Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I'll like it even more when the news is of revenue generating new services and effective executed marketing campaigns.
Big Biz Interview. . .
The interview was on 1/5/2012 during the second hour of the show.
http://bigbizshow.com/
On main page, select/click "On Air" button just beneath the pictures of the two interviewers. This will take you to the media page. Wait for page to fully load.
Then, just above the middle of the page, select the "Audio" tab. Scroll down the listing of Audio interviews to the 1/5 entry and select "Hour 2"
The interview begins about 16 minutes in.
The comment about the Yahoo advert campaign is after the 17:55 min mark.
The comment about 30 days is after the 32 min mark just before the end of the interview. (Please note, Mark said 3 days during the interview buy clarified to this MB in a email to say 30 days.)
I agree; Waiting for Contracts & New VVoIP Apps
Sprint grants LightSquared extension for FCC clearance
IMHO, I would be cautious about time tables provided by PVSP as their fortunes are partly tied to LightSquared. When the FCC resolves the issue for LightSquared, then things will move very quickly.
=====================================
Sprint grants LightSquared new extension to get FCC clearance
By Greg Bensinger, Dow Jones Newswires
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Sprint Nextel Corp. granted billionaire Philip Falcone's LightSquared Inc. a new six-week extension to get Federal Communications Commission clearance to operate its planned nationwide fourth-generation network.
A Sprint spokesman said Tuesday the carrier had given LightSquared until mid-March to resolve FCC concerns its network interferes with global-positioning systems. That follows a 30-day extension Overland Park, Kan.-based Sprint gave LightSquared at the end of last year.
LightSquared has battled criticism from the Defense Department, lawmakers, GPS device manufacturers and others who say its wireless airwaves, or spectrum, will jam GPS signals. LightSquared--which is backed by Falcone's Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund--needs FCC authorization to roll out its network to 260 million people by 2016.
Click here to find out more!The FCC is accepting public comment until Feb. 27 on LightSquared's argument that GPS device manufacturers aren't entitled to legal protection from interference caused by its signals.
Getting the FCC's approval is a condition of Sprint and LightSquared's 15-year accord to share spectrum and network construction and equipment costs. LightSquared has said the agreement will help it save about $13 billion through the end of this decade.
To help mitigate any GPS interference, LightSquared last year agreed to lower the power of its cell towers and to use only a portion of its airwaves. The company has argued that it should not bear the cost of providing technology to companies to prevent any GPS signal-jamming.
LightSquared said earlier this month it has enough cash to operate through several quarters, though it has said it needs an additional $3.5 billion to be cash-flow positive over the next two years. The company said it is not raising additional funds as it works to resolve the FCC's concerns.
Officials from LightSquared and the FCC couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Do you have the link to Paul's interview?
FCC Seeks Comments on LightSquared GPS Declaration Request
For those of you who see LightSquared as a positive opportunity for Vox, then be aware that the FCC has heard/read your emails and has opened the door to a Public Comment process ending March 13th. To the degree the market sees a relationship, the rise in the PPS will be impacted.
IMHO, I think the FCC sees the importance of LightSquared-GPS Coexistence and competition within the GPS industry as having moved into the realm of a great national priority. With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's description this last week of a leaner military that enhances National Security in part through the greater reliance on drones already proved to be susceptible to GPS spoofing, it seems inappropriate to protect GPS manufacturers that fraudulently hide their inability to innovate and compete. I think this national issue has gone towards unifying the two political parties on this topic when the notable Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, pointedly and publicly supports LightSquared-GPS coexistence and the benefits of free market competition.
IMHO, this FCC move bodes well for VOX! ! !
====================================================
FCC Seeks Public Comments
January 27, 2012, 5:38 PM EST
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. regulators asked for public comments on LightSquared Inc.’s request for a finding that global-positioning system gear doesn’t merit legal protection from interference caused by the proposed wireless service.
LightSquared is “extremely pleased” with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s move today, Jeff Carlisle, executive vice president, said in an e-mailed statement.
The Reston, Virginia-based company has been stymied by arguments its system including 40,000 ground-based antennas will emit signals that disrupt GPS gear guiding the world’s boats, aircraft and tractors when they operate in the U.S.
LightSquared, backed by $3 billion from financier Philip Falcone’s Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund, awaits final approval to begin commercial service as U.S. officials weigh test results showing interference to GPS gear.
Makers of GPS devices say LightSquared proposes an inappropriate use of its frequencies, which have been reserved mainly for faint emissions from satellites.
The FCC made its solicitation in a notice distributed by e- mail today. It asked for comments by Feb. 27, and responses by March 13.
LightSquared in a Dec. 20 petition to the FCC said GPS makers sell “unlicensed and poorly designed” receivers that improperly listen to LightSquared’s airwaves.
Congressional Directives
“This question has, for too long, been evaded by the GPS manufacturers,” Carlisle said.
Congressional directives bar the FCC from clearing LightSquared before questions of GPS interference are settled, Jim Kirkland, general counsel of navigation-gear maker Trimble Navigation Ltd., said in an e-mailed statement.
LightSquared’s Dec. 20 request is made up of “revisionist history and gross mischaracterization of prior FCC decisions,” Kirkland said. “LightSquared and its predecessors have never been allowed to interfere with GPS.”
Trimble, based in Sunnyvale, California, is part of the Coalition to Save Our GPS that was formed to oppose LightSquared’s plan. The group lists members including package shippers FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc., GPS-unit maker Garmin Ltd., Delta Air Lines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., and farm-equipment maker Deere & Co.
--Editors: Steve Walsh, Andrea Snyder
To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Shepard at mshepard7@bloomberg.net
Link Please . . .
Letter to Assistant Secretary of NTIA
Apparantly, the LightSquared-GPS coexistence issue will reach a milestone soon. The linked article below indicates that the NTIA will be providing their perspective to the FCC as soon as next week.
LightSquared's Fate
Due to the benefits of a positive move by the NTIA, I sent the email below and I suggest interested Longs do so as well.
The Assistant Secretary's email address: LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
National Telecommunications & Information Administration
United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Subject: LightSquared – GPS Coexistence
Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling:
This is a note in response to and in support of LightSquared’s December 20th, 2011 request to the FCC for a declaratory ruling, confirming LightSquared’s legal rights to its licensed spectrum as well as an NTIA decision in support of LightSquared and GPS Coexistence. You should know that I am a private investor in several of the small public companies that will benefit greatly from LightSquared’s wholesale network going live.
I have tried to keep abreast of the news. As such, I have developed a sense of faith in Dr. Javad Ashjaee, an industry veteran characterized as “one of the single most innovative people in his field, bringing out products that make his competitors unhappy and uncomfortable at times because he is a leader” by Tom Stansell, a pioneer and 50 year veteran of the GPS industry. My concerns are brought into focus by a recent statement of Dr. Javad and I politely pose the question to you: Why has Dr. Javad gone out on the limb to initially portray the PNT’s recent testing by stating: “Either they lacked technical competence, or they intentionally misled the debate with false claims”? And then, why has Dr. Javad drawn a hard line weeks later when he characterized the PNT's testing as "fraudulent"?
To be bold, I respectfully suggest your team draw up a list of those 40+ companies signing contracts with LightSquared and assess “why so many”. Then assess the scope of this new competition against existing suppliers as well as the extent to which new services are being created. Ask why so many and why only with the advent of LightSquared.
Certainly the benefits of competition are brought into sharp relief when you balance two questions: (1) why did the GPS Coalition indicate at the eleventh hour that a solution to the GPS-LightSquared coexistence wasn’t technically possible, and if it was, would take $ Billions and up to 10 years to develop and implement; and (2) how was Javad GNSS able to drive solutions for all LightSquared spectrum slices in just months of development for far less than expected.
Finally and respectfully, I suggest the importance of LightSquared-GPS Coexistence and competition within the GPS industry has moved into the realm of a great national priority. With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's description yesterday of a leaner military that enhances National Security in part through the greater reliance on drones already proved to be susceptible to GPS spoofing, it seems inappropriate to protect GPS manufacturers that fraudulently hide their inability to innovate and compete. I suggest this national issue has gone towards unifying the two political parties on this topic when the notable Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, pointedly and publicly supports LightSquared-GPS coexistence and the benefits of free market competition.
I wish you the best in your efforts of balancing the interests in this public policy debate. I do believe our nation’s best interests will be fulfilled through coexistence and increased competition; and, I think it fair to say that the economic growth engendered by coexistence and increased competition will truly enhance our ability to exit the “Great Recession”.
Sincerely,
Mason Ainsworth
"Fraudulent Round of Testing"
These are very harsh words from a well respected GPS engineer used in his letter below. It is 3 pages, so I have not copied it to this board; you can read it at the given link below.
Given Grover Norquist's and Greg Walden's movement in support of LightSquared, I again suggest that Longs who have not done so, email The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC. I used the following and is a suggested starting point for you.
Suggested Letter
++++++++++++
Letter to FCC and NTIA
Written by Javad Ashjaee
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Growing Republican Support of LightSquared?
What a difference one day makes as well as an opinion piece by Grover Norquist. I am guessing there is a growing tide in support of LightSquared & GPS Coexistence given Rep. Greg Walden's decision outlined below.
Only time will tell.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tech subcommittee to hold hearing on LightSquared
By Brendan Sasso - 01/25/12 01:38 PM ET
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) chairman of Energy and Commerce's technology subcommittee, told reporters on Wednesday he plans to hold a hearing on wireless startup LightSquared.
The company, which has invested billions of dollars to launch a wholesale wireless broadband service, has become embroiled in controversy since tests showed its planned network could interfere with GPS devices.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted LightSquared a conditional waiver to move forward last year, but commission officials say the company will not receive final approval to launch its network until it solves the GPS issue.
Some Republicans have accused the White House and the FCC of showing inappropriate favoritism to LightSquared, but Walden did not suggest any wrongdoing.
He questioned why the FCC allowed LightSquared to get as far as it has in the regulatory process before discovering the interference problems, but he suggested there could still be an engineering solution to the interference problem.
He noted that the interference is a result of GPS devices receiving signals from outside of their designated frequencies — not by LightSquared's signal bleeding into the GPS band. He said he hopes it would be possible for GPS companies to modify their receivers to work in the presence of LightSquared's network.
Walden said his hearing will probe why the FCC did not discover the interference problem earlier and what can be done about it now.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has pledged to block President Obama's two nominees to fill FCC vacancies unless the agency releases internal documents related to its review of LightSquared.
The company is financed in large part by billionaire Phil Falcone of Harbinger Capital. But the company is now reportedly running low on cash and risks losing a contract with Sprint unless it can receive regulatory approval in the coming weeks.
FCC can prevent crisis by moving on Spectrum now
I thought it important to share the following story for several reasons. The first and most important is due to who has co-authored this piece: Grover Norquist. The second is the potential positive impact on the LightSquared-GPS Coexistence issue.
Mr. Norquist is an extremely powerful Republican who has chosen to come down on the side of LightSquared's property rights. Further, he has positioned the hold-up as being due to "Big Government" meddling in the free market. In effect, the first step for gaining Republican support has occurred.
It is my hope that this will enable the FCC to support LightSquared's request for a declarative ruling to protect their legal rights over their property. IMHO, if the large manufacturers behind the GPS Coalition are sued for $ Billions for constructive interference with the lawful exercise of property rights and interference with the exercise of lawful contracts and the associated $ Billions in revenues, then the Coalition's decisions and behavior will change.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FCC can prevent crisis by moving on Spectrum now
By Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform and Kelly William Cobb, Digital Liberty - 01/23/12 12:59 PM ET
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission are mired in a debate over how to free more spectrum for wireless broadband. Meanwhile, it’s been nearly two years since the White House and FCC promised to double the amount of spectrum we currently have for mobile broadband. It’s time for government to stop standing in the way of solutions to the looming spectrum crisis.
Americans are beginning to feel the spectrum crunch already in densely populated cities. While most may blame their cell phone company for slow or unresponsive service, the true fault is government. Wireless carriers spend over $20 billion dollars per year just to upgrade and maintain wireless networks. But maintaining roads only has a residual impact on traffic when what are needed are more lanes. With spectrum, the government has been slow to provide.
The last major spectrum auction was back in 2008. Yet, the FCC is sitting on spectrum it can auction today, including the D Block. Meanwhile, they helped kill the AT&T/T-Mobile merger aimed at using spectrum more efficiently to expand coverage and capacity. And they’ve slowed AT&T's purchase of Qualcomm spectrum. Here’s to hoping they don’t stall Verizon’s purchase of unused spectrum from cable companies.
When the company LightSquared announced plans to launch a brand new, $14 billion 4G wireless network combining satellites and cell towers, the FCC cheered. They praised the company for expanding broadband to underserved areas and bringing an innovative new form of wireless service. With the FCC’s initial blessing, the company acquired spectrum and began building out its new network years ago.
Yet, when the GPS industry and federal departments complained that LightSquared’s network could interfere with some GPS devices, the Commission quickly quieted, cowered, and slowed the company’s plans. The GPS industry used influence with bureaucrats in the federal government to curb progress, even leading to the Pentagon and other agencies leaking a preliminary report on spectrum interference in an effort to tarnish LightSquared’s public image. While progress has been made by setting up a working group between stakeholders, the Commission has largely bowed to this outside pressure. Instead, they should be working to facilitate a solution.
The LightSquared and GPS debate is at its core a technical issue. However, it is becoming clear that government is failing in its most basic, legitimate function of facilitating property rights disputes. There is natural interference between frequencies, and the FCC’s most fundamental task is to prevent such interference, in much the same way judges adjudicate disputes on land issues between neighbors. In this instance, GPS devices aren’t just picking up frequencies on GPS spectrum, but they’re also “looking into” the spectrum held by LightSquared.
The FCC and federal agencies should be better mediating this dispute and looking at ways to help fix these interference issues to bring more mobile broadband to the market. The Commission should also drop regulatory restraints on LightSquared that prevent it from making its wholesale network available to other wireless carriers.
For their part, the other federal agencies stalling these efforts – while hoarding over half of usable spectrum – should be forced by Congress to auction off their inefficiently used spectrum to the private sector, where it is much needed.
There are also lawmakers weighing in heavily against LightSquared, even stalling the appointment of FCC Commissioners to kill it. It’s not a free-market position for lawmakers to advocate for the interests of one industry against a new entrant in another. Government should not be subverting a free marketplace where consumer demand – not policymakers – decide which companies succeed and which do not.
Congress and the FCC have dragged their feet for too long on spectrum to have a credible say in micromanaging competition. This includes attempts to derail new wireless companies and spectrum-centric acquisitions. Some lawmakers have argued alongside FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that spectrum auction legislation shouldn’t be “overly prescriptive to derive some predetermined outcome.” But they’d prefer bureaucrats at the FCC set such “overly prescriptive” rules, like preventing some companies from even bidding on spectrum.
The focus on Capitol Hill should be advancing a free-market framework by the House of Representatives to auction spectrum, while stopping the FCC from imposing unnecessary regulations. And the FCC should focus its energy less on lobbying Congress for more micromanaging power, and more on working to put the spectrum we need for mobile broadband onto the market.
Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform. William Cobb is the executive director of its affiliate Digital Liberty.
AT&T Jacks Data Plan Prices as Usage Booms
When you have a VVoIP solution that only uses half the bandwidth, how long do you have to wait for the consumer to recognize the value of lower costs and higher quality?
===========================================
AT&T jacks up data plan prices as usage booms
Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:52pm EST
(Reuters) - AT&T Inc plans to sharply raise prices on data plans for smartphone and tablet customers from next week, calling the move a response to an explosion in wireless usage.
The No. 2 U.S. carrier dropped a controversial $39 billion bid for Deutsche Telekom's U.S. wireless unit T-Mobile last month, bowing to fierce regulatory opposition but leaving AT&T to try and find an alternative to address its shortage of wireless airwaves.
From January 22, AT&T customers will pay $20 for a 300-megabyte monthly data plan, up from $15 for 200-mb currently. Users with higher requirements can also opt for $30 for 3 gigabytes -- versus $25 for 2 GB previously -- or $50 for 5 GB, up from $45 for 4 GB.
AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel estimates that data usage is increasing 40 percent every year, spurring the company to offer more upfront. Consumers are rapidly migrating to video and music.
The new prices affect only new customers; existing customers can stick with their current plans or upgrade as needed, AT&T said in a statement
What is the Reasonable FCC Response?
This outline of issues, confirmed by Edmond Thomas's experience and technical expertise, follows and builds upon the thread laid down by other experts like Dr. Javad and Alcatel-Lucent (from their own tests).
Background for Edmond Thomas
For me the question is whether the FCC will roll over on this issue or will they find a manner to fight the GPS Industry's implied admission of malfeasance and constructive interference with the achievement of a Public Good.
Time will tell.
Regarding your last point, IMHO that is why it is an FCC decision. They have the authority to cut through the tape.
By the way, great YouTube. I laughed when Carlisle quoted the GPS manual pointing directly to the GPS Coalition's knowledge that they, the Coalition members, are responsible for poorly designed receivers.
How do you think the cost issue will be resolved?
I've read several articles that suggest the GPS industry has taken on the tactic of "take no prisoners" and wraps itself in the flag.
That tactic certainly doesn't help Genachowski.
I couldn't agree with you more.
The FCC chairman has a tough position.
Preliminary results from an Alcatel-Lucent . . .
The FCC has a challenge to reconcile the results given below with what the PNT states. As Dr. Javad indicates, either the PNT is incompetent or they are willfully misleading the FCC and other government agencies.
This is one reason I strongly recommend emailing the FCC Chairman my suggested letter.
Suggested email
------------------
Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Tests show that global-positioning devices from three makers won’t be disrupted by the wireless network proposed by Philip Falcone’s LightSquared, Chief Executive Officer Sanjiv Ahuja said.
Preliminary results from an Alcatel-Lucent lab demonstrate the GPS devices surpass performance standards, Ahuja said today at a news conference in Washington. The closely held companies supplying GPS devices for testing were Javad GNSS, PCTel and Partron, according to a LightSquared statement.
Alcatel-Lucent lab demonstrate the GPS devices surpass performance standards
YouTube of Last Week's Interview w/ MRichards
could you please provide the link to the interview . . . I have only found the audio file.
also, if possible please share his email address in a PM.
Thank you.
Best to you, your wife, and unborn child.
I agree, if you mean buy/license the service . . .
Can you imagine the waste of capital if the 30+ LightSquared partners each thought to spend $ Millions to create ineffective VVoIP, relative to our VVoIP, and then get beaten in the market place for bring a bad service to market. And, needless to say, they each would NOT be interoperable, a critical failing when the global market is asking for universal interoperability.
The first VVoIP players to Smartphone, Tablet, Computer, stand-alone appliance interoperability are the real contenders. And that will absolutely require patent protection, IMHO.
Timeliness of Patent Protection . . . .
I don't see them getting around the patents, especially the "Video System & Method" patent. They of course will look for any legal theory to "defang" these patents established at the pioneering stage of the VVoIP industry.
IMHO, this is a "Big Company" game and it is the Big Guys which have effectively and dramatically increased the importance of patent protection. Look at the multi-billion $ price tag for the Motorola patents, the Nortel patents, Google's purchase if IBM patents, etc.. Also, look at how the Big Guys are using the Legal System to shut down SmartPhone & Tablet competitors all around the world due to patent infringement.
IMHO, the Big Guys in effect have "created" a massively important Wgat because of their own actions. Further, because the technology actually performs as promised (I've used an Ojo Shadow for years), Vox's VVoIP solution can't be ignored by companies that want a solution that can stand up to the Big Guy's legal department.
IMHO, this places us as the forefront in any selection process.
Reminder on Letter to Chairman of FCC
In light of Mark Richard's interview, IMHO it is apparent that Vox VVoIP services have the opportunity of supporting the 30+ customers of LightSquared as the VVoIP service is incomparable and CANNOT be duplicated due to the industry leading service excellence, low bandwidth requirements, and the legal patent protection.
The evident meaning of "ecosystem" is the beneficial partnership amongst all LightSquared contracted players: all agreeable partners gain the benefit of a technology that will be superior to the Big Guys (Skype, Tango, etc.) and we gain the benefit of the marketing multiplier effect as these companies would in effect be extensions of our marketing efforts.
I emailed the letter below. I think it is in the interest of all Longs to do the same. It will cost only a bit, but the return coming from a positive FCC declarative ruling swamps the cost.
The Honorable Chairman's email address: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov
--------------------------------------------
The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Subject: LightSquared – GPS Coexistence
Dear Mr. Genachowski:
This is a note in response to and in support of LightSquared’s December 20th, 2011 request to the FCC for a declaratory ruling, confirming LightSquared’s legal rights to its licensed spectrum. You should know that I am a private investor in several of the small public companies that will benefit greatly from LightSquared’s wholesale network going live.
I have tried to keep abreast of the news. As such, I have developed a sense of faith in Dr. Javad Ashjaee, an industry veteran characterized as “one of the single most innovative people in his field, bringing out products that make his competitors unhappy and uncomfortable at times because he is a leader” by Tom Stansell, a pioneer and 50 year veteran of the GPS industry. My concerns are brought into focus by a recent statement of Dr. Javad and I politely pose the question to you: Why has Dr. Javad gone out on the limb to portray the PNT’s recent testing by stating: “Either they lacked technical competence, or they intentionally misled the debate with false claims”?
To be bold, I respectfully suggest your team draw up a list of those 30+ companies signing contracts with LightSquared and assess “why so many”. Then assess the scope of this new competition against existing suppliers as well as the extent to which new services are being created. Ask why so many and why only with the advent of LightSquared.
Certainly the benefits of competition are brought into sharp relief when you balance two questions: (1) why did the GPS Coalition indicate at the eleventh hour that a solution to the GPS-LightSquared coexistence wasn’t technically possible, and if it was, would take $ Billions and up to 10 years to develop and implement; and (2) how was Javad GNSS able to drive solutions for all three LightSquared spectrum slices in just months of development for far less than expected.
I wish you the best in your efforts of balancing the interests in this public policy debate. I do believe our nation’s best interests will be fulfilled through coexistence and increased competition; and, I think it fair to say that the economic growth engendered by coexistence and increased competition will truly enhance our ability to exit the “Great Recession”.
Sincerely,
Mason Ainsworth
Fantastic, EOM
A Suggestion to Other Long Investors . . .
I will be mailing the letter below. I think it is in the interest of all Longs to do the same. It will cost only a bit, but the potential return coming from a positive FCC declarative ruling swamps the cost of the 1st Class stamp.
------------------------------------
The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Subject: LightSquared – GPS Coexistence
Dear Mr. Genachowski:
This is a note in response to and in support of LightSqaured’s December 20th, 2011 request to the FCC for a declaratory ruling, confirming LightSquared’s legal rights to its licensed spectrum. You should know that I am a private investor in several of the small public companies that will benefit greatly from LightSquared’s wholesale network going live.
I have tried to keep abreast of the news. As such, I have developed a sense of faith in Dr. Javad Ashjaee, an industry veteran characterized as “one of the single most innovative people in his field, bringing out products that make his competitors unhappy and uncomfortable at times because he is a leader” by Tom Stansell, a pioneer and 50 year veteran of the GPS industry. My concerns are brought into focus by a recent statement by Dr. Javad and I pose the question to you: Why has Dr. Javad gone out on the limb to portray the recent testing by the PNT by stating: “Either they lacked technical competence, or they intentionally misled the debate with false claims.”
To be bold, I suggest your team draw up a list of those 30+ companies signing contracts with LightSquared and assess “why so many”. Then assess the scope of this new competition against existing suppliers as well as the extent to which new services are being created. Ask why so many and only with the advent of LightSquared.
Certainly the benefits of competition are brought into sharp relief when you balance two questions: (1) why did the GPS Coalition indicate that a solution to the GPS-LightSquared coexistence wasn’t technically possible, and if it was, would take $ Billions and up to 5-10 years to resolve; and (2) how was Javad GNSS able to drive a solutions for all three LightSquared spectrum slices in just months of development.
I wish you the best in your efforts of balancing the interests in this public policy debate. I do believe our nation’s best interests will be fulfilled through coexistence and increased competition; and, I think it fair to say that the economic growth engendered by coexistence and increased competition will truly enhance our ability to exit the “Great Recession”.
Sincerely,
Mason Ainsworth
www.voxcorp.net/
IMHO, This is a Long Investment . . .
to play this as a day-trade is wrong and just opens the doors to investing too much meaning into the inconsequential, IMHO.
I Can Only Speculate . . . .
My best guess is that Wgat is still in a "strategic reassessment" period, which provides a lot of lattitude.
Also, my presumption is that because (1) there are ongoing negotiations, (2) Robert S. comes from a private company background and is a world class rated poker player, and (3) these salient pieces information becomes generally well known very quickly on these MBs, Robert S. or another Wgat agent in the negotiations can take the opportunity to call the interested parties as part of keeping the communications active and ongoing.
This will be an interesting year, EOM.
Adaptive Video Phone System Patent# 8,089,502
As of today, the above patent is now granted by the USPTO. This is the patent covering the compression algorithm which provides the incomparable quality at less than half the bandwidth.
In combination with Pat# 8,063,928 - Video System & Method and the market access to be provided by the LightSquared 4G LTE network, IMHO we are sitting on a "bomb" that is the market demand for viable, effective, efficient, and legally protected VVoIP solutions across the world.
ASK THOSE WHO TRAVEL IN THE FAR EAST WHAT THE % OF SMARTPHONE CONSUMERS USE VVoIP. WHEN YOU TALK OF NUMBERS GREATER THAN 50%, YOUR EYES GLAZE OVER.
IMO, ONLY VOX IS PROVIDING LICENSED SERVICE AND ALL OTHERS (SKYPE, FACETIME, TANGO, etc.) ARE INFRINGING ON WGAT'S VVoIP PATENTS.
What is claimed is:
1. A videotelephone system, comprising:
first and second videophones each having a camera connected to an encoder and a transmitter, and having a decoder connected to a display;
a network interconnecting the encoders and decoders of said videophones for video communication; and
wherein said encoders are adaptively responsive to network-caused errors in said communication to provide real-time error recovery.
2. The system of claim 1 , wherein said encoders for said
transceivers transmit compressed audio and video signals through said communications network.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein said audio and video signals are synchronized.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein said data representing a current image is dependent on data representing a prior image.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the decoder of said first transceiver is in communication with encoder of said second transceiver; and wherein said encoder includes means responsive to changes in conditions in said communications network to adapt said encoder to such changes.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein said means to change the bandwidth requirement includes at least one of the group of bandwidth-changing mechanisms comprising: increasing the compression ratio of transmitted video image signals, modifying the frame resolution of transmitted video images, reducing the pocket rate of transmitted encoded video image data, or changing said communication network.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein said first data packet is a reference for each subsequent data packet; and wherein reference data packets are produced at a predetermined frequency.
12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the frequency at which reference packets are produced by an encoder is adaptively varied by the encoder in response to said network-caused errors.
13. The system of claim 1 , wherein said first and second
transceivers are video telephones.
14. The system of claim 1 , wherein said communications network produces errors in video communication due to data corruption or loss.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein said adaptively responsive encoders and decoders respond in real time to said data corruption or loss in said communication network to provide said error recovery.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein said error recovery is based on previously-transmitted reference data.
17. The system of claim 1 , further including means for storing or displaying received video in each of said transceivers.
18. A method of high resolution video communication, comprising: transmitting compressed video data signals representing an image through a communications network;
detecting network-caused errors in said video data signals;
adaptively changing said video data signals in real time to provide error recovery; and
storing or displaying said image.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein transmitting compressed video signals includes:
obtaining a series of video image frames;
encoding a first frame to generate a first packet of video data signals; encoding subsequent frames to generate corresponding subsequent video data packet signals; and
supplying said data packet signals sequentially to said communications network.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein encoding said first packet of video data signals produces a reference frame packet; and
wherein encoding each subsequent packet of video data signals produces signed packets representing the difference between a subsequent frame and its immediately preceding frame.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein adaptively changing said video data signals in real time includes encoding a subsequent packet of video data signals to produce a signal packet representing the difference between the subsequent frame and said reference frame upon detection of network-caused errors.
22. The method of claim 21 , further including producing multiple frame reference packets for a set of subsequent packets.
23. The method of claim 21 , further including repetitively and producing a reference data packet followed a set of subsequent frame data packets, wherein providing error recovery includes varying the frequency at which reference frame data packets are produced.
FCC & Political Will . . .
do you think the FCC has the political will to recognize the situation for what it is and to act on it?
VeeVoip is GJoneTo's Blog . . .
LightSquared has already made concessions . . .
Yes, there was an FCC approved conversion of use for the spectrum and that was presented initially in 2003-2005 leaving a long period for engineering coexistence, if my memory serves me right. The conversion of use was entirely appropriate when the free market determined that consumers did not want to pay for very expensive satellite phones and service such as Sprint's Iridium network.
LightSquared has committed more than $ 150 million, for-fending the use of 1/3 of their spectrum for about 4-5 years, lowering the power output of individual cells, etc. And, they helped drive the development of the filters through Javad GNSS and their testing through Alcatel-Lucent proving that the Javad GNSS filters worked as promised to the ultimate embarrassment of the GPS Coalition.
It is now for the GPS Coalition to take responsibility and start paying for their own mistakes and poor engineering; they could have engineered coexistence many years ago but chose not to as a "gamble". And, as has been stated in their own Annual Reports, they have known about these pending financial obligations . . . they must now follow through.
Elements & Timing of LTE Network Authorization
I am unsure as to what your question is driving at. I am guessing: "when was the FCC authorization that supported a functional LTE network and therefore, when should the GPS OEMs have know to engineer their equipment to allow for LTE-GPS coexistence?"
The history as I read it pointed to between 2003 and 2005 when the details were agreed to by both GPS Industry and Skyterra. I am guessing that the GPS Industry saw that Skyterra did not have the $$ to fund the network build-out and therefore chose to ignore FCC standards and delay engineering Coexistence. It was only when the FCC authorized the transfer from Skyterra to LightSquared, with its $ billions in cash, in 2010 that the GPS industry saw the "shit hitting the fan". It only got worse when they saw in July 2011 Sprint supporting and hosting the LightSquared effort with its own new $5 Billion Network strategy; this essentially meant that LightSquared would be able to build their LTE wholesale network very soon and quickly.
I believe the FCC recognizes the game the GPS Industry is trying to play. I hope they have the political will to force the GPS industry to clean up the mess the decision to delay engineering Coexistence caused.
That is an Understatement! ! !
If Dr. Javad's suggestion about the GPS companies's intentions and/or incompetence are correct, then IMHO it opens the question of why did the following happen as outlined in the stories below. It inflames me to think the GPS companies have done substandard engineering and still been paid $ Billions for their questionable equipment. The 2nd story below is horrifying. The Honorable Julius Genachowski is in a very difficult position.
Iran may have captured U.S. stealth drone by hacking its GPS
GPS Takes Another Hit
"Or did they not try at all?" . . .
After following the LightSquared-GPS coexistence issue for some time, I have developed a strong sense of trust in Dr. Javad Ashjaee, CEO of Javad GNSS.
Dr. Javad Ashjaee is “One of the single most innovative people in his field, bringing out products that make his competitors unhappy and uncomfortable at times because he is a leader.” (A quote from Tom Stansell, panel moderator at the November PNT meeting.)
=======================
Letter From Javad Ashjaee to FCC Regarding LightSquared Interference and Receiver Standards
Written by Javad Ashjaee
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12'h Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: LightSquared-GPS Interference Debate and Receiver Standards
Chairman Genachowski,
When the interference issues first surfaced between LightSquared and GPS, I looked into the problems and realized the deficiency was in existing receiver designs. Our filter systems had little protection against interference and were wide enough to invite in undesirable signals, resulting in degraded performance. We started to tackle this problem, and a few weeks ago produced a new filter system, which we offered to interested parties to test for themselves.
We showed that this new filter system has much better protection – in particular it has protection against LightSquared (10L) and its handset (10R). The new filter proved that the PNT Advisory Board’s letter from August 3, 2011 to you was full of false claims and misleading information, including that it would take many years and billions of dollars to fix this problem.
That was all nonsense designed to confuse the debate and stifle the innovation that would disrupt the GPS status quo. After our success in the design of a filter system which protected against LightSquared 10L signal, we have recently developed another new filter system which protects against LightSquared 10H too, without losing any properties of the GPS signal. We will put this filter system into production soon. We have proved that technology to protect against LightSquared 10L, 10H, and 10R does exist today and once again showed that the PNT letter of August 3, 2011 was completely false.
Given the technical and modest financial resources of my small company, Javad GNSS, compared to giant organizations like Trimble, John Deere, Stanford University, NASA, and many others whose representatives who make up the PNT Advisory Board, one might question their true motivation. Did they try to develop a filter that protects against 10L, 10H, and 10R? Or did they not try at all?
Either they lacked technical competence, or they intentionally misled the debate with false claims. Either way, I have lost faith in the credibility of the PNT Advisory Board when it comes to their judgement about GPS interference.
When we proved the GPS establishment wrong about the high-precision interference issue, they turned to low-precision and leaked false accusations that 75% of tested receivers failed the tests. It’s important to note that their definition of “failure” was 1-dB reduction in signal to noise ratio of the unit under test – not the complete failure of the unit to track satellites, and was clearly meant to mislead a discussion that has no technical merit.
It is much easier this time to prove them wrong with this latest accusation because the problem is in the design of the GPS receivers that were tested. The truth is that any GPS receiver that “failed” the test against the LightSquared signal, will also “fail” against many existing transmitting systems. Anyone can test this. Take any low-end GPS receiver similar to those they claim “failed” the test and get close to an FM radio transmitting stations, for example.
One may not see the degradation of 1-dB because low-end receivers do not report signal-to-noise numbers and usually have about 20-dB of margin. This is even more true for low-end narrow band C/A code devices. Get close enough to many FM radio stations, for example, and you will see the receiver will completely stop functioning. There are tens of thousands of interfering transmitters which the “failed” GPS receivers have no protection against. One can start such tests by getting close to FM radio stations 92.7, 98.5, and 105.
Again, please note that one may not be able to notice the 1-dB reduction in signal-to-noise, but so-called GPS experts advising the government call this “failure” and leaked it to news reporters. What sort of expertise is that? Under this same principal, one will see that all of the tested receivers will “fail” against almost all transmitting stations when close enough (within 100 meters, for example).
The PNT Advisory Board should do this test as well and it will see that the receivers they tested will “fail” against not only LightSquared but also against thousands of other existing signals that have been in existence for decades. Therefore, such receivers should not be used in critical applications.
Electrons do not have political party affiliation and are not influenced by PNT letters, titles of “professor emeritus”, and stars of generals. Any child can take his/her GPS navigation receiver close to many number of existing transmitting towers (like many FM radio stations) and prove that most current GPS receivers (high precision and low precision) do not have protection against many existing transmitting systems, yet they are still being manufactured and used in critical applications.
Your honor, it is time for FCC to act to establish guidelines for GPS receivers that we increasingly depend on.
The FCC should mandate that any receiver used for critical applications must show its signal-to-noise numbers, so every user can see degradation when they encounter interference. High precision receivers, and all those which use P-code, should have 8- to 10-dB suppression for every MHz away from the edges of the GNSS wide band (P-code). Low-end C/A-code-only receivers should have 2-dB suppression for every MHz away from the edges of the C/A code. These standards are important. The filter technology to achieve these (without negatively affecting performance) exists today and should be applied because the cost and size of such filters are even less than what was used before.
Had the FCC established and enforced receiver standards to begin with, we could have avoided this entire interference debate between LightSquared and the GPS industry.
Respectfully,
Javad Ashjaee, Ph.D.
CEO and President
JAVAD GNSS
900 Rock Ave.
San Jose, California, 95131
LightSquared Files Petition for Declaratory Ruling . . .
LightSquared Files Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Asks FCC to Confirm Its Rights as Spectrum Licensee
Reston, Va., Dec. 20, 2011 -- LightSquared today asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to confirm LightSquared's right to use the spectrum licensed to the company by the federal government. In addition, the company asked the FCC to confirm that commercial GPS manufacturers have no right to interference protection from LightSquared's network since they are not licensed users of that spectrum.
Click here to access a copy of LightSquared's petition for declaratory ruling to the FCC.
"The one inescapable conclusion from two rounds of independent testing is that the incompatibility problem is not caused by LightSquared's network," said LightSquared's executive vice president for regulatory affairs and public policy Jeff Carlisle. "It is clear that GPS devices are purposefully designed to look into LightSquared's licensed spectrum, and given this evidence, we believe decision-makers should consider LightSquared's legal rights as the licensee."
The company asserts that commercial GPS manufacturers are responsible for having designed and sold unlicensed devices that use spectrum licensed to LightSquared and its predecessor companies.
"(C)ommercial GPS receivers are not licensed, do not operate under any service rules, and thus are not entitled to any interference protection whatsoever,'' LightSquared wrote in its petition to the agency. The petition also notes that the FCC itself has stated that the GPS industry has been on notice for almost a decade that LightSquared was planning to use its spectrum to launch a nationwide broadband network.
"LightSquared has had FCC authorization to build its network for over eight years and that authorization was endorsed by the GPS industry, and fully reviewed and allowed to proceed by several other government agencies," said Carlisle. "Commercial GPS device-makers have had nearly a decade to design and sell devices that do not infringe on LightSquared's licensed spectrum. They have no right to complain in the eleventh-hour about incompatibility when they had ample opportunity to avoid this problem."
In addition to more than 300 million GPS-enabled cell phones that government testing has confirmed are compatible with LightSquared's spectrum, several GPS device manufacturers, including Javad GNSS and Hemisphere, have also successfully developed and tested devices that are also compatible. The development of these LightSquared-compatible GPS devices proves that GPS manufacturers could have designed their equipment to filter out LightSquared's signals and avoid interference.
"While we ask the FCC today to confirm our legal rights, LightSquared remains fully committed to cooperate with all parties – the GPS industry, GPS users, and the federal government – to ensure that LightSquared's network is deployed in a way that is compatible with GPS users," said Carlisle. "LightSquared has always recognized the critical importance of the GPS system, and we firmly believe that GPS devices can peacefully co-exist adjacent to our network."
"This petition goes to the very core of the FCC's mission, which is to ensure that the nation's airwaves are governed by regulatory certainty,'' said Sanjiv Ahuja, LightSquared chairman and chief executive officer. "In the 21st century, the fair and efficient management of the nation's spectrum will unleash a technological revolution in wireless broadband that will bring untold benefits to all Americans.
"To encourage private innovation, entrepreneurs must have confidence and certainty over their rights to use spectrum granted by the FCC. Our country's future technological and economic achievements depend on a firm adherence to the rule of law."
LightSquared has made a commitment to bring world-class wireless broadband connectivity to 260 million Americans by 2015 – and to do so by investing $14 billion in private equity in our nation's broadband infrastructure. The company will continue to work with the federal government to arrive at a complete solution, so that it can realize the promise of building out the nation's first wholesale-only nationwide 4G-LTE network integrated with satellite coverage. The network will create jobs, foster competition and bring more affordable wireless broadband to underserved communities across America.
Word of Caution
I am cautious about the purported news on the introduction of the Vox Video Chat feature and new brand.
Google does not show this as a PR. And Pervasip.com does not show it as a PR. It is only on VeeVoIP.com.
My best guess is that VeeVoIP.com is a blog supported & maintained by GJoneTo. If you go to the link here you will see GJoneTo doing initial setup and startup work on the oldest three entries. (You will need to cut and paste.)
link>> http://veevoip.com/page/22/
We Are In Agreement . . .
Be Careful about Arthur's Statements . . .
If you look at the Yahoo MB, you will see that he is very willing to lie.
"And Lightsquared has been sh1tlisted by the Republican Party because, just like Solyndra, they accepted a government loan."
Link>> http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_W/threadview?m=tm&bn=19869&tid=608128&mid=608149&tof=7&rt=1&frt=1&off=1
There is no loan and he knows it . . . As a guess he has anger and rage driving him.
There is no loan . . . be cautious with his assertions. He will likely now say that Wgat's patents do not cover Wireless VVoIP.
Adaptive Video Phone System App# 11/587,994
As of today, the patent issue notification has been mailed to Wgat. This is the patent covering the compression algorithm which provides the incomparable quality at less than half the bandwidth.
IMO, ONLY VOX IS PROVIDING LICENSED SERVICE AND ALL OTHERS (SKYPE, FACETIME, FRING, NIMBUZZ, etc.) ARE INFRINGING ON WGAT'S VVoIP PATENTS.
What is claimed is:
1. A videotelephone system, comprising:
first and second videophones each having a camera connected to an encoder and a transmitter, and having a decoder connected to a display;
a network interconnecting the encoders and decoders of said videophones for video communication; and
wherein said encoders are adaptively responsive to network-caused errors in said communication to provide real-time error recovery.
2. The system of claim 1 , wherein said encoders for said
transceivers transmit compressed audio and video signals through said communications network.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein said audio and video signals are synchronized.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein said data representing a current image is dependent on data representing a prior image.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the decoder of said first transceiver is in communication with encoder of said second transceiver; and wherein said encoder includes means responsive to changes in conditions in said communications network to adapt said encoder to such changes.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein said means to change the bandwidth requirement includes at least one of the group of bandwidth-changing mechanisms comprising: increasing the compression ratio of transmitted video image signals, modifying the frame resolution of transmitted video images, reducing the pocket rate of transmitted encoded video image data, or changing said communication network.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein said first data packet is a reference for each subsequent data packet; and wherein reference data packets are produced at a predetermined frequency.
12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the frequency at which reference packets are produced by an encoder is adaptively varied by the encoder in response to said network-caused errors.
13. The system of claim 1 , wherein said first and second
transceivers are video telephones.
14. The system of claim 1 , wherein said communications network produces errors in video communication due to data corruption or loss.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein said adaptively responsive encoders and decoders respond in real time to said data corruption or loss in said communication network to provide said error recovery.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein said error recovery is based on previously-transmitted reference data.
17. The system of claim 1 , further including means for storing or displaying received video in each of said transceivers.
18. A method of high resolution video communication, comprising: transmitting compressed video data signals representing an image through a communications network;
detecting network-caused errors in said video data signals;
adaptively changing said video data signals in real time to provide error recovery; and
storing or displaying said image.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein transmitting compressed video signals includes:
obtaining a series of video image frames;
encoding a first frame to generate a first packet of video data signals; encoding subsequent frames to generate corresponding subsequent video data packet signals; and
supplying said data packet signals sequentially to said communications network.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein encoding said first packet of video data signals produces a reference frame packet; and
wherein encoding each subsequent packet of video data signals produces signed packets representing the difference between a subsequent frame and its immediately preceding frame.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein adaptively changing said video data signals in real time includes encoding a subsequent packet of video data signals to produce a signal packet representing the difference between the subsequent frame and said reference frame upon detection of network-caused errors.
22. The method of claim 21 , further including producing multiple frame reference packets for a set of subsequent packets.
23. The method of claim 21 , further including repetitively and producing a reference data packet followed a set of subsequent frame data packets, wherein providing error recovery includes varying the frequency at which reference frame data packets are produced.