# Presentation: 157116

## The Global Positioning System International Cooperation

- Presented by
- Julie Karner
- U.S. Department of State
- February 2003

**Notes:**
Good morning – It is a real pleasure to be here in Portland at this conference.  This is my first ION.

## U.S. GPS Policy

**Dual-use (civil-military) system**
**Civil signals free of direct user charges (policy since 1983)**
**Open specifications (No licensing fee or royalties)**
**Consistent U.S. National Policy statements from both  Executive and Legislative Branches**
**Congressional guidance 1983**
**Presidential Decision Directive, March 1996**
**U.S. Public Law, December 1998**
**Interagency GPS Executive Board to manage GPS as a national asset**
**Selective Availability turned to zero in May 2000**
**Six years ahead of schedule**
**Encourage private sector use of GPS technologies and services**
**Open specifications for civil signals**
**Available on an equal basis to users and industry worldwide**

**Notes:**
GPS is a dual use system, supporting both civil and military user
In 1983 the U.S. made the decision that civil signals will be free of charge and that the specification would be provided on an open basis, with no licensing fees or royalties.
This policy has been consistently supported by every administration and Congress since that time.
In 1996 In 1996, the Presidential Decision Directive established several important policy positions.
First, given the critical nature of GPS for a wide range of users, the system would be managed by an Interagency GPS Executive Board.  They are the decision making body for GPS.
The PDD also said that we would turn off SA by the year 2006.  I have to say that in 24 years of working satellite operations and space systems acquisition I have never seen a program hold to its original schedule.  This one didn’t either, but instead of being late, we were six years early
Back in those days, the U.S. had only an inkling of the potential for GPS and we wanted to encourage the development of technologies and services to improve safety in navigation and efficiency in our lives.
I think it is safe to say from what we see today that users, researchers, and manufacturers exceeded our expectations.

## International Outreach

**Encourage use of GPS – show how it is being used**
**GPS Exhibit**
**Promote global interoperability**
**Open communication lines with users**
**CGSIC IIS**
**Report problems/interference to NAVCEN**
**www.navcen.uscg.gov**
**Provide accurate information on U.S. policy and plans for GPS**
**www.igeb.gov**

**Notes:**
We do a lot of international outreach – you may as “Why?”
First, we want to encourage people to take advantage of the system.  Although this audience is very knowledgeable there are many who have no idea what it is or how it can be used.
Often, our GPS booth representatives are asked if it is being used in their country.  They are of the surprised by the answer.
There are a lot of augmentations based on GPS – we want to ensure that these operate as seamlessly as possible – and – if any new systems come along, that they can be used with GPS to the greatest extent possible without causing interference or degradation.
We want to see the users have the best, most extensive capability.
We also need to hear from users, what are their evolving needs and what are any problems that see occurring.
This last piece is very important.  GPS is good, but occasionally problems occur.  GPS is a very weak signals.  Sometimes there is local interference.  We really want to encourage people to report if they are having a problem with receiving the signals so we can try to track down what is happening.  It is unfortunate that sometimes people just assume we have done something to the system.
That is how misconceptions begin and grow.
We want people to have accurate information on the operation of the system, the policy that stands behind it, and where we are going in the future. 

## Who uses GPS - Everybody

**GPS supports a wide variety of applications**
**GPS ~ 2-10 meters**
**GPS with augmentations ~ 50 centimeter – 3 meters**
**GPS with advanced techniques (ex. RTK) **
**Moving ~ centimeter level**
**Static ~ millimeter - centimeter **
**Combined with other technologies and information resources**
**Remote sensing**
**Geographic Information Systems (GIS) **

## Today,Tomorrow, and Future Concepts

**Today**
**GPS **
**DGPS and GBAS**
**SBAS (pre IOC)**
**Combined GPS/GLONASS receivers**
**Pseudolites**
**Combined with other technologies (ex. - GSM)**
**Tomorrow**
**Operational SBAS**
**GBAS – LAAS, GRAS**
**Galileo**
**Japanese Quasi Zenith Satellite System **
**Future Concepts**
**WAAS broadcast by LORAN C**
**RTK on DGPS**

## Civil Benefits of GPS Modernization

**More robust GPS service**
**Reduces vulnerability to unintentional interference **
**Unlikely to simultaneously affect L1, L2 and L5**
**Worldwide dual frequency for en-route navigation and precision approach**
**Dual Frequency (L1, L5) allows ionospheric corrections in avionics onboard the aircraft**
**Fewer reference stations may be needed for space-based augmentation systems (e.g. WAAS)**
**Centimeter-level accuracy for scientific & survey applications **
**Tri-laning: L1 - L5, L1 - L2, and L2 - L5**

**Notes:**
The U.S. spends approximately $1B over any given five year period to modernize GPS
Users’ needs grow, we learn more from experience, and technology improves
The result is a more robust service and better accuracy

## Compatibility and Interoperability

**GPS is an existing system with millions of users around the world**
**Standard for satellite-based navigation**
**To bring greatest benefit to users, new systems or augmentations should**
**Be compatible with GPS – not cause degradation for users**
**Be interoperable with GPS to the greatest extent possible**
**More satellites visible – ideally used to derive a single solution**
**Good opportunities with L2C and L5 – some limitations with L1**
**Cheaper receivers so greatest number of users can benefit**
_**Goal – Seamless worldwide service**_

**Notes:**
GPS is an existing system, as is GLONASS
While the systems are compatible, that is to say, they don’t interfere with each other, they are not interoperable in such a way that you can interchangeably use GPS and GLONASS satellites to get a single solution.  You need to see enough satellites of each constellation to obtain two individual solutions
Any new systems should, at a minimum, be compatible with both GPS and GLONASS so that the millions of users around the world will not have their service degraded
An ideal goal in the future, as new systems are built,  would be for users to be able to use any combination of those satellites that are visible to get a single position and timing solution using the simplest receivers at the cheapest cost.  
That way as many users as possible will be able to reap the greatest benefits from the presence of two systems
We are hoping that cooperation between GPS and Galileo allow us to achieve that goal

## What is Compatibility and Interoperability?

**Radio Frequency Compatibility -- ****GPS and Galileo/QZSS civil signals are compatible from a radio frequency perspective, if it is assured that one system will not cause interference that unacceptably degrades the stand alone service that the other system provides**
***Backward compatibility***** is often applied to this concept for users with existing receivers **
***Forward compatibility***** is often applied when new receiver designs are being considered**** **
**National Security Compatibility -- ****GPS and Galileo/QZSS civil signals are are compatible from a national security perspective if the ability to ****protect military service while simultaneously preventing hostile use and preserving civil service outside the area of hostilities is preserved through the spectral separation of civil and military signals****    **

## Interoperability -- GPS and Galileo/QZSS are interoperable if a combined system receiver with a mix of multiple GPS or Galileo/QZSS satellites in view can achieve position, navigation and timing solutions at the user level that are equal to or better than the position, navigation or timing solutions that could be achieved by either system alone.

**What is Compatibility and Interoperability?**

## Relative Importance of Compatibility and Interoperability

**Interoperability (as defined on the previous chart) is a very important goal**
**However ...**
**The US Government considers the assurance of Compatibility as the primary requirement for the GPS user community**
**Existing and future GPS receivers must be protected**

- Existing and future GPS users *must* be protected from harmful service degradation

## Interoperability – GPS and Galileo

**Two independent systems**
**Goal is to provide the greatest possible benefit to the largest number of users**
**Simple, inexpensive receivers**
**Range of end results**
**Compatibility             Seamless identical systems**
**Depends on standards selected**
**Different ways to consider interoperability**
**User perspective**
**Equipment**
**Policy**

## User perspective

**Compatibility (ex. - GPS-GLONASS)**
**Systems operate independently**
**Do not interfere with each other**
**Need independent solution**
**Some improved performance**
**Modernization**
**Each can modernize without impacting the other**
**Consistent performance**
**Can use both and get at least as good as with only one**
**Improved performance**
**Can use both and get improved performance**
**Ideal – use satellites interchangeably to derive a single solution**
**Get greatest benefit from larger number of visible satellites**
**RAIM**

## Implications of System Standards for Receivers

**Receiver complexity and cost depend on standards chosen**
**Geodesy  (different standards selected)**
**Timing (different standards selected)**
**Signal structures **
**L1 - C/A code limits number of satellites, power, signal structure**
**L2C – No backward compatibility issues**
**L5 – Greatest potential for interoperability**

## Policy Interoperability

**Similar policies enhance interoperability for users**
**Free, open signals and open specifications**
_**Users choose**_** which system or combination of systems meet their needs**
**	****	****	****	****and**
**   **_**Manufacturers choose**_** which system or combination provides optimum business case**
**GPS**
**GLONASS**
**Galileo**
**QZSS**
**Combination**
**Combined with other technologies: GSM, UMTS, Pseudolites**
**Open market-driven competition **
**Innovation**
**Better/cheaper equipment and services **
**Protect radionavigation spectrum from interference**
**Preserve Allied military use of GPS in hostile environment**

## International Consultations - Europe

**Last plenary talks - June 2002**
**Technical talks - Oct. 21-23 and Jan 30-31**
**Goals: **
**Alternative signal structure for Galileo PRS **
_**No M-code overlay**_
**Compatibility – Future Galileo service will not degrade service for GPS users**
**Interoperability – Users can use both systems together to get improved capability**
**Ideal case – use satellite signal interchangeably so users can take greatest advantage of larger number of visible satellites**
**Greatest issue with Galileo is M-code overlay**
**Impacts U.S., NATO, and Allied military forces**

## National Security Compatibility

**Overlay of M-code signals is **_**not**_** dual-service compatible and is unacceptable to the U.S. **

**National Security Compatibility**

**U.S. Policy and Public Law require:**
_**Protection**_** of Allied military use of GPS**
_**Prevention**_** of hostile use**
_**Preservation**_** of civil use outside an area of conflict**
**NAVWAR concept enables localized denial of service rather than global degradation**
**New military (M-code) signals developed to be spectrally separated from civil signals**
**Without spectral separation, security is weakened**

**Notes:**
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

## International Consultations - Japan

**Japan**
**Plenary - October 2002**
**Technical discussions - December 2002**
**Key interest area is close cooperation with Japan’s QZSS**
**Goal – maximize **_**interoperability**_** with GPS**
**Increase satellites in view for users**
**Increase commercial opportunities for GPS/QZSS applications**

## Summary

**GPS is a key component of the global information infrastructure**
**U.S. intends to continue to provide GPS service free of direct user fees to users worldwide**
**Consistent U.S. principles has led to GPS standardization and market growth**
**GPS modernization is under way**
**Continuing international outreach to further understanding of GPS, its augmentations, and its applications**
**Compatibility/Interoperability for the benefit of users worldwide**

**Notes:**
The US recognizes that GPS is playing an increasingly critical role in how we live and how do business,  how we communicate, and how governments provide services to their citizens.

We are committed to providing GPS service and to modernizing it to better meet user’s needs.

Communication is the key that will enable us to meet those commitments.

Thanks you. 

## Back Up

## M-code and PRS are different

**No common user base**
**M-code is strictly for military users**
**Designed to meet specific U.S. and allied military requirements**
**Combat environment**
**PRS is advertised as a civil service**
**M-code and PRS are not competing for market share**
**M-code will never be used for a PRS-like or commercial service**
**No intention or need to have M-code - PRS interoperability**

## U.S. Proposed PRS Signal Alternatives

**Meet PRS requirements as stated by EC**
**L1 band: BOC (5,2)**
**GLONASS band (18 MHz available): BPSK-R(5),      BPSK-R(8),  BOC (6,3), BOC (6,4), BOC (5,2.5), BOC (5,5), BOC (4,4)**
**All options are feasible - provide robust signal designs**
**Resistant to interference and jamming**
**Spectral separation from Galileo Open services**
**High accuracy solutions**
**Signals can be efficiently generated and transmitted by the same satellites producing other Galileo signals**
**No legal or technical impediment to using GLONASS band frequencies**

## GPS-Galileo Cooperation Status

**U.S. believes Galileo will benefit civil users worldwide **
**Not opposed to PRS**
**Single major issue, **_**M-code overlay**_**, is impeding real progress on cooperation agreement**
**PRS and GPS Military Service (M-code) are not equivalent services and are not competing services**
**No common user base or markets**
**M-code strictly for military users – not commercialized**
**U.S. wants issue resolved as soon as possible so real cooperation progress can begin**
**Places Trans Atlantic relationship at risk**

## M-Code Overlay is Unacceptable

**Not a matter of trust**
**M-code overlay places NATO and allied operations and troops lives at risk**
**All NATO nations agree**
**No matter how secure**
**No matter how well the service is encrypted**
**No matter how rigorous equipment access is controlled**
**    **_**Risk of compromise cannot be ruled out**_
**U.S. proposed PRS alternatives and civil compatibility & interoperability discussions at technical working group  in Paris, January 30-31**
**U.S. is willing to discuss the issue through NATO channels or with countries who have security arrangements with U.S. , but will not negotiate M-code overlay**

## GPS-Galileo Technical Working Group Meeting

**Goddard Space Flight Center, October 21-23, 2002 and ESA Headquarters, January 30-31, 2003**
**Technical compatibility/interoperability of civil GPS and Galileo services discussed**
**U.S. and E.C./ESA interference analyses and criteria for determining signal non-interference**
**Galileo L1 & L5/E5 signal structures and code selection**
**Timing and geodesy interoperability issues**
**Paris Technical Working Group to address U.S. proposed alternatives for PRS signals**
**Follow-up sub-teams were identified for specific issue areas such as timing and signal interference analyses**

## Why Flexible Signal Plan Won’t Work

**Security of a planned NATO operation may not permit coordination with outside (Non NATO) organization**
**EU Rapid Response Center would still have to inform the commercial operator, compromising Operational Security**
**Approval cannot be guaranteed**
**EC statement to NATO**
**Timeline not consistent with military operations**
**Military field commander cannot be restrained by waiting for outside agency to approve and implement switch**
**Change in Galileo frequencies provides indication and warning to hostile forces **

## BOC 10,5 Signal Alternatives Will Not Make Galileo a Second Status Service

**GPS-Galileo System Comparison (Circa 2008)**

## GPS-Galileo Comparison (Circa 2008)

- _GPS_

- _Galileo_

- Services

- Signals

- Users

- Signals

- Users

- MHz

- MHz

- 8  (5,2)*
- 5-16 G1 band*

- L1
- L2

- * U.S. proposed alternatives to M-code overlay