New language in a spending bill likely to pass would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from spending any of its budget contemplating approval of LightSquared’s application to deliver a national 4G wireless network over frequencies detractors claim would hamper or block use of GPS signals.

The language voted on in the House Appropriations Committee was approved by members of both political parties on a voice vote — another sign Congress is serious about stopping any provider from interfering with GPS technology.  A combination of concerns from the U.S. military, civil aviation, law enforcement, and private industry got a full hearing in Washington last Thursday, as GPS users complained of grave risks LightSquared could cause to aircraft in flight and the general defense of the country.

Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wisc.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, was concerned GPS interference might even cause an in-flight emergency. “In aviation, there’s no room for error,” Petri said.

Petri

Last week, just prior to the hearing, LightSquared announced its intent to move the service further away from the GPS band, but industry groups remain resolute the proposed changes would be incremental and still pose an interference problem.

Congress’ vote would seem to indicate they agree, putting the entire LightSquared project in jeopardy.

This week, new questions are also being raised about the management of LightSquared.  Critics charge the company knew about the interference issue years ago, and did little or nothing to mitigate it. Some suspect the company was banking on a lobbying effort and pressure from the White House with an interest of expanding broadband to help push through an approval despite the interference threat.

John Byrne from IDC’s wireless and mobile infrastructure research group told the Washington Post LightSquared is now faced with proving interference will not be a problem before it will win approval.

“At this point I think you have to assume that the deployment is on hold until those concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of the FCC and all of the congressmen and senators that are on the FCC on this issue,” Byrne said.

Cerf

Vint Cerf understands the Internet.  Widely recognized as one of the two “fathers” of what eventually grew into today’s Internet, Cerf has watched a network launched by the United States Department of Defense grow into an economic powerhouse driving a knowledge-based economy.

Today, Cerf works as an Internet evangelist for Google, promoting the company’s innovation in the next generation of the broadband experience.  He brings decades of advice to Internet Service Providers the world over: upgrade your networks.  But more importantly, he told attendees of Juniper Network’s Nextwork conference, upgrade exponentially, not incrementally.

Cerf’s remarks Wednesday targeted the conundrum of coping with increasing video traffic on the Internet.  Cerf pointed to his employer’s construction of a gigabit fiber to the home network in Kansas City as the best antidote to traffic congestion.

Simply put, Cerf believes bandwidth must be increased exponentially and not through incremental upgrades that try and stay one step ahead of demand.  Google intends to prove gigabit fiber broadband is cost-effective and within reach of providers.  A side benefit of building next generation networks is the opportunity for innovating new online applications.  Many of tomorrow’s online innovations are simply impossible on a constrained, incrementally upgraded network that often requires accompanying traffic limiting schemes.

“When you are watching video today, streaming is a very common practice. At gigabit speeds, a video file [can be transferred] faster than you can watch it,” Cerf said. “So rather than [receiving] the bits out in a synchronous way, instead you could download the hour’s worth of video in 15 seconds and watch it at your leisure. It actually puts less stress on the network to have the higher speed of operation,” he said. 

Wu

So far, many providers are considering Netflix and other video traffic a threat to their networks, and are attempting to collect tolls to allow Netflix content to reach subscribers (Comcast), or are considering Internet Overcharging schemes that combine usage caps with overlimit fees to discourage customers from watching too much (AT&T, Time Warner Cable).

At another session held Tuesday, Tim Wu, Columbia University law professor noted efforts by several U.S. providers to do away with all-you-can-use broadband.

Wu said phone companies like AT&T are ideally looking towards replicating the cell phone model on broadband — leaving users to guess how much usage they will rack up over a month, knowing most will be wrong.  As the consumer, he noted, you end up buying too much or you face steep overlimit fees for underestimating usage — either way “you are screwed.”  Wu called consumption-oriented pricing “abusive.”

Wu also said wireless carriers in particular are uneasy with the open, “ownerless” concept of the Internet.  Their instinct is to own, control, and manage networks.  Their only success so far is trying to advocate for fast, premium-priced traffic lanes, and slow “free lanes” for everything else — a key reason why many consumers advocate to preserve the open model of the Internet through enforced Net Neutrality.

Wu called these efforts by phone companies to control traffic “dangerous.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo

Legislation forcing carriers to tell the truth about their 4G wireless speeds is scheduled to be introduced today in Congress by its author and chief sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

The Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act would require carriers to disclose the minimum data speed of their respective networks and better explain plan pricing and coverage.  While many consumers believe “4G” means vastly superior speeds and performance, in reality some wireless carriers have labeled even incremental network upgrades as delivering “4G” service, even if speeds are only incrementally better.

“Consumers deserve to know exactly what they’re getting for their money when they sign-up for a 4G data plan,” said Rep. Eshoo. “My legislation is simple – it will establish guidelines for understanding what 4G speed really is, and ensure that consumers have all the information they need to make an informed decision.”

Specifically, the legislation would provide consumers with the following information at the point of sale and in all billing materials:

• Guaranteed minimum data speed
• Network reliability
• Coverage area maps
• Pricing
• Technology used to provide 4G service
• Network conditions that can impact the speed of applications and services used on the network.

The legislation also requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to evaluate the speed and price of 4G wireless data service provided by the top ten U.S. wireless carriers in order to provide consumers with access to a side-by-side comparison in their service area.

“Consumers want faster, more reliable wireless data service, and I look forward to working with industry and consumer groups to achieve this goal,” Eshoo added. “We need to enhance transparency and ensure consumers are fully informed before they commit to a long-term service contract.”

The bill faces tough prospects in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and industry groups are likely to oppose the measure.  Eshoo has tangled with both in the recent past as a prominent supporter of Net Neutrality.

Verizon Wireless will end its unlimited data smartphone plan on July 6th, pushing future customers to choose usage tiers priced at $30 for 2GB, $50 for 5GB, or $80 for 10GB.  But existing customers with either 3G or 4G phones can keep their existing unlimited data plans indefinitely, according to leaked Verizon memos.

Droid Life has become information central about the end of unlimited data at Verizon, thanks to some good connections with employees willing to share internal company memos.  They’ve learned Verizon also plans to make some other price adjustments effective July 7th:

Tethering pricing (in addition to your existing data plan, charged separately):

• 2GB — $20/month
• 4GB – $50/month
• 7GB – $70/month
• 12GB – $100/month

Overlimit fee: $10 per gigabyte.

Tablet plan pricing changes: Delete $20-1GB tablet plan, replaced July 7th with a $30-2GB plan.

From a Verizon memo to employees:

Data Pricing Evolution…The Present
Our legacy data pricing structure was designed to address a somewhat different customer need profile than what we are seeing and can expect in the future.

Consider this. Data usage has more than doubled over the last three years. Consumers and business users alike are doing more and more with their mobile devices. The notion of “send and end” has migrated to “managing multiple aspects of one’s lifestyle through mobility.” Whether it’s social media (85%+ of Smartphone users), mobile internet (88%+ of Smartphone users), or email/applications (71%+ of Smartphone users), this usage has one thing in common—dramatically increased demand for data and media consumption.

As a result, we are evolving our approach around how we package our data solutions and pricing to our customers. Coming soon, Verizon Wireless will move from our existing pricing format to a structure designed to allow customers to choose the right data solution that best aligns with their needs.

The Value Benefit Equation…
With the new usage based pricing plans, the vast majority of our customers will be able to enjoy their typical level of data consumption for the same value that they outlay today. Additionally, for those who have greater requirements for data, we will have solutions that they can tailor to their unique needs.

Perhaps more importantly, given our strong desire to continue to provide enhanced capability and value to our customers, the new data pricing will apply to both our 3G AND 4G LTE networks. So in essence, for those customers in our ever and rapidly expanding 4G LTE network coverage footprint, users will gain the benefit of the fastest and most advanced 4G LTE network in the U.S. all for the same usage based value. More speed. More functionality. Same value.

When Verizon first spoke about AT&T ending its unlimited use plans, we noted company officials seemed hesitant to sign on to AT&T’s specific pricing model.  We interpreted that to mean AT&T was being too stingy in Verizon’s eyes.  Stupid us. Instead, Verizon is going to charge $5 more than AT&T for most of its data plans, presumably milking its much-better reputation for service and reliability.

The existing price for Verizon’s unlimited smartphone data plan is $29.99 per month.  After July 7th, one penny more buys you only 2GB on Verizon’s network.

Customers can lock in unlimited data if they sign up for service before the end of the day on July 6th.  All existing customers who want to keep their unlimited data plan can, apparently even when changing phones, for the foreseeable future.  But nothing is forever with AT&T or Verizon.  We suspect “forever” will expire when average smartphone data usage approaches the 2GB limit their future $30 plan will feature.  Currently, the vast majority of smartphone users consume less than 750MB of data per month.

The Rochester, Minn. Amateur Radio Club spent months documenting potential interference from another problem technology: Broadband Over Power Lines.

Back in 2004, the Federal Communications Commission was looking for ways to expand broadband competition.  Borrowing from a mild success story in Europe, the Washington regulator, with the help of a well-financed lobbying campaign, approved new technology that would deliver broadband service over power lines, known as BPL.  The promises were great — fast access over an extensive, already-wired network that reached virtually every home in the country.  Glossy brochures promising a new generation of broadband and new competition were sent to every member of Congress.  Dollar-a-holler groups like the New Millennium Research Council produced “research reports” claiming the technology would advent a broadband revolution.  Some investors used to sleepy returns from utility companies dreamed about the promise of a rich new revenue stream pitching broadband service.

But there was a slight problem.  The technology worked better on paper than it did in real life.  Even more importantly, it carried more baggage than USAir.  Delivering wideband broadband signals over unshielded power cables never designed to carry radio frequencies meant interference — a lot of it, to any radio band the broadband signal occupied.  That meant a horrible listening experience on AM, and practically no listening at all over the shortwave bands, designated for military communications, international broadcasters, and the amateur radio community.

The FCC approved and supported the technology anyway, promising filters and other mitigation for those impacted by interference — a notion scoffed at by the American Radio Relay League, a group representing amateur radio operators.

So why don’t we have that third choice for broadband today?  BPL technology buried itself as its woeful performance could never match the high-flying marketing promises found in the brochure.

Fast forward to 2011 and manufacturers of satellite navigation devices, popularly known as GPS units, are terrified America is about to embark on another dreadful mistake.

LightSquared, a new entrant in the telecommunications marketplace, is constructing a nationwide 4G wireless broadband network with traditional ground-based antenna towers supplemented with a satellite system providing coverage in rural areas.  The company’s new network will occupy a frequency band just adjacent to that used by global positioning satellites, the backbone of the GPS system that some LightSquared critics contend will be crippled if the company’s 4G network is ever switched on.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/LightSquared Intro.flv[/flv]

LightSquared released this promotional video talking up their future network.  (2 minutes)

Early interference tests conducted by a federal working group show those critics may be right.  Because satellite signals are so weak, manufacturers like Tom-Tom and Garmin must create highly sensitive GPS receivers to handle the faint signals.  Because these units are not always selective enough to reject adjacent signal interference, a neighboring transmitter delivering a much more powerful signal — such as that from LightSquared — could overwhelm them.

Independent testing found serious interference problems even for professional grade GPS units used by civil aviation, ships, and emergency responders.  A sampling:

• GM’s OnStar system received significant interference, making it difficult to identify the location of crashed vehicles and disrupting turn-by-turn directions and other navigation services;
• In recent tests in New Mexico, LightSquared caused GPS receivers used by nearby police, fire and ambulance crews to lose reception;
• John Deere’s agricultural equipment incorporating GPS technology failed to receive signals during the LightSquared testing;
• Both the Coast Guard and NASA reported significant interference to their GPS receivers;
• The Federal Aviation Administration reports their GPS receivers completely failed while the tests were conducted.

The red box identifies the spectrum assigned to LightSquared. Its immediate neighbors are faint signals from communications satellites. (click to enlarge)

With complaints like that coming after a small-scale test, the thought of 40,000 ground-based LightSquared towers obliterating the nation’s access to GPS is more than just a little concerning to users and manufacturers.

“LightSquared’s network could cause devastating interference to all different kinds of GPS receivers,” Jim Kirkland, vice president and general counsel of Trimble Navigation Ltd., told the Washington Post.  Trimble manufactures GPS devices.

The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics advised the FAA its own independent tests of the LightSquared system found the consequences of turning this 4G wireless service on would be cataclysmic for GPS signals, making most satellite navigation equipment completely useless in most major metropolitan areas.

LightSquared executive vice president Jeffrey Carlisle told the Post he remained confident that the two systems could co-exist, even admitting he expected to find interference issues.  Carlisle says the real question is how to mitigate it.

This is not the first time interference issues have come before the FCC.  Nearby spectrum neighbors often don’t get along, especially when one licensed user relies on weak signals from space and the other utilizes more powerful ground-based transmitters.  The Commission has even fielded complaints over garage door openers interfering with certain military radios.

LightSquared’s network concept isn’t by itself the problem.  XM Radio manages to operate its mix of satellite-delivered radio and 900 ground-based repeater transmitters without creating interference for other users.

Deere Companies produced this diagram showing a comparison of the respective power levels of LightSquared signals vs. satellite navigation signals.

Unfortunately for LightSquared, it has several problems to contend with, the most significant being its “zoning problem.”  The souped-up 4G network is simply not in character for the spectrum neighborhood it calls home.  It’s a McMansion being built in a neighborhood of cottages.  LightSquared’s neighbors are low powered satellite signals in the 1-2Ghz range, including those from the satellites which provide GPS.  In certain cases, receiver equipment can be designed to reject the adjacent interference a network like LightSquared could create, but with millions of existing GPS units already in use, that may prove impractical.

LightSquared has tried to rope off its channel space as much as possible, trading spectrum with other nearby users to create a nearly contiguous 20Mhz slice it can dedicate to its signals, in hopes of reducing interference.  But the recent tests suggest this may not be enough.  General Motors suggested LightSquared needs to find a better neighborhood — one more suited to the kind of signal it wants to offer.  That could come from a spectrum trade or a frequency reallocation by the FCC.

The FCC is taking a “wait and see” approach so far, claiming further tests are needed.  But the agency earlier pledged it would not allow LightSquared to operate its network if it created major interference problems for other spectrum users.  Some GPS manufacturers think that commitment is too vague, because “major interference” is in the eye of the beholder.

Those concerns may be warranted, considering the FCC earlier found its way clear to ignore the documented interference Broadband Over Power Lines created over both the AM and shortwave radio dial.  Even after a blizzard of lobbying and campaign contributions won support for BPL in Washington, the ultimately inferior product that resulted couldn’t win the support of the group that ultimately mattered most — paying customers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Ahuja Says LightSquared to Finish 4G Network Before 2016 6-11-11.flv[/flv]

Sanjiv Ahuja, chief executive officer of LightSquared, talks about the company’s efforts to build a wireless broadband network as other spectrum users challenge the company’s potential to create interference.  (7 minutes)