Article from Boat US sounds as if this could impact all of us in a real negative way
Attachments
-
1.1 MB Views: 242
Last edited:
Oh, how I miss those LORAN TD lines all over the chart.The new administration is reportedly looking into a new and emerging technology called LORAN....
Speaking as the son of an amateur radio operator who used to get phone calls about his father messing up the neighbor's TV reception, I think the issue is RF splatter and noise that can be generated. The noise may interfere with signal reception. It would be similar to driving past a broadcast radio station with that signal blasting over the station you were listening to.I do not understand why it will affect GPS.
Here are the GPS frequency plans and note it is the "M-Code" which is new, not the GPS codes we use for navigation.
GPS Signal Plan - Navipedia
America's 5G Future
Jim...
I was flying a hang glider in the 90s with a hi-8 video camera mounted on the glider. at one point in the flight I flew multiple passes in front of a relay tower on the peak of a mountain. when I got home and reviewed the footage I could clearly hear what was apparently TV audio that somehow transferred to the videos audio track each time I had passed in front of the antenna. weird things can happen.Speaking as the son of an amateur radio operator who used to get phone calls about his father messing up the neighbor's TV reception, I think the issue is RF splatter and noise that can be generated. The noise may interfere with signal reception. It would be similar to driving past a broadcast radio station with that signal blasting over the station you were listening to.
The former chair of the FCC has resigned. Perhaps the next chair will be more forthcoming and responsive to consumers and their advocates.What is troubling is the lack of transparency from the FCC.
Still trying to figure out what, if anything, there is here to be transparent about.What is troubling is the lack of transparency from the FCC.
I tend to agree. Generally for navigation our precision requirements are pretty low. Plus or minus 50 or 100 feet should be just fine for keeping us going in the right direction. There are other cases where the precision needs are much higher, and some of those likely have more lobby strength than Ligado Networks. It seems unlikely that the change would degrade the system so severely that it would impact not just those high precision cases but also our needs.Sounds more like paranoia than anything else. No evidence exists of interference - it's all "may", might", "could happen",... Certainly, if there was any real evidence, test results or examples, it would be on every billboard.
FCC has denied requests from NOAA and NASA for more debate on the issue. Letters from interested parties in Aviation, Marine Transportation, Military, Homeland Security have not been given consideration. The FCC is siding with a Private Company expected to make millions from the action. The history of said Company investors and board raises suspicions about the motives behind the FCC ruling. Is more needed to support questions about transparency?Still trying to figure out what, if anything, there is here to be transparent about.
Healthy skepticism is a good thing but all I’ve read are a bunch of supposition by those challenging the plan. It’s hard for the government to deny a petition for frequency allocation based solely on supposition.FCC has denied requests from NOOA and NASA for more debate on the issue. Letters from interested parties in Aviation, Marine Transportation, Military, Homeland Security have not been given consideration. The FCC is siding with a Private Company expected to make millions from the action. The history of said Company investors and board raises suspicions about the motives behind the FCC ruling. Is more needed to support questions about transparency?
The DOD and the FAA take these kinds of questions very seriously. They object to granting the license to this one company for this part of the spectrum. When several government agencies object to what one agency is doing, we need to listen.Healthy skepticism is a good thing but all I’ve read are a bunch of supposition by those challenging the plan. It’s hard for the government to deny a petition for frequency allocation based solely on supposition.
If it’s transparency you seek, it should come from those objecting to show why. They haven’t...
You weren't flying at Sandia were you? We used to joke about putting aluminum foil in our underwear when we launched from the antenna site.I was flying a hang glider in the 90s with a hi-8 video camera mounted on the glider. at one point in the flight I flew multiple passes in front of a relay tower on the peak of a mountain. when I got home and reviewed the footage I could clearly hear what was apparently TV audio that somehow transferred to the videos audio track each time I had passed in front of the antenna. weird things can happen.
haha. no. we had launched from a small local site here in S.W. Oregon. the tower was encountered wile going XC. no tinfoil required, but glad I didn't have any candy bars in my pockets at the time.You weren't flying at Sandia were you? We used to joke about putting aluminum foil in our underwear when we launched from the antenna site.
Not suggesting we (the FCC) don’t listen. Simply that we don’t hear anything in their objections based on fact, evidence or data. As cited here previously by their own statements, they object based on nothing except conjecture. Why take conjecture seriously?The DOD and the FAA take these kinds of questions very seriously. They object to granting the license to this one company for this part of the spectrum. When several government agencies object to what one agency is doing, we need to listen.