California Surveyors Forums

The FCC granted a company called LightSquared Subsidiary LLC a waiver to broadcast from 40,000 cell phone towers on a part of the Mobile Satellite Service spectrum (MSS) that is adjacent to GPS signals. These signals will be up to 800 billion times stronger than the GPS signals and will overwhelm the GPS signals that the surveying industry has come to rely on.

Are you aware of this very real threat to your investment in GPS and your livelyhood?

What are you doing about it?

After studies showed disruption and loss of GPS signal within 3000m of these cell towers to mobile Garmin type GPS receiver, Airplane navigation GPS receivers and all types tested, LightSquared modifyed its proposal slightly claiming to temporarily not broadcast very very close to the GPS signal and at full power. The claim that will allow 99% of GPS users to not be affected. While their initial claims that GPS users would not be affected have proven to be unfounded, even if this modified claim were true, Surveyors and those who depend on GPS carrier phase are in the 1% that will be affected.

The money behind this LightSquared proposal is huge and there is a Presidential mandate for universalily available Broadband Internet. This train is really barreling down the track and the opposition from the GPS industry is just one voice against this barrelling, whistling train.

I received an email from American Surveyor this morning that indicated that the public comment period with the FCC has been extended to August 15.

If you have not commented yet please do so.

Below is where you can submit comments:

1. Proceeding 11-109

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceedin ... ame=11-109

Towards to the top of the page, click "Submit a Filing in 11-109."

2. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/pleading.do

Please see the instructions on filling your comments at http://www.saveourgps.org/voice-your-concern.aspx.


Additional information on the issue can be found at:
http://www.pnt.gov/interference/lightsquared/

Attached is the letter CSRC sent.

Much more comments are needed. I am amazed at the number of comments actually supporting LightSquared's proposal.

The time for action is now.

From American Surveyor Today:

LightSquared: Corruption in the highest places seems to be the order of the day according to an Inside GNSS article which states "...political influences, driven by Harbinger’s billions and the president’s desire to lift up expansion of wireless broadband as a feature of his re-election campaign..."

To bring you up to speed, I have asked Gavin Schrock—our GNSS expert and tireless campaigner against that which would remove our ability to make money with GPS—to provide an update: "The public comment period on the FCC File Number: SAT-MOD-20101118-00239 “LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for Modification of Its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component" closed July 30th. With many hundreds of comments and related documents filed it is easy to see where the lines are drawn with respects to supporters and opponents. You can browse the filings HERE.

"You’ll see an overwhelming majority of comments against, but overall there is not the number of filings the FCC would usually receive for issues of even less economic impact. There have been matters affecting amateur radio enthusiasts in the past that received far more. It is very likely that the FCC has made up their minds already, possibly even before the waiver was granted early this year, and later despite the damning results. After all, LightSquared was granted an extension right when the early test results showed clearly that the GPS folks were not “exaggerating the potential interference hazardsâ€￾ (as the supporters “talking pointsâ€￾ had it before the testing even began).

"Though there are some very strong and convincing filings from opponents; agriculture, aviation, telecommunications, surveyors, public safety, and even (finally) federal agencies, it is the filings of supporters that fit in line with the comments that even the FCC Chair have made in support of the proposal. There are many filings from mayors, legislatures, and even major city fire and police that all seem to have the same “talking points.â€￾ Indeed, many surveyors and surveying associations (including the ACSM) that contacted their elected officials and found that they were rebuffed at the staffer level with the very same “talking pointsâ€￾.

"It would appear that some entity has done some serious and very effective lobbying. Points about the “digital divideâ€￾ and “rural broadbandâ€￾, and the promise of enhanced broadband to boost industries and create jobs certainly does hit home when a lobbyist hits their offices offering the magic bullet and helps fulfill campaign promises. Problem is, there is some merit to those arguments.

Supporters have convinced elected folks to dismiss the wave of protest from entities such as the GPS Industry Council and the Coalition to Save Our GPS as those of whiney naysayers who simply want to protect their GPS equipment markets and a statistically small number of end users (however bogus that proves to be if they look a bit deeper into the subject)."
If you make money with GPS, since it appears that the FCC has been co-opted, as in the last newsletter, I urge you to contact your representatives. Gavin has more to say on what you can still do in the Spotlight below. Late Breaking News: After this text was prepared, the FCC announced that it was extending the public comment period until August 15th. Even so, the fix appears to be in with the FCC, so you'll have more luck contacting your political representatives.

As always, please don't hesitate to contact me if you've got a project or story you'd like to share. Thanks for your support.
Until next time,
Marc Cheves, LS
Editor
The American Surveyor

Public comments to PUC's is a waste of time. It's strictly a legal procedure that they have to go thru. Since they are appointed they could care less what the public thinks, they follow the money like all political bobble heads.

It's a shame we have allowed our system to get so far out of control with these boards of bought and paid for dictators.

Time for the American people to study the laws and cut off the govts source of funding.

It may be a waste of time, but unfortunately it is the only way to let the FCC know what will happen.

Here is time when numbers do and can count. The association can only write one letter, but it has provided links, a sample letter which you can easily modify/personalize and encouragement. It is now up to you, the membership to actually let the government know how possibly having your GPS tools rendered useless will affect and your clients. When I went out to the FCC website, I only saw a few names and businesses from California I recognized having taken time to give input.

I encourage each and everyone of you to take the ten minutes it takes to create a letter and using Steve Martins links above, or the information from the CLSA home page to send a comment in before August 15. They have extended the time period, take advantage of it.

I am surprised at how many people are posting comments to the FCC in support of widely available Broadband and the LightSquared proposal. There must be a big public relations outreach campaign on behalf of LightSquared and the cellular industry to support the FCC approval.

Please make your voice heard with the FCC and your legislators.

Link to an article in WirelessWeek

http://wirelessweek.com/News/2011/08/Te ... -Networks/

The U.S. GPS Industry Council (USGIC) is throwing cold water on LightSquared's backup plan for its LTE network, which LightSquared claims will solve the GPS interference issue that threatens to derail its business.

The USGIC says a new report from a technical working group studying the issue shows LightSquared's proposal to deploy its service in 10 MHz of spectrum located farther away from airwaves used by sensitive GPS receivers "would cause harmful interference to GPS receivers and GPS-dependent applications."

"The TWG (technical working group) was unable to conclude – for any subteam
– that LightSquared 4G LTE operation on only the lower 10 MHz channel is a viable mitigation technique," the USGIC stated in a document to the FCC filed late Monday.

The USGIC stated that "nearly all" GPS receivers experienced "harmful interference" from LightSquared's LTE signal in the 1526-1536 MHz band, the airwaves it wants to use under its revised deployment plan.

The council also countered a finding that a deployment of LightSquared's network in a lower spectrum block would not affect cell phones, stating that more than 15 percent of devices tested would suffer harmful interference from LightSquared's proposed lower 10 MHz-only configuration.

"As a result, the Commission must rescind the waiver that was issued in LightSquared, and determine that terrestrial mobile broadband services cannot be provided in the MSS frequencies licensed to LightSquared," the USGIC said.

LightSquared rebutted the USGIC's interpretation of the technical working group's report, saying the GPS industry was "using an inappropriate interference threshold and an improper propagation model."

"Prohibiting LightSquared from operating terrestrially in its licensed band is not a solution," the company said, blaming the GPS industry for manufacturing poorly designed receivers prone to inference.

The FCC will not allow LightSquared to deploy its network until it resolves its potential threat to GPS service. It is not clear when the agency will make a decision on whether the company will be able to move ahead with its network plans.

The latest flap over LightSquared and GPS comes less than a week after the company inked a 15-year spectrum hosting deal with Sprint. The agreement will fall through if LightSquared is unable to obtain clearance from the FCC to deploy its LTE network.

ACSM Radio Hour Monday August 8, 2011 8:00 AM Pacific

LightSquared! Future of GPS/GNSS! Solar Activity!

You can’t afford to miss this important conversation with host Curt Sumner and his guest, GPS User Community Advocate Eric Gakstatter.

Join Curt and Eric on America’s Web Radio at www.americaswebradio.com to hear the latest on these three critical topics for the surveying and broader geospatial community.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/10/ ... =allsearch

"...But the FCC is not yet convinced the problem has been solved, even as the FCC chairman continued to defend LightSquared's idea to "both protect GPS and allow a new service to launch that will lead to billions of dollars in private investment, real job creation, and competition."

At a background briefing between FCC staff and reporters, the agency's technical experts and a government attorney explained the interference would not be LightSquared's fault, but rather, would be from the design of GPS receivers that makes them vulnerable to powerful nearby signals.

The GPS industry has disputed whether its receivers are the problem, since they were designed without a presumption a loud neighbor would move to frequencies nearby."

re Daves post LOL

Years ago I remember walking into the office one evening and this CE was about 3ft off the floor yelling "Just because the computer gives you a answer does not mean it's the right answer, doesn't anyone think anymore". A vertical curve issue.

If we lose L1 my "no longer supported" Locus units would not need D cells anymore.

Can you imagine all these youngn's having to traverse a block with a EDM.

And if this Light square is passed and does mess up GPS the GPS cos will just come out with more expensive units to sell us.

Govt is a big poker game and if you don't have the green the one with the green buys the pot.

Time to read the laws and quit supporting a dysfunctional govt.

Actually, real time networks are the direction we're heading, whether you like it or not. Most of California is covered with robust networks, complete with integrity monitoring and 24/7 support. Many eastern states are completely covered. Even the nation of Malaysia (peninsular) is covered. And machine guidance is the wave that will not be stopped. Embrace it or move out of the way. Learn to build the surfaces needed for operation of the machines. I've been building surfaces for years. BTW, although I use it often and am thankful for it's existance, OCRTN isn't a true real time network, it's a single base line only solution, simply a replacement for one's base station. Probably shouldn't even be called a "network". A VRS or Spider network would never have allowed erroneous corrections such as the recent issue OCRTN has just endured. And while we're going down this road, let it be known that I also remember how to traverse and do so often - RTK is not my knee jerk always use solution, but often a very useful solution. I would not want to do without it, just as I would not want to live without an EDM, even though I still know how to pull chain, and sometimes still do.

Well said, John. GPS nothing more than a tool. A dame ed useful tool, to be sure, but not the only one in the properly equipped tool box.

I may be confused, but when using a survey network you are obtaining calibrated CGC83 information in which you controller derives the appropiate CCS83? Then they are not in violation of 8815.2, since they are not providing CCS83, only CGC83. It is up to the LS to search for published passive NGS monuments or active CORS and calibrate the CCS83 to that datum tag.

Also, to comply with CA Law doesn't the network providers need to comply with 8875 (a) only (if no accuracy is stated), and as long they do not just hit the here button and check a NGS/CSRC monument, they should fine, but is determining the location of the base practicing land surveying?

In reading 8726(f): Geodetic or cadastral surveying: As used in this chapter, geodetic surveying means performing surveys, in which account is taken of the figure and size fo the earth to determine or predetermine the horizontal or vertical position of fixed objects thereon or related thereto, geodetic control points, monuments, or stations for use in the practice of land surveying or for stating the position of fixed objects, geodetic control points, monuments, or stations by California Coordinate System coordiantes.

As long as the network providers state everything is in CGC83, are they off the hook or is the determination of the base's horizontal and vertical position(Lat, Long and ellipsoid) not done by a LS a violation of the above Code?

Dave,
1) Spider networks provide epoch by epoch least squares adjustment from multiple base stations simultaneously; pretty solid system.
2) Do you really think that I performed 6 weeks of erroneous work without realizing it? I use OCRTN occasionally, not every day, and noticed the errors the first time I had used it after the conversion. To my knowledge, OCRTN is not widely used by anyone in Orange County other than Caltrans D-12 (hands down the number one user) and OCS. Receivers go out of the OCS vault infrequently these days due to the nature of current projects. The only regular user at OCS is using a newer Sokkia which is outfitted with a Topcon board, and therefore was immune to the problem. As for Caltrans, they spotted the problem immediately, reported it, and additional testing revealed what was initially thought to be a Trimble issue. It was only after I alerted Art to the Sokkia problem that it was realized that the problem was wider spread and due to the network software.
3) OCS procedure, and my procedure while formerly at Caltrans D-12, and the procedure of CT D-11 is to Localize, Site Calibrate, whatever your black box calls it, on 4 or more local published coordinates, in whatever epoch your heart may desire, making the broadcast epoch a moot point, and locking you into the ground system.
4) Why do you automatically assume that all users of the black box are incompetent? And why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I refuse to limit myself to one set of tools; it seems more efficient to explore the available technology, learn to understand it, and when to use it and when not to, and to understand the statistics availabe within the software, perform appropriate checks, etc.
5) I don't anticipate driving over any cliffs
6) OCRTN is not MY network, as you stated, it's the only network available to me at this time, and I understand it's limitations and try to use it when necessary. Of my 8 projects since starting back at OCS, I've used the network for 1 (before the problems started), rapid static for 1, and traversed the other 6. Am I reckless in your eyes? One who is blindly trusting my magic black box?

I think there are many "users" out there than hit the ground running and go with the "it's from the computer so it must be right" (see my previous post).

By user I am referring to how the mfgrs present this equipt to the public - simple, easy use, save time and money, send your secretary out to do the field work.

Years ago when the rayout surveys were in their infancy a survey business owner told me that with his program and 15min of instruction he could send any two people off the street out to do his const staking. My immediate thought was of a job staked 180 degrees out.

I HATE more laws/rules/regulations but if I am reading this correctly, private, for profit, companies are providing a portion of GPS work, such as being your base station.
Is anyone checking to see just what data is being sent to you and how it's obtained/processed and where is this data published.
I have had too many experiences with a company saying this will do ABC only to find out their method gets you close but not what they are selling. Many time the guy writing the software does not have the experience to properly test the results.

Dave,
Although you may not have intended it, your reply seems to me both condescending and accusatory. I am not on trial here, although in perhaps a Freudian slip, you mention that "the jury is still out" on my reckless behavior. We're supposed to be having a discussion of technology and methodology. I will answer your questions, but if you wish to discuss in more detail after this exchange, let's do so in person. I truly despise the tone into which some of these forum threads can degrade, and I sense the smell of blood in the water. For my money, face to face discussion is much more productive.
So, here you go, in order:
As to the technical details of Spider networks, I cannot attest. I am not a user. I have worked for two agencies going back 10 years and have not had the opportunity to be a daily user of a Spider network. Unfortunately, I've been limited to the OCRTN. That said, I have had a lengthy discussion with James Stowell, Director of GPS Networks for Leica Geosystems regarding Spider vs VRS, at a Caltrans spacial reference user's group meeting a few years back. He's a geodesist, a contemporary of Javad and Yahuda and etc, not a salesman. I came away with clear understanding that Spider is in fact performing an epoch by epoch least squares adjustment from multiple base stations. How that is reported to the raw data file, and then in turn reported to your post processing software, I cannot tell you. Perhaps you could contact Leica if you are curious. Again, don't confuse Spider's methodology with VRS; they are completely different. I'll let the PHD guys hash out the details of which is superior.
As for CRTN, and the software available which performs an above stated adjustment, we can discuss that off the air, as my opinion of that software and it's creator shouldn't be aired in a public forum. I'll just say that I have no need for that product.
As for OPUS, I don't use it, nor do I plan to use it. First of all, you cannot (as of today - but this is to change in the near future) process baselines between your own stations, only each station tied independently to the NGS stations. Second, I've been post processing my own static work for the past 7-8 years, and prefer to have my own grubby fingers on the controls.
You mention that if a site calibration is necessary, there may not be any time savings over setting your own base station. Apple and orange, there is no correlation. RTK is weak where it is weak, and strong where it is strong, whether it's your own base station or someone else's. Nice not to have to set up and guard the base station though. My point is that site calibration locks you into local published values. In answer to one of your other questions, I try not to work outside of the calibration. The only time that may happen in my world is if I have a project very near the coast, where depending upon the shape of the coastline, I may not be able to find control far enough south or west to encompass the project 100%. This may also be true against the base of a mountain range.
As for my personal methodology, I'll lay it down right now:
Working for an agency, such as Caltrans, and currently OCS, I work on large projects. Miles by miles. On boundary projects, I perform a pseudo calibration by dialing into the RTN and observing minimum four local points around the perimeter of the project twice each, separated by a minimum of four hours to allow for change in satellite geometry. I also occupy each of my control points using the same criteria. These points are strategically placed - I tend to locate these points at the dead end points of the traverse, and at points of geometric weakness, such as between multiple traverse legs in a linear arrangement. One particular job I worked on in south OC, I tied in over 100 boundary monuments spread out over a few square miles. I GPS'd about a dozen control points. These were used as the coordinate seeding for my raw data. I used a total station to traverse through or double determine all of the boundary points. When all field data was collected, I used Trimble Business Center (I sometimes use Starnet, I'm conversant in both, and some of the clients wanted the DAT files so as to aid in their boundary analysis) to swirl all of the data together, using only the published control as fixed. I never use my RTK as gospel, constraining my angles and distances to it. I swirl all of the data together - GPS vectors and total station data. For topo control, freeway or flood channel topos are usually long corridor configurations, so I usually RTK the first two control points (method as above), followed by every 4th or 5th point until I reach the end of the project. I then wrap angles as I'm topo-ing, and adjust the whole mess in least squares. As for collecting topo data with RTK, I would only shoot tops and toes and utilities like pull boxes. The rest gets hit with the gun. As for construction staking, yes, I do some of that. After calibration, RTK is perfectly suited for slope staking and rough-rough grade stakes like top/toe stakes. Plenty of control around for checks before, during, and after staking. Ask around any of the productive Caltrans groups, and they'll tell you a goal we shoot for is a mile a day on 50' stations. Some days a bit more. Try that with your gun. How far does it shoot? My last two projects were each in the neighborhood of $80M, without a single dollar lost to staking errors. One project was a Silver Award winner, the other a Gold. How many of those big projects do you have under your belt? And no, I've never tacked an RTK'd hub. I'm extremely insulted that you'd even mention that. Extremely insulted. Extremely insulted. No, I don't stutter. I can see that perhaps you do indeed think I'm an idiot. I'm an absolute stickler for maintaining acceptable relative positional accuracy on a project, and review my covariance files for compliance with whatever standards I am required to meet. I would NEVER, as you suggest RTK centerline ties, nor would I RTK two points under approximately 700' apart (depending on the specs of the equipment used and the individual positional errors), if this data were not to be bolstered with total station data. Should I state the mathematical formula I use to determine relative positional accuracy between points?
It's funny Dave, we seem to have similar beefs (and not just on this issue) but different response mechanisms. I too am peeved at the thought of people RTKing ties and generally misusing the tool. I could rail on and on about people with no sense for network geometry, or for that matter not knowing when NOT to tack the hub, or "punch the punch mark", as I sometimes call it. That's where our professional judgment kicks in. It's just that I feel that we should be educating the users, as I attempt to educate my colleagues as to proper use of this most excellent tool. Not issuing blanket condemnation of the tool because it may be easily misused. And you talk of wanting me to lay out my facts so that you may be proven wrong, but the issue here, as it usually is for us surveyors, is not black or white. One of us isn't necessarily right and therefore the other wrong. These are viewpoints, discussion items, thought provokers, educational opportunities. If you choose not to use RTN, why would I care. It doesn't affect me in any way. I don't feel the need to convince you that I'm right and that you should convert and become an RTN junkie. It's just another one of my many tools.
So, as I stated above, if you wish to discuss this any further, corner me at the next CLSA meeting and we'll talk some more. I won't answer to any more of what I perceive to be attacks under the guise of "educate me, John".
Peace, Out.

"As for OPUS, I don't use it, nor do I plan to use it."

Not a criticism, merely a comment: on largish networks (most of my GPS work is county-scale or bigger for height mod purposes), OPUS and OPUS-RS are very useful for establishing seed positions for the network stations. They relieve me of the drudgery of establishing vector flowout in order to minimize cumulative errors.

I'm told (not verified by me) that TBC doesn't allow flowout control as TGO does. If so, the OPUS/OPUS-RS approach would be even more valuable for TBC users.

.

Jim,
Thanks - I will take that into consideration. It is true that TBC offers less control than TGO. I was accustomed to heading straight into Timeline and had to rethink my processing procedures once we switched to TBC. From the perspective of a mid-level user such as myself though, it was a good switch.

Another good discussion and a source to learn from. Do I get CE's? And John I will beg to differ on the Network coverage in the State. My best guess is 50% or less. So Cal coverage is good, but north of the Grapevine, the only coverage is within the great Basin of the San Jaquin and the Bay area. Every where east of the "flats" or within the Coastal Mountains, coverage is slim to none. It is also compounded by the lack of cell phone reception.

Russ,
You do have a good point there. Cell coverage is the killer. Central Valley is well covered by a robust free network, administered by Caltrans out of Fresno. Bay area has excellent coverage with two vendors to choose from. So Cal is getting better. The desert and plains states are unique in their vastness and minimal cell coverage; other than that the US will eventually be blanketed. It's all good, whether you use it for machine guidance, farm equipment, high grade surveying, or just search coordinates. Just have to know when to say when.

Interesting discussions.

I do feel like someone dropped a bomb on my thread though.
Dave Wooley, is that you playing Dr. Strangelove?

Getting back to the original topic, I hope the FCC does the right thing and does not bow to political or lobby interests. I for one want to keep the GPS equipment we have, working. If you hear of anything new on the topic, please post here.

I hope the FCC does the right thing and does not bow to political or lobby interests"


You are talking about a govt agency here and you expect it to ignore the money. LMAO

Do something about it.

Write a letter to the FCC or your elected representatives.

Who would you suggest, Boxer or Feinstein, both with their hands in the pockets of big business.

Ignorant voters keep reelecting the same skumbags and expect a change from status quo.