LightSquared not such a bright idea

Written by Coalition to Save Our GPS    
Thursday, 27 October 2011

Misstatements hide $10 billion spectrum windfall at expense of taxpayers; LightSquared shirks its responsibility for the billions its plans would cost governments and consumers

Summary: LightSquared repeatedly misstates and rewrites history in order to try to push through its ill-conceived plan to repurpose mobile satellite spectrum (MSS) to build a nationwide terrestrial network. It’s using legal double speak to hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall  – money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers. And, it’s offering up just a pittance towards the billions it would cost federal, state and local governments, as well as consumers, if its plans are allowed to go forward.

LightSquared’s Attempts to Rewrite History: LightSquared has time and again repeated its self-serving claim that it has been authorized for years to build its recently proposed nationwide terrestrial network, and that this alleged prior authorization shifts the burden of avoiding interference to GPS manufacturers and users.  One of many examples is this August 2011, LightSquared statement:

“The public record shows that the Commission first approved rules allowing terrestrial operations in the L-band in 2003. LightSquared received its authorization to conduct terrestrial operations in 2004. LightSquared has had the legal right to build the network it is building today – with the same number of towers and power levels – since 2005. The interference at issue today arises because of sensitivity of GPS receivers to LightSquared’s base stations, operating at the power level authorized in 2005.”

LightSquared’s assertion is flat out wrong. It completely ignores clear statements in prior FCC decisions and rules. In fact:

• LightSquared has never had the legal right to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the satellite MSS band.

• If the FCC had granted rights to use this spectrum for nationwide, terrestrial-only wireless services, it would have been required by law to auction those rights to the highest bidder.

What LightSquared is really trying to do here is rewrite history so that it receives a massive increase in the value of its spectrum over what it paid for it and shift the costs of eliminating interference to GPS users, including federal, state and local governments, and GPS manufacturers.

The Real FCC History and Facts:

• Prior FCC decisions – including the ones that LightSquared seeks to rely on for its claim of “legal right” – made absolutely clear that MSS licenses could not offer the kind of stand-alone terrestrial services that LightSquared has now proposed and the FCC’s International Bureau (IB) conditionally approved.   As early as 2003, the FCC stated categorically that “[w]e do not intend, nor will we permit, the terrestrial component to become a stand-alone service.”[i]

• MSS licensees in the L-band, including LightSquared, have long been on full notice that the FCC would take further action to protect GPS if interference issues arose.  In the same 2005 order that LightSquared says approved its plans, the FCC committed to take actions necessary to “ensure that all FCC services provide adequate protection to GPS.”[ii]  Given this commitment and the clear language of the FCC’s rules, LightSquared could not reasonably rely on these decisions as authorizing nationwide terrestrial use and a shift of the burden of interference to GPS users.

• As recently as the 2010 National Broadband Plan, the FCC reiterated the limited nature of permitted terrestrial operations in the MSS spectrum – these only included operations to fill-in the satellite service footprint.  The FCC explained that “[t]he ATC [ancillary terrestrial component] rules allow MSS providers to deploy terrestrial networks to enhance coverage in areas where the satellite signal is attenuated or unavailable” and that “MSS licensees must integrate MSS and ATC services, including, notably, a requirement that all ATC handsets must have a satellite communications capability.”[iii]

• When the FCC’s IB conditionally permitted LightSquared to provide stand-alone terrestrial services in January 2011, it rejected LightSquared’s claim that it already had the authority to do so.  Instead, the IB waived the “integrate MSS and ATC services” rules in order to grant LightSquared’s conditional approval.

• The International Bureau’s January 2011 conditional order, by waiving restrictions on terrestrial use of the MSS band, also exposed GPS users to massive interference.

• LightSquared has repeatedly claimed that the January 2011 waiver decision had “nothing to do with interference.”  But nothing could be further from the truth.

• By requiring an MSS licensee to integrate any terrestrial offering with its satellite service, the ATC rules effectively require the licensee to operate the terrestrial component in a manner that does not interfere with the satellite component.  This “self-correcting” mechanism provided strong protections to GPS satellite services in the adjacent spectrum.  This is why NTIA told the FCC in January 2011 that LightSquared’s November 2010 proposal, which for the first time proposed terrestrial-only services and use of terrestrial-only handsets, presented a “new interference environment” for GPS.[iv]  The FCC’s January 2011 waiver order removed these practical protections, but still required that LightSquared demonstrate non-interference to GPS.

• LightSquared’s license was – and remains – subject to a general FCC rule that MSS terrestrial operations are not permitted to cause interference to other services, including GPS, and that LightSquared is obligated to cure any such interference.[v]  LightSquared’s contention that GPS users are somehow responsible for mitigating the interference that LightSquared would create is false.  It has no legal right to commence interfering operations or shift the burden of curing interference to GPS users.

Massive Spectrum Giveaway: There are many motivations for LightSquared to seek to rewrite history. One of the less obvious reasons is that if its rewrite of history is accepted as fact and its plans go forward, LightSquared would receive a massive $10 billion increase in the value of its spectrum.

• Because of these restrictions limiting terrestrial use, the value of the MSS spectrum held by LightSquared’s predecessor was much lower than the value of other spectrum – such as Advanced Wireless Service spectrum – in which ubiquitous, terrestrial-only   use was permitted.

• The FCC’s National Broadband Plan recognized that granting terrestrial authority would “step up” spectrum values. And LightSquared’s own consultants, the Brattle Group, this year estimated that LightSquared’s mobile satellite spectrum is worth $12 billion if it could be used for unrestricted terrestrial mobile broadband use, but only $2 billion if limited to satellite uses.[vi]

• LightSquared said that it paid approximately $2 billion for its MSS spectrum rights.  So, all sophisticated market participants understood that LightSquared was not authorized to use the MSS spectrum for nationwide terrestrial use in 2005 or even 2010, when Harbinger Capital Partners, which controls LightSquared, bought out the company’s predecessor.

• If allowed to go forward, LightSquared gets to pocket the $10 billion increase in spectrum value that would result.  Again, it’s important to note that the FCC relied on the extensive restrictions on MSS described in the above “The Real FCC History and Facts” to avoid auctioning terrestrial rights when it authorized “ancillary terrestrial” operations in this spectrum in 2003.[vii]

• LightSquared should not be allowed to use this legal double speak to enjoy massive unjust enrichment while harming GPS users.

Drain on U.S. Treasury: The massive replacement costs for federal government GPS equipment and systems that would be caused by LightSquared’s plans would create a major drain on the U.S. Treasury.  LightSquared is shirking its financial responsibilities, relying on its bogus claim of “legal rights” to terrestrial use to argue that GPS users and manufacturers should pay the bill for eliminating interference.

• LightSquared admits that even under its latest revised plans, hundreds of thousands of high precision GPS receivers used by government and private users would suffer interference.  But it has offered only a pittance, $50 million, to replace or retrofit affected equipment.   And, it is yet to be proven that LightSquared will not also interfere with hundreds of millions of consumer GPS devices, which is why NTIA and the FCC recently called for more testing.

• The head of the Air Force Space Command, Gen. William Shelton, testified at a September 15, 2011 House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing that it would be safe to say that if LightSquared is allowed to proceed with its plans the cost just to the Department of Defense to address interference from the LightSquared network “would be in the b’s – billions of dollars.”

• Add to that the cost of replacing many more billions worth of GPS equipment owned by other federal, state and local government users, as well as businesses, farmers and consumers that would be harmed by LightSquared’s plans.

Massive Federal Government Costs: The costs of replacing GPS in federal government uses could be in the range of $245 billion if LightSquared’s plans go forward, a sampling of department and agency impact assessments shows. And that figure does not include any estimates from heavy government users of GPS such as the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture and Energy.

The documents paint a vivid picture of how widespread and engrained the use of GPS, particularly high-precision GPS, is in the federal government and lends insight into the massive nature of the potential costs and disruptions of critical federal government services.  Excerpts of the impact assessments and testimony about the cost of replacing GPS devices and infrastructure in the federal government are available at the Coalition’s website here.

Bottom Line:  All in all, LightSquared’s proposal represents a new low in financial engineering at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.  Never before has a single company tried to gain so much from our national spectrum resources and pay so little for the collateral damage caused by its plans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i]         Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 1962, ¶1 (2003).

[ii]        Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4616, ¶ 70 (2005).           

[iii]       National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8.4., p. 87.

[iv]       Letter from Lawrence Strickling, NTIA, to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, January 12, 2011, at 1.

[v]        Section 25.255 of the Commission’s rules states that: “[i]f harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS ATC operator must resolve any such interference.”

[vi]       Brattle Group Report, June 22, 2011, pp. 1 n. 2, 8-9.

[vii]      Letter from Trimble Navigation Limited to Strategic Forces Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, October 6, 2011, p. 13, fn 38.

FBI Warns Internet Users of Trojan

Email Impersonating The FBI Containing A Trojan

Another fraudulent email campaign has begun claiming to be from the FBI telling recipients they have visited 40 illegal websites. The IC3 ("Ice Cube") issued warnings about these particular email campaigns in 2005 and 2006 by releasing three PSAs on February 23, 2005, November 22, 2005, and July 24, 2006. The fraudulent email mentioned in the first PSA claimed the FBI logged the recipient's IP address on more than 40 illegal websites. The next two PSAs mentioned the emails that claimed the FBI logged the recipient's IP address on more than 30 illegal websites. All the emails instructed the recipient to answer questions in the attachment, which contained malware.

The PSA from February 23, 2005 stated the FBI has become aware of spam email fraudulently claiming to be from fbi.gov accounts. The email appeared to be sent from the email addresses of police@fbi.gov, fbi@fbi.gov, officer@fbi.gov, and web@fbi.gov. The recipients were told the FBI had logged their IP addresses on more than 40 illegal sites. The email instructed them to answer questions in the attachment, which contained a W32.Sober.K@mm worm.

In 2005, the IC3 began seeing complaints reporting fraudulent emails purportedly from the FBI claiming the recipient went to more than 30 illegal sites. The IC3 received over 5,300 related complaints in that year alone. The number of related complaints drastically dropped the following year to approximately 130 complaints. After 2006, the IC3 has only received two related complaints, one in 2007 and one in 2008.

Also in 2005, the IC3 began seeing complaints reporting fraudulent emails purportedly from the FBI claiming the recipient went to more than 40 illegal sites. That year, a total of approximately 1,600 related complaints were filed. No other complaints were reported until the beginning of this year, with more than 300 so far being filed.

As in the earlier email versions mentioned above, fraudsters are still using spoofed email addresses with an fbi.gov email extension. Recipients are still being told the FBI has logged their IP address on more than 40 illegal sites, and they need to answer the questions in the attachment, which contains malware.

Source: http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110714.aspx

High-Tech Cheating Abounds, and Professors Bear Some Blame

By Jeffrey R. Young

A casual joke on Twitter recently let slip a dirty little secret of large science and engineering courses: Students routinely cheat on their homework, and professors often look the other way.

"Grading homework is so fast when they all cheat and use the illegal solutions manual," quipped Douglas Breault Jr., a teaching assistant in mechanical engineering at Tufts University. After all, if every answer is correct, the grader is left with little to do beyond writing an A at the top of the page and circling it. Mr. Breault, a first-year graduate student, ended his tweet by saying, "The profs tell me to ignore it."

While most students and professors seem to view cheating on examinations as a serious moral lapse, both groups appear more cavalier about dishonesty on homework. And technology has given students more tools than ever to find answers in unauthorized ways—whether downloading online solution manuals or instant-messaging friends for answers. The latest surveys by the Center for Academic Integrity found that 22 percent of students say they have cheated on a test or exam, but about twice as many—43 percent—have engaged in "unauthorized collaboration" on homework.

To read the complete article, CLICK HERE.

When does a cell phone become a computer?

Reading an Orange County Register Editorial, Court hangs up on Fourth Amendment, I learned that the California Supreme Court ruled on January 3, 2011 police may search the files and data stored on the cell phones of suspects who are arrested without having to obtain a warrant. 

The Administration of Justice major in me thinks the practice is a quick way to get information to use against the suspect.  As an investigatory practice, it sounds expedient.

The Constitutionalist in me says STOP!  What's the rush? Go get a warrant. 

The editorial sums up the ruling like this:

It is archaic and short-sighted to liken cell phones to an article of clothing or a wallet; they are more akin to minicomputers, often containing extensive, intimate personal and professional data. Applications on phones store financial information, bank records and passwords, not to mention personal e-mails, photos and text messages. Giving police offers undue power to seize and peruse cell phones without a warrant is a threat to fundamental rights.

Indeed, it is archaic and short-sighted.. 

My current Blackberry has far more computing power than my home PC, which is admittedly old and outdated but still in daily use.  Like most smart-phone users, my Blackberry provides direct access to my social network accounts, multiple email accounts, confidential work files, and sensitive data.  My phone acts as a single portal into the far corners of my life.  As such, I protect my phone like I would others might protect their laptop or a fine piece of heirloom jewelry.

Often, when posting bail and being released, personal items such as the clothes of the suspect are returned to him or her.  If a phone was truly on the same level as clothing, officers might remove the battery and inspect it for physical contraband before returning it to the suspect.

The standards, though nearly the same, are different when it comes to arrest versus search and how each are carried out.  In California, the officer must have probable cause to detain or arrest someone.  The search and seizure of property, however, is a little more strict. First, only a judge may issue a warrant.  Second, before the judge can sign off on the warrant, two requirements must be met: the judge must reasonably believe (1) that a crime has been committed, and (2) that evidence of that crime is likely to be found in the place(s) described in the search warrant.¹ If the facts presented in the warrant application are convincing, the judge must sign and issue the search warrant.²

It takes a good argument supported by evidence to get a judge to sign a warrant.  This process helps create a filter against abuse and unreasonable searches and seizures.  Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court thinks that the mere arrest of a suspect, no matter the circumstances, allows for law enforcement to  dig into the arrestee's personal property which may be unrelated to the reason for their arrest. 

Imagine if a Justice of the Supreme Court were arrested, say for DUI, and their phone searched.  Would information in their phone, such as a text message to his or her spouse requesting a ride home after a few too many drinks, be used against them at trial?  Yes.  What if the Justice was married but requested a ride home from a secret lover?  Would the secret be out of the bag and would it would the information be used against the judge at trial?  Yes.  Would the Justice be more likely to think a warrant necessary for the search of his or her phone?  Yes, especially when the divorce attorneys obtained the same information used by the criminal court for the DUI from the court transcripts. 
¹California Penal Code 1525 -- Issuance; probable cause; supporting affidavits; contents of application. ("A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched.")

²California Penal Code 1528 -- Issuance; magistrate satisfied as to grounds; formalities; command; duplicate original warrant. ("(a) If the magistrate is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he or she must issue a search warrant, signed by him or her with his or her name of office, to a peace officer in his or her county, commanding him or her forthwith to search the person or place named for the property or things or person or persons specified, and to retain the property or things in his or her custody subject to order of the court as provided by [California Penal Code] Section 1536.")

$100,000 to drop out of college?

The Thiel Foundation announced that they will give 20 people under the age of 20 $100,000 to drop out of school and become a technological entrepreneur.  Sure beats paying for an online degree, right?

The Thiel Fellowship: 20 Under 20
Peter Thiel Launches Innovative Thiel Fellowship to Foster Next Generation of Tech Visionaries

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Warning that America's long term economic prospects are uncertain without radical innovation in technology, Peter Thiel this week launched the Thiel Fellowship to foster the next generation of tech visionaries. The new program will support 20 entrepreneurs under 20 years old with grants of up to $100,000.

"Our world needs more breakthrough technologies,” said Thiel. "From Facebook to SpaceX to Halcyon Molecular, some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation. This fellowship will encourage the most brilliant and promising young people not to wait on their ideas, either. The Thiel Fellows will change the world and call it a senior thesis.”

The Thiel Foundation will award 20 people under 20 years old cash grants of $100,000 to further their innovative scientific and technical ideas. In addition, over a two year period, Peter Thiel's network of tech entrepreneurs and philanthropists—drawn from PayPal, Facebook, Palantir Technologies, Founders Fund, the Singularity Institute, and others—will teach the recipients about creating disruptive technologies and offer mentorship, employment opportunities, support, and training.

"University is a tremendously valuable experience, but when entrepreneurs are ready to launch, they should do so immediately, rather than sticking around to satisfy expectations of a full four years of college or eight of grad school,” said Elon Musk, who co-founded Tesla Motors, SpaceX, and PayPal. Musk himself stopped out of his graduate program before classes began to co-found his first company Zip2, which he sold to Compaq for $307 million.

"There is absolutely no experience that matches the real world, so if you have the passion and drive and want to work on a great idea, you should just do it,” said Scott Banister. Banister left the University of Illinois before taking a degree and founded ListBot, the largest ASP for business email, and IronPort, the anti-spam company that Cisco acquired for $830 million.

"Because education seeks to impart past knowledge, when you are trying to create a technological breakthrough, you have to create new knowledge, and there is no way to teach that. There was no course at University of Arizona on ‘‘how to cure aging.' Hopefully, this program will allow others to work on ambitious projects themselves, before they've taken on a crippling amount of student debt,” said William Andregg, CEO and co-founder of Halcyon Molecular. Halcyon is a start-up that has developed a breakthrough technology for fast, cheap, and highly accurate sequencing of DNA, and whose ultimate goal is to use sequencing data to support therapeutic products that vastly extend healthy lifespans.

"Inventing and producing a pedal-powered cell phone charging station to help Africans stay connected looks better on a résumé than straight As in college, and takes the same amount of time,” said Michael Vassar, president of the nonprofit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

Though applicants may already have scientific, technical, or nonprofit ideas, the Thiel Fellowship will not be limited to those with developed innovations. Teams of up to four may also apply. Applications will be available in October on ThielFoundation.org and due later in the fall, with the fellowship beginning in 2011.
If you would like a Thiel Foundation 20 Under 20 speaker to come to your high school, college, or club, please send an email with your name, location, and school or club to info@thielfoundation.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . 

ABOUT THE THIEL FOUNDATION The Thiel Foundation defends and promotes freedom in all its dimensions: political, personal, and economic. The Thiel Foundation supports innovative scientific research and new technologies that empower people to improve their lives, champions organizations and individuals who expose human rights abuses and authoritarianism in all its guises, and encourages the exploration of new ideas and new spaces where people can be less reliant on government and where freedom can flourish. For more information, see ThielFoundation.org. MEDIA CONTACT: Jonathan Cain
jcain@thielfoundation.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
(415) 248-4679