where I  work for 
repeatedly suggesting that things will not improve unless some of us  stop 
fixing the problems that they cause.]

Okay then, in the words of  Goethe (or was it Schiller?) via Isaac Asimov: 
"Against stupidity, the gods  themselves contend in vain."

Phil M1GWZ



On 12 Dec 2011,  at 16:20, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> 
> But to answer Phil's  question, the band is immediately adjacent (1525
> to 1559 MHz) to the  GPS L1 band (1559 to 1610 MHz).
> 
> GPS signals are typically  -160 dBm at the antenna.  A 1.5 kW (+61 dBm)
> transmitter into a  15 dB gain omnidirectional antenna 1km away (96 dB
> free space loss)  will be -20 dBm at the receive antenna.
> 
> Your mission should  you choose to accept it is to design a front end
> filter that has circa  145 dB of rejection for an adjacent band in that
> frequency range and  fits inside an iPhone or TomTom within the
> envelope allocated for the  GPS device.  Someone more skilled in the
> art than I will probably  nitpick this 145 dB number up or down by 10
> or 20 dB in a subsequent  email by introducing feedline loss at the
> transmitter and/or real  world margins necessary to receive the spread
> spectrum GPS signal, but  that's the scale of the problem you're
> looking at here.
>  
> A typical small (iphone compatible probably filter) may be viewed  here:
> 
> http://www.chronos.co.uk/pdfs/cts/cer0005a.pdf
>  
> A much larger filter that still has nowhere near enough rejection is  
here:
> 
> http://www.chronos.co.uk/pdfs/gsi/L1FM.pdf
>  
> There is a reason that the bands were segmented the way they are  in
> the international and national regulatory agencies'  bandplans.
> 
> Payola will not change physics.   Lightsquared's approach is to protest
> that they are operating inside  their assigned frequency band and blame
> the victim (in this case, the  receivers).  The problem is not limited
> to high precision GPS  receivers as some folks have claimed; it affects
> pretty much everyone  who uses GPS and might be near one of those
> 40,000 cell sites (where  "near" means "within 10km give or take").
> This doesn't just mean that  your nav system won't work; it means that
> civil engineering and  agriculture are heavily impacted as well.
> 
> -r
> 
>  
> Mike O'Dell <mo at 131.ccr.org> writes:
> 
>> it  was a brilliantly engineered bait-and-switch
>> 
>>  Lightsquared bought the assets of a bankrupt company
>> that that  died trying to do a satphone business on
>> those frequencies. that  use was perfectly within 
>> the original intent.
>>  
>> then, Lightsquared said "Oh dear, we need more  coverage
>> so we'll put 40,000 1.5KW ground cell sites around the  country
>> to fill in". then they decided the sat channels would  only
>> be used for backhaul from remote cell sites.
>>  
>> they expected they could lube-up enough with political  payola
>> that it could slide through the FCC.
>>  
>> while Lightsquared isn't *directly* effected (yet) by the  SEC
>> probe, it sure makes the prospect of raising more money  much
>> more difficult, and they need to raise what is known in the  trade
>> as a "cosmic buttload" of cash. I assume Falcone isn't  writing the
>> only check - not when he can get other marks, er,  investors to help out.
>> 
>>     -mo
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Tacos mailing  list
>> Tacos at amrad.org
>>  https://amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

_______________________________________________
Tacos  mailing  list
Tacos at amrad.org
https://amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://amrad.org/pipermail/tacos/attachments/20111212/bb890e57/attachment.html>