Why LightSquared cannot deploy LTE

Re:Why LightSquared cannot deploy LTE by jws on Monday February 06, 2012 @05:21PM (#3559488)

"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why LightSquared cannot deploy LTE by RockyMcNuts on Monday February 06, 2012 @06:33PM (#3559732)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why LightSquared cannot deploy LTE by rprasad on Monday February 06, 2012 @06:53PM (#3559793)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why LightSquared cannot deploy LTE by jws on Monday February 06, 2012 @07:51PM (#3559938)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]