[ChrisOstler]

That's only telling part of the story, as far as I understand. Lightspeed wants the FCC to change their license for (lower powered) satellite communication to allow them to use the spectrum for (higher powered) terrestrial use.

Users of adjacent spectrum designed their products properly for being adjacent to lower powered satellite signals. They weren't designed to filter out the much higher power terrestrial signals that Lightspeed is vying for.

The FCC is not denying Lightspeed the use of their licensed spectrum; they are not letting Lightspeed redefine their license to be something different than it is.

[jws]

I believe their license includes the right to use terrestrial stations to fill in. They are under a conditional waiver not use a satellite at all. They are certainly using spectrum in a way not foreseen, but that is different from forbidden.

The bottom line is that the US has suspiciously high wireless data costs and a duopoly controlling the market. It's either make more players, effectively regulate the existing players, or allow the overpriced drag on consumers to persist.

There are only a quarter million airplanes in the US. Retrofit all of their navigation aids systems and free up a couple hundred MHz of bandwidth and you'd still pay for it with one year's savings from the mobile internet consumers. (And probably have better navigation in the planes.)

[rprasad]

I believe their license includes the right to use terrestrial stations to fill in. They are under a conditional waiver not use a satellite at all. They are certainly using spectrum in a way not foreseen, but that is different from forbidden.

That's wrong. Only specific bands of wireless are unregulated; the bands at issue here are heavily regulated and are restricted to low-power satellite transmissions. Lightsquared had a conditional use permit to use the spectrum it purchased for alternative purpose but only if it could show that it would not interfere with the use of other low powered satellite transmission spectrums. Light-squared failed to do so.

An example that has been brought up before: its as if Lightsquared bought a house in a residential neighborhood, zoned for residential, and then tried to demand the right to use it as a venue for holding large-scale commercial concerts.

[RockyMcNuts]

Exactly, they licensed the spectrum for satellite comms, and LightSquared wants to exploit a loophole to use it as (much more valuable) cellular LTE.

It's kind of like buying land zoned for industrial use next to the airport because you can get it rezoned for residential and make a ton of money. And the airport is saying WTF, now we're going to have to deal with local voters who will want us to change the way we do things.

If you're going to do this sort of thing, you need to make sure you have your engineering down pat, and your local politicians and regulators in your pocket.

see http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/02/lightsquared-some-...

[jws]

"Loophole" is not a word that means anything in law. Their licenses describe a set of legal uses. If the FCC doesn't want to allow these then let them offer a comparable solution.

Personally, I think it makes sense to declare a quiet zone around the GPS frequencies if it enables smaller, cheaper, and lower power consuming GPS receivers. But that should involve relocating the existing license holders.

[RockyMcNuts]

'assclown' is not a word that means anything in law. But there are situations where it applies in real life.

[rprasad]

Exactly. But Lightsquared is NOT an "existing license holder". Lightsquared purchased the neighboring spectrum within the past few years. At the time it purchased the spectrum, it knew that the spectrum was limited to low-power transmissions.

[jws]

The FCC set no limit on the number or power of terrestrial towers. In hindsight, that was shortsighted of them, but the licenses are there. It is only the GPS interference