Hi The obvious advantage to backwards compatibility would be much greater coverage area. It is a bit tough to envision them getting a reasonable user population with a 100% from scratch approach. Indeed that may be wishful thinking.
Bob On Mar 1, 2012, at 8:09 PM, "Charles P. Steinmetz" <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg wrote: > >> A friend in Texas has confirmed that Loran signals are now up and receivers >> are showing position. I am including a note from UrsaNav regarding this >> event. > > What are the odds that any long-term deployment would be backward-compatible > with legacy Loran receivers (not the same as the initial tests being > backward-compatible)? The primary revenue stream would appear to be from > sales of new receivers that use patented technology (unless the government > wants to get back into the business of subsidizing Loran, which it just > vacated -- not very likely). Cynical, maybe, but it is always a good idea to > keep an eye on the money. I suppose they could make the enhancements > transparent to legacy receivers, so you would buy new receivers if you needed > the enhancements but could also use older receivers if you didn't. But would > they? There does not appear to be an incentive to do so, absent a government > subsidy. > > Best regards, > > Charles > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
