Hi I would by no means argue with any of those points. The only thing I would add is that 40,000 transmitters is a *lot* of hardware to fill in gaps. You could do a pretty good job covering the whole country with that much hardware. The same math that goes for jamming, also works pretty well for coverage.
Bob -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Atkinson Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:54 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] From GPS World - Lightsquared has been given thegoahead Hi, First I'm in the UK so this does not directly affect me. I do have some slightly independent comments. Firstly the Garmin tests seemed very reasonable and erred to favor LightSquared. They were free field in an anecohic chamber. There was an L1 notch filter in the output of the LightSquared simulator. I'd guess the Aviation GPS was worse because of A and older design and B It will only give valid outputs if it is sure the signal is OK. On the politcal side, LightSquared are supposed to be supplying nationwide satellite service. The ground stations are "fill in" for heavy use areas. This is seamless with the sat service so they "had" to be the same band. So they got permission to use the band. What is the betting that once the service is established they will drop or price hike the sat service? That would save them the $115,000,000 per year that they are paying Intelsat. Robert G8RPI. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
