Talk:Ligado Networks/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Spectrum holdings
The article states "LightSquared controls 59 MHz of United States spectrum". No source is given. I've seen other news articles that mention 10 to 20Mhz of L-band spectrum... is this 59 Mhz correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.17.235 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Right now it says 59MHz, followed by a 34MHz spec in parentheses. Then it says 20MHz in the Network Issues. Gradenko (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Coalition to Save Our GPS
I restored an external link to the "Coalition to Save Our GPS" because the rationale for its removal appeared incorrect. Per WP:ELPOV, it is not critical that all links be neutral, just that we not give undue weight the a specific viewpoint. Given the contentious nature of the issue, an external link to this group seems appropriate to me. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Additional Comment When it can be independently established that an advocacy group is a major player on a subject and their opinion is significant, they are necessarily a reliable source for their own opinion (although for nothing else). Therefore link is not in good faith and should remain removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKorman85 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can see how one might consider NPOV to be a concern (though VQuakr's analysis is correct on this), the claim that it is "not in good faith" is both nonsensical and ridiculous; you don't know if it was added in good faith or not. All it does it represent the opinion of the advocacy group as the opinion of the advocacy group. It even said "advocacy group" in the description-- it's hard to see how this can be taken as being "not in good faith". As for the notability of this group, as can be seen from here this group is essentially a clearing house / front for the major players (e.g. Trimble, Garmin, the ATA, and many others) in the private GPS community. Considering that the other links, which you have not labelled as being "not in good faith", include a link to a Lightsquared press release, I can't see how this is somehow undue weight either. siafu (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Additional Comment The problem is still that, if not in the links, the majority of the text content of this wikipedia article uses sources favourable to LightSquared. Honestly, there are parts of it that sound as if they're coming directly from the LightSquared PR department. The article needs to be more rounded by also presenting opinions and facts which demonstrate that adding filters to GPS devices is not a "solution" to the problem. Basically GPS capabilities on millions of devices, from airplanes to the *very cellphones* which are supposed to benefit of this 4-D service will be affected to the point where they become jammed and unusable. DaemonischEngel (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Imagine you have a meditation saloon in a very tranquil place and someone buys the neighboring property where they decide to have club music and open air concerts; then they tell you that the actual problem is that your meditation would not be affected if you just sufficiently soundproof your walls! There are a lot of lies and nonsense thrown out in this case as well, which prevent the working out of any acceptable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaemonischEngel (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a Sentence
"The grant allowed LightSquared and its wholesale customers to offer terrestrial-only devices than having to incorporate both satellite and terrestrial services."
Can someone who knows what this is supposed to say sort this out.109.155.162.249 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It's just missing the word "rather" after "devices". The point is that originally the service was supposed to be satellite based with an auxillary terrestial part there only to fill-in coverage in places that satellite can't reach, e.g. tunnels, city locations where building shadow the sky etc. Thus originally the primary link would have been satellite and all Lightsquared phones would have to be dual-mode. With this grant Lightsquared don't have to offer satellite connectivity, just terrestrial...
Deasington (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Lightsquared working group report now available
Working group report is now available on the fcc website. Can someone put links into the article?
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1133A1.pdf
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=TMkQnDhpDqL0y9zWh13z2mzTdcnFSvrS9lyZX7ck8yPvpQD1vVls!-1870848622!-1326520164?id=7021690476 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.236.106 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Congressional Committee Investigation Section Issues
Several claims are sourced to political columnists in publications with a specific editorial bent. Which is nice, but I believe that the point of political columnists is to offer opinion and analysis, not factual news reports. I don't think these are acceptable sources.
This, combined with spelling mistakes and uses of phrases like "Democrat party" says to me the section should be re-written. This article has probably gotten additional attention due to recent political news coverage. 24.58.144.115 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that the issues is now a political controversy, citing political authors is appropriate in the manner that has been done. The citations used were diverse, including domestic and foreign sources. Issa etc are indeed investigating Lightsquared as a case of buying political influence and the USAF General clearly has made the attributed statements about political pressure.
The editing added a lot of extraneous material and very poor wording. Re-edited to correct most of that.
The recent interest in this issue is not just political. Farmers, construction contractors, maritime, surveyors, aviation and other GPS communities that would be negatively impacted by the deployment of the Lightsquared ground stations are getting noisy as well. This article has already had negative references as being to pro LightSquared in non-political environments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStarwolf (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
File:LIGHTSQUARED LOGO.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:LIGHTSQUARED LOGO.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
Jesus what a mess
this article is a clusterfuck.--PumknPi (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- the article reads like a list of facts strung together by someone with aspergers.
- the article claims LightSquared received a license for the terrestrial service in the L-Band spectrum in 2004, no reference. Was the license contingent on not fucking up GPS units?
- how much has LightSquared invested in 4G LTE ?
- needs a description of frequencies intended for satellite communication (very low power) vs. the massively powerful terrestrial network planned, and how that all got mixed up, and what it means for GPS interference.
- there are a thousand dangling facts, like lint on the floor, that need to be swept up and replaced with actual writing that makes sense.
--PumknPi (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- and someone needs to look into the hoard of SPAs who built this article. --PumknPi (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Also someone needs to figure out what we should do with the old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTerra page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.120.3 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Contentious Issue
The Lightsquared waiver that was granted by the FCC has met with enormous outrage in the GPS community, including a general sense that the FCC is either ignorant of the potential issues or simply insensitive to the needs of the GPS community. It's likely that this will devolve into a lengthy court battle, also. As a result, all editors need to be careful not to misrepresent the issue on both sides, as some of the recent anonymous edits have been doing. siafu (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, I've now removed the following sentence twice:
However, the transmitters used in the Garmin experiment did not use the filters recently developed and thus far successfully tested by LightSquared.
The problem with this sentence is that it implies that the Garmin experiment is flawed somehow because they did not use the Lightsquared filter. However, in order for the filters to be a viable solution, they would have to be fit to every single GPS receiver front-end in existence, and given that there are millions and millions of them on Earth, it's not a reasonable expectation. Garmin is interested in determining what the actual effects might be, so using this filter would create results that are not representative of the real situation, or more specifically, the situation that their customers will likely face. Trimble (another major receiver manufacturer) has taken a similar view. The paragraph stands fine on its own without this obfuscation anyway, since it includes the positions of the major players as stated by them and does not require any editorial from us. siafu (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Additional Comment If the filter information is included, the article should also mention that high-accuracy GPS receivers are intentionally designed with wide bandwidths for code tracking and multipath reasons. The addition of a front-end filter would be expected to reduce the originally designed performance of that device. See for example, http://www.gpsworld.com/survey/the-fccs-decision-lightsquared-high-precision-users-would-be-affected-most-11089 Bealevideo (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- For the moment, the filter info is cut out, but this information is just lends more weight to idea of the filter being a woefully inadequate solution. Given this, I'm surprised that IGS and the various seismic monitoring organizations have not spoke up more. siafu (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Additional Comment There is a lot of misinformation here. Specifically there is confusion on the filter issue. There are 2 separate filters in play. The first is the TRANSMIT filter placed in the LightSquared base station to achieve agreed levels of out-of-band emissions from LightSquared's operations in its licensed spectrum into the GPS spectrum (aggressive levels that the GPS community established with LightSquared back in 2005, and which Lightsquared plans to operate within). The second is a RECEIVE filter that can be placed in the GPS device, since the GPS receiver could theoretically suffer overload/blocking if its front end is wide open, even if LightSquared is living within its long-established emission rules. The goal testing such as Garmin conducted was to understand the interference environment without the RECEIVE filter and thus understand whether one is needed and how much rejection it would have to provide. But if the test setup doesn't include LightSquared's TRANSMIT filter, or a substantially similar product, then the resultant interference would be dominated by out-of-band interference. The point is that Garmin didn't seem to use the right TRANSMIT filter, so their results were invalid. The original point in the deleted text, while slightly unclear without all of this background, stands and should be included as is or modified for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frnochz (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
-- you include no info on fcc part 15 violations, how much are you paid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.115 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-- Cell phone GPS chips are affected during signal acquisition, once tracking they are NOT affected. But i never expect wikipedia editors to get anything right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.115 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If acquisition fails due to noise, the tracking ability is irrelevant; this is like saying that cars, without any way to start the engine, will drive fine once started magically. It's not clear that tracking would be maintained in the presence of interference, either, since it would depend on the nature of the interference and the tracking loop used by the receiver. siafu (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- if properly designed, carrier and code tracking loops will not have problem, if used Chebyshev filters
would be immune to OUT of band interference, LS is NOT in band interference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.115 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- For any filter design, there is an interference/noise level that will saturate it; there is, in principle no filter or tracking loop that is actually "immune" to interference. "If properly designed" also isn't very interesting for this article, since GPS receivers are not designed to handle these levels of interference-- it's purely tautological to point out, since "if the receivers were different, the situation would be different" does not convey any meaningful information. siafu (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the FCC a tool for Lightsquared?
All this info is taken from this link at AOPA. Ahuja stepped down as CEO but is still on the board. It appears that the FCC may be forced pull this authorization.
GPS primary bands (L1 1575.42MHz)are listed here.
Lightsquared wants the 1529-1559MHz range. Link This is a PDF link.
The problem stems from the L1 band being at 1575.42MHz and transmitting at less than 50 watts. At that low power, it cant compete with the ATC component of the Lightsquared network transmitting at higher power levels. They bled over into adjacent frequencies. This blanks out the L1 band for GPS.
Imagine you are at a truckstop, and a big ole shiny Petercar rolls in with a big CB radio. If he is transmittting at say 1200watts, (highly illegal btw) and he keys up on Ch 19, Chs 17 18 20 21 will be affected. This is a similar range diference to the LS/GPS bands.
But you gotta see this PDF. It really has a lean to it at the end. And this is a US .gov website...
Where's my tin foil hat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.246.251 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Cleanup
I've made an effort to clean up the article and up date it per the discussion here. Additional comments welcome.--agr (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
SEC takes lawsuit into Federal Court
Falcone and Harbinger as of June 27, 2012, face charges of fraud
G. Robert Shiplett 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)