From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Giove A has become "official" now. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:59:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Today GNSS is woven very deep into national infrastructure - CDMA radio > systems, power generation, network time, etc, etc. Had the US elevated GPS > from a US DoD system to a "NATO controlled" system in the late nineties > that might have defused the drive from one or a few of the larger NATO/EU > countries to build GNSS-2 that is now known as Galileo. > > I think its a very good idea - for everyone including the US - that EU now > builds a third Global GNSS system. > > Why do you think Galileo will not be free for the user of the open service? The license fee required for the "open service"? I have heard that the proposed fee was 1 EUR, but I don't know the current idea about it. If there is a license fee, then it will be a "gold" system only, where those that want more sats that GPS only pays the extra fee to have GPS and Galileo. If the GPS constellation is big (and it is way beyond the initial nominal size of 24, and by the look on things, ~30 is reasnoble for a fairly long time with all the moderinsations sats awaiting launch and in the progress) then it might not be such a big problem for most to "only" use GPS. Thus, the penetration of the GNSS market for Galileo will not be very deep. If they would do the "open service" license free (which was one of the things which made GPS SPS to caugth on) and let the European (and possibly others) taxpayers pay the mainpart, then a deeper penetration can be acheived. This is pure and simple buissness economics. That they have failed to do the calculus amazes me. A 1 EUR "virtual component" on a receiver is an expensive component by the time that the Galileo constellation is mature enought to make a reasnoble alternative. I'm sure some dodgy manufactures will make receivers without paying the fee. It is an old way of doing things which doesn't match the modern way of doing things, but I guess this was they way they shaped it up to make it accepable and pass the EU system. I'm not sure this is what Poul-Henning meant, I am sure he is better informed on this than me, but it is at least my views and understanding on the matter. I beleive the Galileo system is for real, but I think some unwise decission was made and for it to be a succsess that would have to change before it is supposed to hit the streets. Oh, and Galileo doesn't really makes the state much better for the civilian community in relation to intentional or non-intentional disturbances. It will shift the numbers a bit in the margin, but in the overall it doesn't provice as much backup as one would wish. Keyed solutions is better but not good enought. Doing it with sats is cool and all that, but for some things it is not always the solution. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
