Pete wrote:
I suppose you can't really blame LS for trying it on - the real fault lies with the FCC for not shooting the idea down completely when it was first suggested.
The regulatory notion is "ancillary terrestrial component" ("ATC"). Its original purpose (conceived in the early '90s) was to allow satellite operators to fill in dead zones. Satellite radio (SDARS) operators began deploying ATC in the late '90s and early '00s. The SDARS licensees seriously abused the privilege (causing extensive interference to users of the adjacent WCS spectrum), and it has been downhill ever since. I thought it was a bad idea in 1992, and subsequent experience has only strengthened my view.
As I have said before, the current FCC has the (I believe) unfounded notions (1) that an exploding need for additional mobile broadband spectrum will continue unabated for at least a decade (based on the figures for the first couple of years of data, which are inevitably way higher than ultimate demand for any new service), and (2) that providing more broadband spectrum is critical to the US pulling out of the recession. Accepting these (I believe) mistaken premises, the FCC is in an absolute panic to increase the supply of mobile broadband spectrum by 500 MHz nationwide. And good decisions are rarely made by bureaucrats in a panic. The decision to encourage terrestrial use of the MSS spectrum is just one of many examples.
As a reality check on my skepticism regarding the FCC's conclusions, or at least the practicability of fulfilling them: If you accept the FCC's demand projections for mobile broadband spectrum, it is clear that even 500 MHz of additional spectrum would not come anywhere near fulfilling the rising demand over the next 5 years. That would take more like 3-10 GHz, depending on other assumptions. But there is simply not that much spectrum physically suitable for mobile broadband use, even if you allocate it all to wireless carriers -- frequencies below about 500 MHz require antennas too large for practical handsets, and frequencies much above 2 GHz do not carry far enough in open country, or penetrate sufficiently into buildings, natural canyons, or urban canyons, to work acceptably.
All that said, LS's engineers should have (and may have) foreseen the devastating effect the use of ATC on their particular L-band spectrum would have on GPS as we know it, and LS management should have known that their plan would ultimately fail. But the prospect of making a windfall of many billions of dollars apparently blinded them (or, in their minds, justified the risk). But in the end, LS took the risk and LS should bear its losses and quit trying to stick US taxpayers with it. They paid fair prices for MSS spectrum that can still be used for its intended purpose, or sold. No loss, no foul.
Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
