Comments on: LightSquared, problems squared http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/23/lightsquared-problems-squared/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lightsquared-problems-squared Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Rhyolite http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/23/lightsquared-problems-squared/#comment-348172 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:34:17 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4797#comment-348172 LightSquared really exists to gain access to the ancillary terrestrial spectrum, which is extremely valuable. The satellite is almost irrelevant. It’s the terrestrial component that poses the interference risk.

]]> By: amightywind http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/23/lightsquared-problems-squared/#comment-348134 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:20:12 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4797#comment-348134 It’s tough enough to raise the billions of dollars needed to build out a nationwide hybrid satellite/terrestrial wireless network

It’s tough because of all the mobile satellite systems that failed. Investors aren’t stupid. Throw in the risk of GPS interference and it is a non-starter. The list of failures of LEO and MEO based systems is long: Globalstar, ICO, Iridium, Teledesic. Yes, Iridium is currently operating profitably, but only because the original Motorola assets were bought out of bankruptcy for pennies on the dollar.

]]> By: John http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/23/lightsquared-problems-squared/#comment-348127 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:51:40 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4797#comment-348127 I blame the FCC. They should have had the foresight to see that putting high powered communications right next to the GPS spectrum was a bad idea.

Lightsquared will loose this battle because GPS is so pervasive in both industrial and consumer segments these days that any degradation in GPS performance will be a big deal.

]]>