NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: New U.S. wireless network a hazard for GPS (Lauren Weinstein)


David wrote:
The problem, if there is one, is that perfectly legal transmissions that are
in the LightSquared band (and which would have been legal to other users of
that band) are potentially going to make low-quality GPS receivers
malfunction.

Now he seems to suggest that the solution to that is that the FCC regulate
receivers.  Given the excellent track record of FCC regulation and
command-and-control management of economic activities, that's one possible
solution.  

Another is for the FCC and society generally to say, "Look, you always knew
what the rules were.  You choose to build receivers that were less expensive
but less able to reject interference.  Sorry.  Good luck with the product
liability lawsuits."  

I think it is important for the regulators to clearly define the protections
that users will get from out of band emissions (how much power lands in
their band, how strong signals in adjacent channels are, etc.).  And, I
think the current system in the U.S. does not provide sufficiently clear
assurances in this area.  But, regulating the susceptibility of devices to
interference is a separate issue and one that can easily result in
inefficient outcomes.  

(By the way, the FCC can regulate some kinds of receivers.  See 47 USC
302(a).   Ironically, this provision was championed by and enacted as a
result of the activities of Barry Goldwater who loved amateur radio more
than he hated government regulation. <grin>).


Chuck
 
 
 
======================
Charles L. Jackson
 
301 656 8716    desk phone
888 469 0805    fax
301 775 1023    mobile 
 
PO Box 221
Port Tobacco, MD 20677

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+clj=jacksons.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+clj=jacksons.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of David P.
Reed
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:37 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Cc: nnsquad-request@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: New U.S. wireless network a hazard for GPS (Lauren
Weinstein)


During the deep and thoughtful discussions that were carried out in the
Spectrum Policy Task Force at the FCC, and in the FCC Technological Advisory
Committee when I was a part of it, many of us engineers recognized that the
current structure of FCC regulations that regulate only transmission are the
source of many problems.

The problem between LightSquared's licensed band and the GPS receivers 
is one example.   The FCC doesn't regulate that receivers should not be 
designed so that they fail due to transmissions in other bands.  This is
because the FCC does not currently regulate receivers at all, unlike the UK
radio spectrum regulators.

The problem, if there is one, is that perfectly legal transmissions that are
in the LightSquared band (and which would have been legal to other users of
that band) are potentially going to make low-quality GPS receivers
malfunction.

Now one of the complainers is Trimble.  Trimble does not make GPS
transmitters that I know of.  They just make products that gain value 
from the GPS transmitters in the sky.   Unfortunately, the "quality of 
experience" of Trimble's users will degrade, to the extent that their
receivers are poorly designed in terms of dealing with radios operating in
adjacent channels.  Why were they poorly designed for this?  One might well
ask.  Who is responsible to the customers?  Well, ultimately Trimble.

However Trimble and others have a practical problem - their product is hard
to recall.

So instead, they want LightSquared to pay for their design weakness.   I 
wonder if that is "right"?  Rather than recall the products, they could seek
a different remedy - they could pay the FCC for the unusability of 
adjacent channel services.   Surely Trimble has the money from its 
product liability insurers to make such a payment.

Money need not be spent on the "impractical" recall, but can be spent where
the cost of the fix is more practical - paying the US Government (and the
taxpayers who will not get the benefit of the services in the adjacent
channel due to Trimble's mistakes) what their mistake has cost the public.

This of course would match the value of "auctioning" the spectrum that would
otherwise accrue to the Federal Budget.  Probably a few 10's of Billions of
US $ would cover the loss caused by careless design.

   [ This seems like an approach certainly worthy of consideration --
     though I would expect technically-oriented legal battles over
     liability in such cases to be fierce.  But from my standpoint, it
     is most important that consumer GPS units in the field not be
     rendered unusable by LightSquared transmissions.  Even if
     manufacturers agreed to try replace every unit in the field for
     free, many consumers would never be located and more would
     routinely ignore all such contacts.  Since failure of GPS when
     you expect it to work can have very serious consequences,
     protection of consumers should be the main priority.

            -- Lauren Weinstein
               NNSquad Moderator ]