LightSquared Plans Need Further Study, Says FAA

"The FAA cannot conclude that operations using just the lower portion of the spectrum are compatible with civil aircraft receivers without definition of LightSquared’s end-state deployment and further study,” the FAA said. “However, based upon existing data, LightSquared’s operations at the lower channel would preclude the following critical capabilities that rely upon high-precision GPS receivers: airfield and flight procedure surveys, flight test tracking, space weather monitoring, and GPS timing for computing resources and many mission critical systems. Impacted FAA GPS timing applications include multiple terminal, enroute, and oceanic automation systems and subsystems; surveillance systems; voice communications and voice recording systems; and maintenance support systems.” LightSquared has said its new plans could cause interference with precision GPS operations.

The FAA said using LightSquared’s proposal for “in-line filtering” is high-risk and not feasible because the filters “have not been prototyped and are not expected to meet international standards for GPS performance.” Retrofitting aviation equipment would also be difficult and costly, the agency said. The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, which studied the issue for the FAA, previously said LightSquared operations in the lower 5 MHz of the band could coexist with aviation GPS, though more testing of the lower 10 MHz was needed. The FAA document was given to us by the Coalition to Save Our GPS, a group aimed at preventing GPS interference from LightSquared’s service, though an FAA official confirmed its The FAA document was given to us by the Coalition to Save Our GPS, a group aimed at preventing GPS interference from LightSquared’s service, though an FAA official confirmed its authenticity.

"The FAA report is an extraordinary indictment of LightSquared’s plans,” said Jim Kirkland, general counsel of Trimble and a leader in the coalition. “Just consider the fact that FAA analysis and tests find that if LightSquared is allowed to deploy as it wants to, that ‘GPS is expected to be unavailable for planned aviation use over the whole of the continental U.S.’ Or that the FAA report finds that nearly 800 lives would be lost over the next 10 years because of the absence of GPS. Or that the FAA would need to return to old-style ground-based navigational aids. Or that billions of dollars in existing FAA and GPS user investments would be lost. The list of harms LightSquared’s plans would cause just goes on and on. How much more evidence is needed to stop wasting time on this irresponsible plan?"

LightSquared had a different take on the FAA letter. “This letter discusses a LightSquared plan that is no longer on the table,” said Executive Vice President Jeff Carlisle. “It does not distinguish between operation in the spectrum farthest from GPS and the spectrum closest to it. Therefore, it doesn’t accurately reflect LightSquared’s most recent proposal which is focused solely on using the spectrum furthest away from GPS. Simply put, the vast majority of the interference issues raised by this report are no longer an issue. We look forward to discussing this with the FAA. Mr. Kirkland’s typical histrionic response yet again shows that GPS manufacturers want to continue to avoid responsibility for selling equipment that was not designed to accommodate longstanding FCC rules."

LightSquared also responded Wednesday to a recent Clearwire filing that described a GPS receiver overload while the first company performed testing as part of the technical working group (CD July 18 p11). The response was filed at the FCC in docket 11-109 (http://xrl.us/bk3c4n). Clearwire’s filing on GPS interference caused by LightSquared’s “live sky” testing didn’t “make a single claim regarding interference” that would occur under LightSquared’s revised rollout proposal, the satellite company said. It said Clearwire’s filing referred only to interference from LightSquared operations in the upper part of the L-band. The overload described by Clearwire “has no bearing on the operations LightSquared is proposing,” said LightSquared: There isn’t a “legitimate reason” for Clearwire to “raise these matters” and “one is left with the impression, therefore, that Clearwire is driven by anti-competitive motives designed to forestall entry of another wireless broadband competitor.”

Clearwire is mistaken “as a matter of law and equity” in its claim that LightSquared should pay for replacement antennas with filtering ability, the satellite company said. FCC precedent says the “GPS manufactures and service providers, not [ancillary terrestrial component] licensees” are responsible for deploying receivers that can filter signals in non-GPS frequencies, LightSquared said: Clearwire has been “on notice for years that ATC base stations would operate in the adjacent band” but chose not to prepare its antennas with appropriate filters.

Grassley vs. Genachowski Continues

Meanwhile, the contentious exchange between FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, continued. Genachowski responded to a recent Grassley letter Tuesday. Genachowski wrote to Grassley about commission transparency policies, including the agency’s tradition of noncompliance with document requests from members of Congress that don’t chair committees with jurisdiction over the agency and the typical length for FCC response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Grassley had asked Genachowski for input on agency policies after Grassley’s staff was told by FCC staff, according to Grassley, that a FOIA request could be drawn out for two years (CD July 7 p10).

In response to Grassley’s question about FCC consideration of investigations involving Phil Falcone, head of LightSquared’s parent company Harbinger Capital Partners, Genachowski pointed to the agency’s character policy for considering non-FCC misconduct. “Under that longstanding policy, unless the applicant has allegedly engaged in non-FCC related misconduct so egregious as to shock the conscience and evoke almost universal disapprobation, the Commission will consider such non-FCC misconduct only if the alleged misconduct has been adjudicated,” said Genachowski. So far, press reports say “the investigations are informal, no criminal or enforcement charges have been brought, and the licensee is cooperating with the investigations,” Genachowski wrote.

Grassley was less than appreciative of Genachowski’s response. “It’s ironic that a communications agency has such a clampdown on its own communications,” said Grassley. “The issue is whether the FCC will operate voluntarily as an open, transparent institution or whether it will withhold documents from congressional review unless legally forced to comply. Refusing a legitimate request in the public interest should require more justification than ‘we don’t have to.’ What is the FCC hiding?” Grassley previously asked the agency about its role in LightSquared’s planned network (CD June 7 p2), requesting agency documents between the regulator, White House and Harbinger that discuss the company.