X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:41:20 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5063912 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:45:12 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=PcgxDs+lGw3NKoc6E4UTfLLarx7d9ppA7t6vM1x/XP+3IGeX7I9VlSZEt3aKS9fa; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.223.85.75] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QljoC-0003tf-Sw for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:44:37 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-156-527911141 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Potential LightSquared GPS Interference X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:44:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94014983c5ddaac882b8fb72ec913b9a043350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.223.85.75 --Apple-Mail-156-527911141 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 that's a NO answer. I suggest writing again with the facts. I'm in litigation right now on a different telecommunications issue. =20 The MO of the applicant is to create some verbiage for each "check box" = required by the application process. The hope is that the approving = body will only look to see if the box is checked and not smell the = contents. Sounds like Ms. Hutchinson bought it. On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:47 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: > That's a great non answer. >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:31 PM, "Stan Fields" = wrote: >=20 >> I expressed concern about the potential GPS interference resulting = from Lightsquare=92s new 4G network as voiced on LML. This is the reply = from Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison who chairs the Senate committee = with jurisdiction over spectrum issues.=20 >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Stan Fields >>=20 >> Austin =96 LEG 201 >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Concerns have been expressed about the possibility of LightSquared = services interfering with existing GPS capabilities. On June 30, 2011, = LightSquared submitted a final report of the technical working group = comprised of representatives from LightSquared and the GPS Industry = Council. This report, required as a condition under the Federal = Communications Commission (FCC) Authorization and Order, identified = potentially significant interference between LightSquared operations in = its =93upper band,=94 and a number of legacy GPS receivers. Some = interference issues were also identified for the lower 10 MHz band of = spectrum owned by Lightsquared. In conjunction with the report, = LightSquared has identified certain steps it can take to mitigate = interference, such as freezing land-based use of its Upper 10 MHz = frequencies adjacent to the GPS band. >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, = Science, and Technology, which has jurisdiction over spectrum issues, = please be assured that I will work to ensure our GPS capabilities are = not threatened by expansion in the wireless broadband market. >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not = hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you. >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Sincerely, >>=20 >> Kay Bailey Hutchison >>=20 >> United States Senator >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 --Apple-Mail-156-527911141 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252


On Jul 26, = 2011, at 7:47 AM, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:

That's a great non answer.

Sent from my = iPad

On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:31 PM, "Stan Fields" <sdfields@austin.rr.com> = wrote:

  I expressed concern about the potential GPS interference resulting from Lightsquare=92s new = 4G network as voiced on LML. This is the reply from Texas Senator Kay = Bailey Hutchison who chairs the Senate committee with jurisdiction over spectrum = issues. 

 

Stan = Fields

Austin =96 LEG 201

 

  Concerns have = been expressed about the possibility of LightSquared services interfering = with existing GPS capabilities.  On June 30, 2011, LightSquared = submitted a final report of the technical working group comprised of representatives = from LightSquared and the GPS Industry Council.  This report, required = as a condition under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) = Authorization and Order, identified potentially significant interference between = LightSquared operations in its =93upper band,=94 and a number of legacy GPS receivers.  Some interference issues were also identified for the = lower 10 MHz band of spectrum owned by Lightsquared.  In conjunction with = the report, LightSquared has identified certain steps it can take to = mitigate interference, such as freezing land-based use of its Upper 10 MHz = frequencies adjacent to the GPS band.

 

     = As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and = Technology, which has jurisdiction over spectrum issues, please be assured that I = will work to ensure our GPS capabilities are not threatened by expansion in the = wireless broadband market.

 

     = I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to = contact me on any issue that is important to you.

 

Sincerely,

Kay Bailey Hutchison

United States Senator

 


= --Apple-Mail-156-527911141--