U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–048 PDF 2012

GPS RELIABILITY: A REVIEW OF AVIATION 

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE, SAFETY ISSUES, 

AND AVOIDING POTENTIAL NEW AND COSTLY 

GOVERNMENT BURDENS 

(112–38) 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Day, Rear Admiral Robert E., Jr., Assistant Commandant for Command, 

Control, Communications, Computers, and Information Technology, and 

Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 3 

Kienitz, Hon. Roy W., Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3 

Takai, Teresa M., Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 

Information Integration, and Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 3 

PANEL TWO

Carlisle, Jeffrey J., Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Public 

Policy, LightSquared ............................................................................................ 20 

Fuller, Craig, President and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ...... 20 

Hendricks, Thomas L., Senior Vice President for Safety, Security, and Operations, Air Transport Association of America, Inc. ........................................... 20 

Jenny, Margaret T., President, RTCA, Inc. ........................................................... 20 

Straub, Philip, Vice President, Aviation Engineering, Garmin International, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 20 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 43 

Larsen, Hon. Rick, of Washington .......................................................................... 46 

LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., of New Jersey .............................................................. 51 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Carlisle, Jeffrey J. .................................................................................................... 53 

Day, Rear Admiral Robert E., Jr. ........................................................................... 70 

Fuller, Craig ............................................................................................................. 71 

Hendricks, Thomas L. ............................................................................................. 77 

Jenny, Margaret T. .................................................................................................. 81 

Kienitz, Hon. Roy W. ............................................................................................... 92 

Straub, Philip ........................................................................................................... 97 

Takai, Teresa M. ...................................................................................................... 116 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

United States Coast Guard: 

Response to question from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Jersey, regarding the Department 

of Homeland Security’s thoughts on LightSquared’s proposal and its 

impact on GPS .............................................................................................. 10 

Response to question from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Jersey, asking if the Department 

of Homeland Security has determined if a backup system for GPS 

is needed ........................................................................................................ 11 

Page

VI 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Air Line Pilots Association, International, Lee Moak, President, letter to 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, June 22, 2011 .................................................................................... 121 

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 123 

National Business Aviation Association, Ed Bolen, President and CEO, written statement ....................................................................................................... 128 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67048.0001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67048.0002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67048.0003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67048.0004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67048.0005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67048.0006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67048.0007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67048.0008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67048.0009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67048.0010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67048.0011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67048.0012
xix 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67048.0013
(1) 

GPS RELIABILITY: A REVIEW OF AVIATION 

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE, SAFETY ISSUES, 

AND AVOIDING POTENTIAL NEW AND COSTLY 

GOVERNMENT BURDENS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST

GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE

ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. We will be 

joined as we get into the proceedings by the chairman of the Coast 

Guard Subcommittee, but he is detained at another meeting. 

Today we will explore LightSquared’s plan to build out terrestrial broadband Internet service, and its potential impacts on GPS 

users, safety, and NextGen. 

Safety is the top priority of the Aviation Subcommittee. Sadly, 

advancements in aviation safety have often come only after fatal 

accidents. 

Over the years, the FAA has shifted to a risk based data driven 

safety system in order to act proactively and to prevent the loss of 

life. 

The subcommittee supports this proactive effort to identify and 

address safety issues before there is an accident. 

When a potential safety issue is brought to our attention, we 

must seek information and work with the community and the FAA 

to ensure the risk is properly addressed. 

The Global Positioning System, or GPS, serves a critical role in 

aviation safety and airspace modernization known as NextGen. 

Aviation infrastructure and efforts to update it with the Department of Transportation’s NextGen program are a platform for 

growth in the U.S. economy and a key driver of economic activity. 

NextGen is also a key component for job creation within the aviation industry. 

It is important that the Government does nothing to limit 

NextGen’s efforts, both in terms of impacting job creation and undermining or delaying important advancements in air traffic management. 

New burdens on the aviation industry as a result of FCC approval would likely stifle NextGen efforts, and the resulting ecoVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:25 May 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~1\6-23-1~1\67048.TXT JEAN
2 

nomic growth and job creation. As such, new and costly burdens on 

aviation users are simply unacceptable. 

Due to various concerns raised by GPS users, the LightSquared 

proposal we are considering at today’s hearing has been the subject 

of Government and industry expert field testing and review. 

Analysis conducted by two independent technical teams show significant GPS interference would result if LightSquared were to roll 

out its terrestrial network as originally planned. 

In fact, the Government team, the National Space-Based PNT 

Systems Engineering Forum or NPEF, recommended that the FCC 

rescind the waiver which allows LightSquared to proceed in its 

plans to offer service in the spectrum neighboring GPS. 

The Government team further recommended that the FCC readdress the effects of the FCC’s authorization for LightSquared 

service in the neighboring spectrum. 

The team said, ‘‘At the conclusion of this NPEF effort, significant 

concerns remain that operation of an ancillary terrestrial component integrated service as originally envisioned by the FCC cannot 

successfully coexist with GPS.’’ 

In the face of these results, LightSquared announced on Monday, 

June 20, that they would revise their roll out plans to address GPS 

interference concerns. 

However, that revised plan has not been subject to a full evaluation. 

The RTCA, which is represented on our second panel of witnesses, also conducted testing of potential GPS interference. 

The RTCA’s initial testing reportedly showed a smaller portion 

of LightSquared’s spectrum allocation than they are currently contemplating for use would be suitable for assuredly safe operation. 

I would like to hear the full details of LightSquared’s revised 

plan today, so that the subcommittees and appropriate GPS, Government and industry experts can evaluate the technical aspects of 

the plan. 

I spoke a month ago about the importance of GPS for both the 

safety and efficiency of the national airspace system, as well as the 

importance of the national airspace system as a platform for 

growth in these United States. 

Based on the testimony provided to date to the subcommittee regarding the potential negative impact of LightSquared’s presence 

within the L-Band spectrum neighboring GPS, and based on the 

importance of GPS, the subcommittee may request the FCC allow 

time for full comprehensive testing of the plans announced on Monday for potential harmful interference impacts. 

To be fair, LightSquared’s goal of providing more broadband 

Internet capacity is an additional platform for commerce, but it 

must not interfere with aviation safety, job creation, or NextGen. 

In aviation, there is no room for error. 

The impact of LightSquared’s revised plans should be independently and thoroughly tested to ensure the FCC does not approve 

plans that would introduce unacceptable risks into the aviation 

system or leave the aviation GPS users with new and costly burdens. 

Finally, before I recognize Mr. Costello and the chair and ranking member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee for their opening 

3 

statements, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, including extraneous material for the record of this hearing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I recognize Mr. Costello for any opening remarks he chooses to 

make. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank you and Chairman LoBiondo for calling this hearing this morning. 

In the interest of time, I have an opening statement that I will 

submit for the record. I will also ask unanimous consent to insert 

Mr. Larsen’s statement in the record as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our 

witnesses today, and just would note that any solution, any technical solution, that we arrive at to address this issue will have to 

have the input and agreement of the aviation community. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. I ask unanimous consent to incorporate statements by 

Mr. Costello and Mr. Larsen into the record. 

We will begin with the first panel. To accommodate the witnesses’ schedules, we have moved this up to a little earlier than 

normal congressional time, although working at 9:00, nothing is 

bad with that. 

The first panel consists of The Honorable Roy Kienitz, who is a 

well known figure to those of us in transportation. He is the Under 

Secretary for Policy for the Department of Transportation. 

Teri Takai, who is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Networks 

and Information Integration and Chief Information Officer of the 

U.S. Department of Defense. 

Rear Admiral Robert E. Day, Jr., who is Assistant Commander 

for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology and Chief Information Officer of the United States 

Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

We thank you very much for joining us today. We understand the 

time pressures you are under. You are all familiar with the congressional procedure here, and we invite you to summarize your 

prepared statements in 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Kienitz. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROY W. KIENITZ, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TERESA M. TAKAI, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND REAR ADMIRAL ROBERT E. DAY, 

JR., ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR COMMAND, CONTROL, 

COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTERS, AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. COAST 

GUARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. KIENITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman 

Emeritus. I am the one who needed the time moved, so I am very 

appreciative, as you know. 

I would like to begin with a brief outline of GPS, which is of 

course the reason we are here today. 

As most people know, GPS was developed by the U.S. military. 

Today, it is still operated and mostly paid for by the Air Force. 

4 

In 1983, President Reagan announced that GPS would be available to users worldwide. In 1994, President Clinton decreed that 

GPS would be free to users worldwide. 

Finally, in 2000, the positional accuracy of the civil signal was 

greatly increased and new industries based on precision navigation 

and timing were born, and as a result, today, GPS is everywhere. 

Since it is used as a matter for the free market, this is a key 

point, no one actually knows how many commercial uses it has, because anyone can access it anywhere for free at any time without 

Government monitoring. 

What we do know is worldwide yearly sales of GPS navigation devices exceed $20 billion and an estimated $3 trillion worth of 

commerce relies on GPS for tracking, timing, and navigation. 

Whatever the actual numbers are, the decision to provide GPS 

for free is one of America’s great economic gifts to the world since 

the Marshall Plan. 

As we all here know, GPS plays a key role in transportation. 

Many millions of U.S. drivers use GPS to navigate, including over 

6 million cars equipped with GM’s OnStar system. 

Positive Train Control, which enhances safety for rail transportation, also relies on GPS. DOT is converting over a multiyear period the air traffic control system from an analog radar based system to a digital system built around GPS, which is our NextGen 

system that you referenced. 

We estimate that soon as many as 60,000 aircraft will be 

equipped with GPS. So far, FAA and the aviation industry have invested over $8 billion in NextGen, and there are many billions more to come on both 

the public and private side. 

The uses of GPS go far beyond transportation. It is essential for 

first responders, search and rescue, weather tracking, financial 

transactions, surveying and mapping, and industries like precision 

agriculture, where the ability to water and fertilize crops with 

great accuracy reduces pollution and saves American farmers up to 

$5 billion a year. 

To achieve the accuracy necessary for many of these uses, GPS 

receivers are designed to pick up signals and cross the entire range 

of the licensed GPS band. 

The limits of engineering and physics to some degree are such 

that the receivers that do this are also sensitive to some signals in 

adjacent bands, including what is called the MSS band (mobile satellite systems), which is set aside for satellite phones. 

Until now, this was not a problem because both in the GPS band 

and in the MSS band, these are what are called ‘‘quiet bands,’’ limited to weak signals coming from satellites, and when those signals 

reach the ground, they register at a tiny fraction of a watt. The filtering devices that are on GPS units easily filter out the satellite 

signals in the neighboring bands. 

To get more out of the limited spectrum that exists, the FCC has 

been encouraging for a long time more use of the MSS band, as 

with many other parts of the spectrum. This has included in MSS 

allowing telecom companies to set up some ground based antennas 

that would cover areas that are difficult to serve with satellite reception, such as hilly terrain or urban canyons. 

5 

By contrast, the ground signals coming from these antennas can 

be very powerful, more than a billion times the strength of a signal 

coming from a satellite, and as such, these signals can and easily 

do overwhelm the filters on a lot of current GPS receivers. 

To guard against this, the FCC had restricted ground antennas 

to a subordinate role in any use in that band in such a way that 

they could not interfere with satellite transmissions. This was 

called the ‘‘integrated service rule.’’ 

As long as this rule was being observed, satellite signals in the 

MSS band were protected from interference from ground stations. 

If they were protected, by extension, so was GPS, which was in the 

neighboring band. 

Now, we fast forward to today. LightSquared has asked the FCC 

for permission to use the MSS band for mobile broadband service 

under a waiver of this integrated service rule. 

Their goal of providing widespread mobile broadband across the 

country is, as the chairman said, consistent with our policy of trying to give up to 98 percent of Americans access to mobile 

broadband. 

It is not without its problems. Indeed, in January of this year, 

the FCC approved this concept contingent on resolving any interferences with GPS. 

The technical working group, which the chairman mentioned, is 

going to be reporting next week, I think. In addition, as he said, 

we commissioned RTCA to do a study, and we participated in this 

broader Federal study looking at all potential uses. 

The tests mostly focused in three areas. The first is this basic 

question of leakage. Are the LightSquared’s signals sent out in 

their band leaking over into the GPS band? 

The news there appears to be good, that is not happening. 

LightSquared has spent a lot of time and energy on engineering 

very good filters to make sure it does not leak out of their band. 

That seems to be working. 

The second question is called overload interference, which is interference with GPS receivers that are sensitive to transmissions 

in these neighboring bands next to GPS. 

The news here was not very good. The powerful signals from 

LightSquared’s ground antennas overwhelmed the filters in most 

GPS units tested, causing them to either report inaccurate location 

data or not report anything at all. 

Third, the test looked at what is called intermodulation. 

LightSquared plans to transmit under the original plan in two discrete frequencies in the MSS band. These are each 10 MHz-wide 

blocks with a buffer between them. 

In the world of transmissions, two powerful parallel signals like 

that can create an echo effect when the two of them are going at 

the same time, and that can show up outside the spectrum band. 

The tests that we have done so far showed that when both powerful signals were on, it did indeed create intermodulation interference within the GPS band. 

Our conclusion from all of this is that the original LightSquared 

proposal made to the FCC is not compatible with the current operation of the GPS system. 

6 

Thomas Edison famously tested and rejected thousands of potential filaments before finding one that made the light bulb work. 

In the same vein, we have now tested one proposal here, and we 

found unfortunately it did not work as originally hoped. That does 

not mean the story is over. 

As you mentioned, on June 20, LightSquared offered an alternative plan where they would start out by using only one of their 

two bands, the so-called ‘‘lower 10’’ band, which is furthest away 

from GPS. 

What phase two of their plan would look like is not so clear. This 

idea, indeed, may have promise. That said, and this is really the 

key point, since it was not part of the original plan submitted to 

the FCC, it has not been tested, and the one sure thing in all of 

this is any plan needs to be thoroughly tested before it goes forward. 

Our goal at DOT is to look for a win-win, where we can have 

much better broadband service nationwide, but to do so without 

disrupting GPS and vital services it provides like NextGen. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Takai? 

Ms. TAKAI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning regarding the importance of the Global Positioning System 

or GPS to U.S. national defense capabilities. 

My testimony today will focus on the importance of GPS reliability to the Department of Defense, in ensuring that our war 

fighters and mission partners have the critical capabilities they 

need and which only GPS can effectively deliver. 

GPS is vital to national security and is relied upon by our Service men and women for a wide array of capabilities. Simply put, it 

is integrated into almost every aspect of U.S. military operations. 

It is designed to deliver extremely accurate information of three 

dimensional positioning, velocity, speed and direction, and precise 

timing to virtually all DOD aircraft, ships, land vehicles and personnel on the ground. 

Used throughout all Services and combatant commands, GPS 

supports all training and contingency operations, ranging from tactical to through strategic levels. 

To provide but a few examples, GPS signals are used to ensure 

the accuracy of precision guided munitions, to guide troop movements, to synchronize communication networks, to enable battle 

space situational awareness, and to conduct search and rescue operations. 

I want to ensure the subcommittee that DOD takes its stewardship role for GPS very seriously. 

We also know that civil and commercial sectors have long embraced GPS for its public safety capacities and economic advantages. 

Consequently, we have developed a partnership with civil and 

commercial sectors, and really appreciate our partnership with 

those speaking with me today on this very critical issue. 

To deliver GPS service to all DOD and civil and commercial 

users who rely upon it, DOD maintains and continuously upgrades 

7 

a constant constellation of 24 satellites composed of a minimum of 

four satellites in each six planetary orbits at a very cost effective 

budget currently of $1.7 billion annually. 

Radio frequency spectrum is essential to DOD, not only for GPS, 

but also we use federally allocated spectrum for command and control operations, communications, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition, and other military activities on land, at sea, under 

sea, airborne, and in space. 

Military spectrum requirements are diverse and complex, given 

the variety of missions the Department must support. 

In the Continental U.S., GPS is essential to military readiness, 

allowing our forces to properly train as they must fight and support 

contingency operations overseas. 

We must also ensure that we have interoperability with our military allies. 

All of these are driving DOD’s spectrum requirements, much the 

same way as consumer mobile broadband demand is a major factor 

today. 

DOD fully supports the national economic and security goals of 

the President’s 500 MHz initiative, and we are committed, as my 

colleagues, to the implementation of more effective and efficient use 

of the finite radio frequency spectrum and the development of solutions that ensure no loss of critical national security capabilities, 

including GPS. 

With my colleagues, in February 2011, the executive group of the 

National Executive Committee of Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing tasked the National PNT Engineering Forum to 

conduct an assessment of the effects of LightSquared’s planned deployment. 

I co-chair that executive group along with my counterpart at the 

Department of Transportation. An executive committee for PNT is 

co-chaired by my Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Secretary at 

Transportation, and includes members from Departments of State, 

Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Our role is to advise the Departments and the Executive Office 

regarding strategic policies and requirements, security of all U.S. 

positioning, navigation and timing. 

We strongly support PNT and NPEF by tasking the Air Force 

Space Command along with Naval Space Warfare System Center 

to rapidly ramp up and conduct testing of the effects of the proposed LightSquared network upon a cross section of DOD, civil 

aviation, public safety, and commercial GPS receivers. 

This testing was performed at our White Sands Missile Range 

and at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico in cooperation with 

PNT, other Federal agency members, and civil and commercial industry advisory members. 

The results of these tests were submitted to the spectrum regulator, NTIA, on June 15. This test data does indicate that the proposed LightSquared terrestrial operations would cause harmful interference to the GPS operations, as my colleague from the Department of Transportation has explained. 

8 

For example, GPS receivers of various types and manufacture operated by DOD, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, U.S. 

Coast Guard, FAA, and the State of New Mexico Public Safety, as 

well as commercial aviation and precision fishing systems all 

showed varying degrees of degradation of GPS accuracy, interruptions to GPS signal acquisition, or total loss of GPS tracking and 

positioning, depending upon the GPS receiver’s proximity to the 

tested LightSquared signal transmitter. 

The potential for interference to GPS from the proposed 

LightSquared terrestrial network exemplifies the complicated technical policy and regulatory challenges in re-purposing longstanding 

spectrum allocations. 

The Department will continue to work with the administration 

and NTIA, as well as with Congress, to address long-term solutions 

regarding the balance between Federal spectrum requirements and 

the expanding demand for mobile broadband services. 

We have a wealth of institutional and personnel expertise in 

radio frequency engineering, and we look forward to continuing to 

work with the organizations to further ensure all proposed mitigation’s or alternatives are thoroughly tested to ensure no harmful 

interference. 

The ability of GPS to operate without interference remains of 

paramount importance to DOD. 

I thank you for your interest in our efforts, and would be pleased 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you for your very informative statement. 

Rear Admiral Day? 

Admiral DAY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on 

the vital importance of the Global Positioning System to our maritime domain. 

My testimony today focuses on our and the Department of Homeland Security’s concerns with the current proposed business plan 

for LightSquared, and its potential to disrupt GPS reliability. 

We must ensure that mariners, Coast Guardsmen, and the officers and agents in our sister DHS services have the capabilities 

that they require upon in our modern operating environment in the 

maritime, and GPS, reliable GPS, is a key enabler of that operational capability. 

The Coast Guard, too, participated in two interagency testing 

events in New Mexico and additional testing in Las Vegas, where 

we tested representative Coast Guard GPS equipment within the 

initial proposed LightSquared signal environment of transmitting 

in a dual channel mode at 1.5 kilowatts. 

The results demonstrated this: a typical Coast Guard surface 

unit, their GPS unit, demonstrated degraded performance within 

3,300 meters of that source. 

A commercial solace grade mariner receiver demonstrated degraded performance also within 3,300 meters. 

A typical Coast Guard DGPS site receiver showed degraded performance within 7,500 meters of that source. 

A reliable and an accurate GPS signal is a core enabler to the 

proper operation of numerous maritime safety and navigational 

9 

systems, which not only commercial mariners and the boating public use, but the Coast Guard and our DHS partners rely on. 

For this reason, any form of interference, not just potentially 

from LightSquared, but any form of interference to the GPS signal 

has the potential to impact the proper operation of the following 

systems that we use that are critical: 

Global maritime distress and safety systems and digital select 

calling radios, their distress alert functions could be impacted. 

GMDSS includes equipment including the SARSAT as well as digital selective calling radios. 

New DCE marine radios use GPS input, and when they hit an 

alert, that alert takes that GPS input and transmits it over that 

DSC radio to our command centers. 

Again, many, many smaller and passenger vessels, fishing vessels, and recreational boats heavily rely on GPS to determine their 

safe navigation and their location. 

Our automated information system. This system is used on ships 

and by our vessel traffic system, by which we take and manage 

traffic coming into our major ports. This system again relies on 

GPS input into the radios that transmit this position. 

We rely on AIS to build our understanding of our maritime domain awareness, what vessels are in our waters, what vessels are 

in our inner harbors and keeping track of them. We essentially rely 

on AIS which relies on GPS to build our maritime domain awareness. 

Our differential GPS system is a precision capability that allows 

us to take and place our aids to navigation. This is absolutely critical. This is another source of navigation GPS radar, but the visual 

source of navigation for vessels to safely come in and out of our 

ports and navigate. 

Not only that, the electronic chart systems aboard most of the 

vessels that are out there, again, commercial as well as our own, 

they leverage GPS so they can safely navigate and plot. 

We have been very pleased to be involved and are committed to 

continue our participation in the testing, and working with FCC, 

NTIA, and other interested parties in this test and evaluation process to identify possible mitigation’s that will eliminate these interference issues. 

Based on the preliminary results and new strategies recently announced by LightSquared, there is much more work to be done. 

The Coast Guard is committed to assisting DHS and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration as they 

continue to support the FCC proceedings on this matter. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. My cochairman, chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Frank 

LoBiondo, has asked that his full statement be made a part of the 

record, but he has some questions, and I would like to recognize 

him for them at this time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the panel and also apologize. I am facing a markup in a few minutes. I wanted to at least be able to come in and thank the panel 

on this important topic and important hearing. 

10 

Admiral Day, I have just a couple of questions. Several of the departments and agencies have come forward and expressed their 

concern with LightSquared’s proposal and its impact on GPS, including the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, 

NASA. 

However, the Department of Homeland Security has not made 

one comment. 

Admiral, I appreciate your coming here today very, very much, 

and expressing the Coast Guard’s concerns with this proposal. 

However, why has DHS as the department responsible for maritime safety and security, still not voiced any opinion on this matter? 

Admiral DAY. Sir, we have discussed this issue with the Department, and we have been carrying a lot of the water because of the 

maritime nature. Again, in my statement I did say that many of 

our other partners, obviously CBP, ICE, and other agencies do have 

an interest. 

Exactly why the Department has not represented directly, I cannot provide that at this time, but I can provide it for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Coast Guard concerns with the LightSquared (LSQ) proposal involve two issues: Interference to GPS operations 

and interference to Inmarsat terminals used in maritime 

operations. 

Regarding interference to GPS operations, the Coast 

Guard, through its Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Policy Division, became aware of the likelihood that proposed LSQ operations would cause interference to GPS operations in December 2010, following the 

FCC’s grant of a waiver to LSQ permitting operation of its 

satellite system with an Ancillary Terrestrial Component 

(ATC). The Coast Guard reviewed the FCC Order, and in 

accordance with established protocol for spectrum matters, 

discussed its concerns with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and other 

Federal agency representatives on the Interdepartmental 

Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). The Coast Guard IRAC 

representative signed a multi-Federal agency letter to 

IRAC in early January 2011, opposing the FCC action. 

With respect to interference to Inmarsat terminals used 

for maritime operations, the Coast Guard has been in discussions with LSQ and its predecessor, SkyTerra, since 

early 2008. As Inmarsat is the licensee of the particular 

frequencies that LSQ desired for use, and these frequencies are part of the same band of frequencies that 

Inmarsat uses for satellite terminals serving the maritime 

community, including the Coast Guard for the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), the Long 

Range Information and Tracking (LRIT) system, and general communications, the Coast Guard worked closely with 

LSQ and Inmarsat to reach agreement on how Inmarsat 

maritime terminals would be protected. These negotiations 

11 

led to an FCC Order, released in March 2010, that provided for the protection of Inmarsat maritime terminals 

from LSQ operations near navigable waterways. Negotiations on these issues continue as the details have not been 

worked out despite the protections afforded in the FCC 

Order. 

We have been working very closely with the Department, as I 

say, carrying most of this water in this area, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Another question. In determining the need for a 

backup for GPS, in the Coast Guard authorization bill, which we 

passed, there was a requirement that the Department complete its 

determination as to whether a backup system is needed, and that 

determination by law was to have been met by April 10, that just 

passed this year, 2011. 

Can you tell us what the status of the Department’s determination on a backup GPS is, and do you know where this determination is in the process and when it will be delivered? 

Admiral DAY. Sir, I do not have the exact information. We know 

it is in the Department being reviewed. I will get back to you as 

soon as possible for the record as to exactly where it is. I understand it was due on the 11th, but last I knew, it was in the Department, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

To meet the determination required by Section 219 of the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, DHS continues its 

efforts to analyze Federal requirements to determine a 

need for a backup to GPS. This has primarily been accomplished through an indepth survey of the current position, 

navigation, and timing requirements for major Federal 

stakeholders. All data has been collected, and the Department is actively working with the Administration to finalize the report. The final report will be forwarded to the 

Committees soon after its release. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I want to thank you again, Admiral Day. Again, 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is really frustrating when the Department of Homeland Security is totally pretending as if the Congress and the authorization 

and oversight committees do not even exist. We cannot get answers. We cannot get comments. Deadlines are missed. I do not 

know what additional action can be taken, certainly not at the 

fault of you or the Coast Guard, Admiral Day. 

It is just a reflection of frustration that we share in trying to understand. This is some pretty serious information that we need 

here. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the accommodation and I yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I have just one or two initial questions. 

The first one is for the whole panel, and is basically how do you 

recommend we proceed going forward? 

On Monday, LightSquared announced their lower 10 MHz solution, and indicated their analysis is it would solve the interference 

concerns for 99.5 percent of all GPS users. 

12 

Do you agree or do you feel additional study is needed? What is 

the responsible thing to do at this point? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I will start out on that. We are following a very 

careful protocol here. They made a specific and very detailed technical proposal to FCC earlier in the year. That proposal was then 

run through very specific and detailed testing. 

What we had on the 20th was, I think, a well intentioned announcement of a general strategy, but it has not yet turned into 

a specific and detailed filing through the FCC process. 

If that happens, presumably, we will all get it. All the technical 

people will sit down and look at it, recommend what kind of testing 

needs to be done and by whom, and then we will follow the tests 

wherever they lead us. 

Very preliminary thinking indicates that if they are transmitting 

in a zone that is much farther away from the GPS band, the interference is likely to be less, but if there are 500 million GPS units 

out there and we are only interfering with 1 percent, that is 5 million. That is still a lot. 

That is phase one of some plan, and what is phase two? That is 

something we are interested to know. That is not information we 

have seen yet so we do not really know and cannot really say anything about it. 

Ms. TAKAI. Let me just add to what my colleague from the Department of Transportation said. As you know, we do work through 

a fairly rigorous process, working with our colleagues at NTIA and 

FCC. 

We are anticipating following the final filing of the results from 

LightSquared on July 1, as well as the results of our own testing. 

As we understand it, the FCC will need some period of time to 

review all the results of the testing, and then will come back to us 

with a specific request around what they would like for us to look 

at from a testing perspective, and if it is in fact a lower 10 MHz, 

then we would address that. 

That is extremely important because I think as my colleagues 

and I have stated, it is pretty impossible to do just wide range testing of everything. We need to really know very specifically not only 

what the plan is but also what the power levels will be and more 

detail to really be able to comment on the results of that testing. 

Secondarily, to add to what my colleague from the Department 

of Transportation said, we also are aware that working through 

only the lower 10 MHz is really only a part of the solution that will 

be needed. 

We are anxious to hear what the testing would be for that lower 

10 MHz and then what the ultimate plan might be to actually get 

the 20 MHz that LightSquared has indicated they need. 

Admiral DAY. Both of my colleagues covered pretty much the 

major issues there. We have not done the testing in the lower band. 

The business plan still calls for the need for a second band out 

there. We will continue that testing and find out exactly what the 

issues are and what the interference issues are. 

We have more work to do. I agree with both of my colleagues. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. You all referred to not only testing the 

initial band but the thing going forward. You would like to see a 

clear plan for LightSquared to achieve their objective, but to do it 

13 

in a way that you can assure us, I assume, that it will be as safe 

as humanly possible for the traveling public and what is under 

your areas of responsibilities. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KIENITZ. That would certainly be our preference. We do not 

have any unique view into what the underlying economics of their 

business are necessarily, but to the degree we have looked at it on 

a surface level, the economics of their plan appear to require more 

bandwidth than just 10. 

I am not an expert on that. I cannot really speak to that. With 

that hanging out there, we are very much wondering what phase 

two is. Maybe there is no phase two that is necessary. I do not 

know. You will have to ask them, I think. 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir. Just to comment on your statement, I agree 

with you completely, and I think that is what my colleagues and 

I are saying, that we are concerned that we need to look at the 

complete picture of what the requirements would be, as well as understanding in the level of detail that we have on the upper 10 

MHz, what they would have planned, and then be able to conduct 

the tests to validate that we would not see the interference that 

would cause us a problem. 

Mr. PETRI. One last question for Mr. Kienitz. What do you envision as your role and the role of the Department of Transportation 

in this whole process? 

This committee, under Jerry Costello’s leadership, was very aggressive in the last Congress in trying to raise NextGen, its importance, within the Department. I think they have been very responsive. It is starting to gain momentum. 

The advantages to the aviation sector and to the country are 

enormous for its rapid and proper deployment, and a lot of thought 

and work is now going into it. 

We want to be having follow up hearings on all of that. 

How does that all fit in with proposals like this, and our basic 

responsibility to ensure the public of the safety of aviation? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I would say there are two main avenues for that. 

The first of which is obviously in programs directly under the authority of DOT’s FAA, the air traffic control system, and NextGen 

being, I think, the largest of those. 

GPS is used in trains, trucking, shipping containers, on roads, 

transit. Everybody in the transportation business uses it now. 

We are both looking very specifically at NextGen, because that 

is an intensely safety critical system. It absolutely has to work 100 

percent of the time if you are landing airplanes. 

That is something that obviously is a major focus of ours. The 

transportation industry is also focused. 

The second is the governance within the United States Government of the GPS system is this complicated thing, because there 

is so many uses and so many agencies. 

A while ago, in an attempt to streamline it, they created a structure in which DOD essentially talks with and represents all of the 

national defense agencies that have an interest in GPS, and DOT 

was named the co-chair, speaks with and represents all of the civilian agencies which have interests and actions in GPS. 

14 

Our folks co-chair these various committees up and down the levels of seniority. We also have a responsibility to actually reach out, 

understand and then represent in the management of the system 

all the concerns of all the other civilian agencies. The net result is 

it is not just transportation. It is agriculture, it is public safety, 

search and rescue, weather satellites, all those other things as well. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Kienitz, the taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in 

GPS related programs at DOT specifically. 

What is your view—is it the Department’s responsibility to do 

something to protect that investment as far as GPS is concerned 

when it comes to FAA related programs, and what is the Department doing to make certain that it is protected and the investment 

in GPS is not put at risk? 

Mr. KIENITZ. Yes. Obviously, our principal responsibilities are 

number one and ahead of everything else the safety of the traveling 

public. As I mentioned, specifically in the aviation area, that is a 

big deal to Secretary LaHood and to everyone who works for us. 

Our number one focus right now is making sure that absolutely 

nothing happens to GPS which compromises public safety in the 

aviation industry or anywhere else. 

You, as much as anyone else certainly in our department, has 

spent many, many years up until this point, and unfortunately, it 

is going to be a bunch more years creating, designing and implementing NextGen, and that will be in the tens of billions of dollars 

of taxpayer funds, and in the tens of billions of dollars in private 

sector investment by airlines and other folks to equip their planes. 

Those are big numbers. Those folks made those investments 

based on the understanding that they thought this was going to be 

a stable system that would exist in perpetuity as it exists now. 

That is a serious responsibility as well. 

I know if Secretary LaHood were sitting here, what he would say 

is safety is absolutely our number one goal. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Back to the question, what is DOT doing right 

now? What is the plan to protect that investment? 

Mr. KIENITZ. That gets to once again these odd governmental arrangements. The question of licensing a spectrum is not in our 

hands. The question of licensing a spectrum is something that the 

FCC does. 

What we do is testing, make our points as strongly as we can to 

the other partners within the Government to make sure FCC is 

hearing it. 

What they will do, I do not pretend to know. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Anyone else on the panel want to try to answer 

the question? 

Ms. TAKAI. I would answer just to add a couple of items to what 

my colleague from the Department of Transportation said. 

At DOD, we have significant expertise as it relates to spectrum. 

One of the things that we are constantly doing is to really validate 

any additional uses for us against the uses spectrum we have 

today. The Air Force has considerable expertise. 

One of the things that we do with that is to continue to monitor 

and look for whether are not there are ways not only to be conVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:25 May 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~1\6-23-1~1\67048.TXT JEAN
15 

cerned about the interference with the current spectrum but also 

how we can use our spectrum more efficiently. 

It is always an issue for us that we are a significant user of spectrum, and we feel it is important for us to look ahead. One of the 

things that we are doing is to actually look and utilize some of our 

research capabilities to look at use of spectrum, what the issues 

would be around reducing our dependence on the spectrum that we 

have today. 

In fact, we already have some studies underway based on other 

FCC requests around spectrum to look at how we can move out of 

some of the existing bands we are in. 

We see that as a continuing effort. We see it as being important 

to be able to work through and be able to provide the kind of DOD 

participation in the President’s initiative, and to do that, it really 

requires us to do technical studies ahead of time to look at how we 

can be more efficient in our use of spectrum. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Costello, for having this very important meeting today. It is kind 

of near and dear to my heart, so I appreciate the panel for coming 

here today. 

Admiral Day, thank you for all the good service the Coast Guard 

provides to us on a daily basis that we actually know nothing 

about. Thank you for protecting us. 

In that vein, what I am very concerned about is the augmented 

GPS. I was a Navy helicopter pilot. I know how important it can 

be to our SAR rescues. 

Can you comment a little bit about that, the effect of what 

LightSquared could potentially do on our SAR rescues? 

Admiral DAY. Again, our aviation assets rely heavily on GPS 

services, for prosecuting a search pattern, getting to exactly the 

right place where an emergency position beacon has gone off, and 

any impact in that accuracy is going to one, potentially put the 

crew in harm as well as delay possible rescues. 

Any interference. Not just LightSquared interference. It could be 

anybody’s interference that is interfering in that band. 

It is a critical element of not only planning a search but executing a search and rescue mission. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. The augment in GPS in particular, the DGPS, is 

essential. It can bring down 2 to 10 feet, something like that, pinpointing a SAR rescue, which is essential, especially in weather 

when you have heavy winds and waves. 

Admiral DAY. That DGPS system is highly reliant on the original 

GPS systems, such to put the corrections out to provide the additional accuracy in the receiver. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Essential. Also, sir, could you please tell me on 

the potential to mitigate the interference concerning LightSquared, 

would it be possible to mitigate the impact for LightSquared’s signal for all maritime GPS and dependent technologies? 

Admiral DAY. Sir, it is probably beyond my level of expertise and 

more in the area of the GPS manufacturers as to what exactly 

needs to be done. 

The further you can keep the signal away from the primary 

bands, the better. In some cases, filtering can be used, but again, 

16 

it is not my level of expertise, and probably a good question for 

those GPS manufacturers as to what it would take and how much 

it would cost. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You have no idea on the potential? 

Admiral DAY. I do not, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Not even to take a wag at it? 

Admiral DAY. Given the variety and number of systems out 

there, pretty difficult. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can you please tell me in your professional opinion, on the potential of the conduct of the missions that the Coast 

Guard projects with the interference of LightSquared, or like you 

said, any type of interference, how it truly can impact the mission 

of the Coast Guard and our safety at large? 

Admiral DAY. As I laid out in my oral statement, there are very 

few systems, from our MDA systems to those that are used aboard 

each and every cutter platform as well as aircraft out there, that 

is not highly relying on accurate positioning to conduct their missions. 

Additionally, for maritime commerce, the mariners that come in 

and work with us on our ports and actually use our ports are highly relying on it, as we are in keeping track of where they are, who 

they are, and where they are going. 

There is almost not an element in the Coast Guard mission that 

I can come up with that does not have a reliance on GPS. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can you comment on this, too, as well, you are 

in a rescue situation. GPS goes down. Do you have a good plan B? 

Admiral DAY. Again, there are multiple uses. Are you talking 

from an aviation standpoint or—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Any standpoint. Say you have heavy weather and 

you are out there, a typical rescue. You have sent out air assets. 

You have maritime assets out there as well. GPS is scrambled for 

some reason. Could you comment on how that would interfere with 

your mission? 

Admiral DAY. Prudent navigators use a variety of different techniques. Obviously, we have become very reliant on GPS. Mariners 

rely on radar bearings. They also rely on visual bearings, as well 

as dead reckoning plotting, the old fashioned way of doing business. 

We have become very reliant on GPS. There are other alternatives out there. Again, I think we have put a lot of our stock in 

that GPS signal, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I figured as much. I am a brown shoe so I do not 

know about that maritime stuff. I apologize for that. 

I will yield back my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Hirono? 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a very 

timely hearing that has elicited a lot of very specific information, 

especially as a number of us, including yourself, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Costello and I have sent a letter to the FCC expressing concerns about their waiver in this regard. 

Admiral Day, I have some very specific questions to ask you. We 

know the recent test results conducted by the RTCA strongly indicates that signals transmitted from LightSquared’s ground based 

transmitters could interrupt or degrade GPS. 

17 

For the record, I would like to ask a series of questions, if you 

could respond very briefly. 

These are on your systems that you expect could be impacted or 

would be impacted by transmissions from LightSquared, specifically, would the Coast Guard’s automatic identification system, 

AIS, for vessels be affected? 

Admiral DAY. Yes, ma’am. AIS requires GPS input, which tells 

the radio where the vessel is located and then retransmits it. 

It also relies on it for timing. There is a circular timing chain in 

which each of the vessels in an AIS area report. If there was a loss 

of the timing signal as well as obviously the loss of GPS input, AIS 

would not report out to the Coast Guard or to other vessels who 

are monitoring the vessel’s position. 

Again, the timing piece could also scramble such we could have 

confusion in the reporting process. 

Ms. HIRONO. Next question. With the differential GPS, DGPS, 

which provides greater precision for spacial information, would it 

be negatively affected? 

Admiral DAY. Yes, ma’am. Again, that system relies on a solid 

GPS signal such that it can develop the appropriate corrections 

that it is going to broadcast out to enhanced positioning. 

Ms. HIRONO. Would the Coast Guard’s Rescue 21 distress system 

be compromised? 

Admiral DAY. Rescue 21 could be compromised because again its 

network relies on timing signals that are derived from GPS to keep 

everything in alignment. 

Ms. HIRONO. Would the search and rescue satellite aided tracking system, SARSAT, be disrupted? 

Admiral DAY. SARSAT is one I am going to have to get back to 

you on the record, ma’am. I am quickly trying to come to a conclusion here, but I want to make sure I give you a correct answer. 

Ms. HIRONO. I appreciate that. Would the vessel management 

system, VMS, be interfered with, and would the Coast Guard’s fisheries enforcement activities suffer? 

Admiral DAY. Again, the vessel management system requires 

GPS input such that those vessels can report their positions. Generally, for fisheries management, such that we can monitor where 

they are fishing, would be problematic in that we would not know 

exactly where they are if that signal is degraded. 

Ms. HIRONO. Would electronic navigation systems utilized by 

Coast Guard vessels and commercial ships be disrupted and what 

would be the impact to safe marine navigation if such disruption 

occurs? 

Admiral DAY. Again, if within the signal there is such a degrade 

to the GPS receiver, our operations and their operations would be 

impacted in terms that they would lose GPS positioning. 

As I discussed with the other Member, prudent mariners use 

other mechanisms to validate their positions, all the way from 

radar to visual, but at the same time, they would lose one of those 

elements for safe navigation. 

Ms. HIRONO. Are there any other GPS dependent technologies 

utilized by the Coast Guard that could be disrupted by 

LightSquared’s transmissions? You have 4 seconds. 

18 

Admiral DAY. Ma’am, if there are any others, I will get back to 

you in the record and tell you what they are. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Landry? 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, thank you for 

your service and everything that the Coast Guard does, especially 

in the Gulf Coast. 

I have four questions and 5 minutes. Could you just briefly describe the basic information provided by AIS to the Coast Guard? 

Admiral DAY. It is a lot more than positioning. It is crew. It is 

also cargo they are potentially are carrying. Again, this is if they 

are inputting the right information in. What their intended home 

port is, their port of destination. 

There is a lot more information that is provided in there than 

just the GPS piece, and we use that for vessel management. That’s 

correct. 

Mr. LANDRY. Are there any drawback’s to AIS to the Coast 

Guard? 

Admiral DAY. Drawback’s? No. It is a very useful tool for us. 

Mr. LANDRY. When AIS is turned on, does the technology provide 

quality domain awareness for the maritime industry and the Coast 

Guard? 

Admiral DAY. Absolutely. The Coast Guard is not just the only 

user of that information. 

Mr. LANDRY. If we assume that AIS is turned on or activated on 

every vessel, does AIS accomplish the same goals of NOA? 

Admiral DAY. Could you describe that last acronym, please, sir? 

Mr. LANDRY. If we assume based upon all the information you 

told me that AIS has the capability of providing for the Coast 

Guard—— 

Admiral DAY. I understand, sir, for advanced notification of arrival. 

Mr. LANDRY. Correct. 

Admiral DAY. Probably not because of the 96-hour requirement. 

The AIS coverage is not such that it would get the 96, other than 

some satellite notifications. 

Mr. LANDRY. Not in a broad sense, maybe my question was too 

broad. Specifically for the problem that we are having with NOA, 

which I was grateful on working with the industry on, when it 

comes to supply of vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and as they move 

from port onto OCS and then from rig to rig, or hopefully from rig 

to rig if we can get it back up and drilling again. 

Do you see what I am saying? Would that be a nice augmented 

approach to NOA specifically for American vessels that are operating in that type of environment? 

Admiral DAY. Sir, it is sort of mixing a policy question and a 

technical question here. Technically, AIS does a great job, if properly used by the mariner, and gives us great information of who is 

coming in, where they are going, and where they are at right now. 

Mr. LANDRY. You let me know if you get in trouble for answering 

that. I think you are right on. 

Admiral DAY. On the policy side, I do no think I can answer that 

for you, but we will get back to you on that one, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

19 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I have just one follow up question. It may 

be more appropriate for the next panel, but I appreciate any of you 

that would care to comment. 

There has been some talk about we are more intensively using 

the spectrum, about filters and how they work, and how they may 

accommodate more use. 

Could you discuss that? Are there filters? Is it one filter or is it 

certified? How does that process work? Are we talking about an 

easy solution or is it something that is basically in the future? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I can address that a little bit, although I am not 

sure any of us up here are the world’s greatest technical experts 

here. 

There is filtering on transmissions and there is filtering on receivers. Transmitters, there tend to be fewer of them. They are bigger. They are more expensive. If you need to put on a very hightech somewhat expensive filtering system, that is potentially possible, and I think part of LightSquared’s plan has been to make 

sure to have very high-quality filters so their signals do not leak 

out of their band. 

I think that technology is not necessarily cheap or easy, but it 

is around. 

The idea that you can put good filters on receivers—like my 

BlackBerry has a GPS unit in it, and it is a tiny little thing that 

is this big (indicating). Every cell phone has a GPS receiver in it. 

Finding filtering technology that can protect every single kind of 

GPS receiver from every single kind of use, who knows, the 

geniuses out there may be able to invent something right now. Unfortunately, we have 500 million units out there that do not have 

it. 

Even if someone invents something in the next couple of years 

and we start installing it on all the new stuff, you still have an 

enormous problem because these devices last. They do not wear 

out. These devices are going to be around for a long, long time. You 

are going to inevitably have a problem. 

Mr. PETRI. There is no certified or recognized protocol or technology right now? It is something that is contemplated and would 

have to go through the approval process? 

Mr. KIENITZ. That is another odd thing. There are lots and lots 

of smart people who are starting to think about this stuff right 

now. I assume there is a lot of technology out there that should 

there become a demand for it, it could potentially grow. 

In the FAA world, we do certify devices. Anything that goes into 

the cockpit of an aircraft has to be tested to 99.9999 percent accuracy. 

Most GPS devices are not certified. There is no standard. It is 

a private sector business. The manufacturers make whatever they 

think will sell at whatever price point they want to sell it at. 

Mr. PETRI. As far as aviation is concerned, there is nothing that 

has been certified? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I think there are avenues that people understand, 

if we needed to do this, what avenues you would start going down, 

and they would pursue that. Right now, it is not readily available 

off the shelf. 

20 

Mr. PETRI. Very good. We have been joined by the senior member 

of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Larsen, from Washington 

State. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the recognition, and 

thank you as well for allowing me to put my statement into the 

record. 

I have a hearing at 10:00, as well as I have been running around 

all morning. There is an Afghanistan hearing in Armed Services 

that I need to get over to. 

I just wanted to alert the witnesses and committee that in our 

subcommittee as well, we are very concerned about this issue. I 

have met with some of the folks who are involved with this issue 

over the last couple of days. 

As this progresses as well, on behalf of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, we will be tracking this 

issue fairly closely as well, to ensure that these concerns get addressed, and a 100 percent solution is found to the problem, not 

just maybe a 99 percent solution. It is that important. 

I appreciate it very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

and I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I would like to thank the panel. I hope 

you can make your schedule. 

Mr. KIENITZ. I would like to thank you for finishing exactly at 

10:00 so I can make my flight. 

Mr. PETRI. Very good. Thank you all. 

The second panel consists of Ms. Margaret Jenny, President of 

RTCA, Inc.; Mr. Philip Straub, Vice President, Aviation Engineering, Garmin International; Craig Fuller, President of the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association; Thomas L. Hendricks, Senior Vice 

President of Safety, Security and Operations, Air Transport Association; and Jeffrey J. Carlisle, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy of LightSquared. 

I thank all of you for accepting our invitation to appear today. 

Thank you for the effort that went into your prepared statements, 

and invite you to summarize those statements in approximately 5 

minutes, beginning with Ms. Jenny. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET T. JENNY, PRESIDENT, RTCA, INC.; 

PHILIP STRAUB, VICE PRESIDENT, AVIATION ENGINEERING, 

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CRAIG FULLER, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; 

THOMAS L. HENDRICKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

SAFETY, SECURITY, AND OPERATIONS, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; AND JEFFREY J. CARLISLE, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND 

PUBLIC POLICY, LIGHTSQUARED 

Ms. JENNY. Good morning, Chairmen Petri and LoBiondo, Ranking Members Costello and Larsen, and members of the subcommittees. 

My name is Margaret Jenny. I am President of RTCA. I want to 

thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on GPS. 

RTCA is a not for profit organization founded in 1935, and utilizes the Federal Advisory Committee. It is a premiere public/private partnership venue for developing consensus among diverse 

21 

competing interests on critical aviation modernization issues in an 

increasingly global enterprise. 

Our deliberations are open to the public. We provide two categories of recommendations. The first, policy and investment priorities for facilitating implementation of air traffic management system improvements, and the second are minimum performance 

standards used by the FAA as a partial basis for certification of 

avionics. 

It is important to note here today that in my role as President 

of RTCA and in keeping with our time honored consensus process, 

I am authorized only to present the consensus findings of our deliberations, not my personal views or the views of individual members 

of the RTCA committee. 

It should also be noted that LightSquared was part of this consensus. 

My testimony today will summarize the findings of the study 

conducted by RTCA at the request of the FAA on the impact of the 

proposed LightSquared terrestrial wireless broadband network on 

GPS receivers onboard aircraft. 

The RTCA study assumed the three phased development plan as 

described by LightSquared, and concluded that all three spectrum 

deployment phases described by the planned terrestrial are incompatible with the current aviation use of GPS. 

However, modifications could be made to the LightSquared system to coexist with aviation use of GPS. 

The impact of the LightSquared upper channel spectrum deployment is expected to be a complete loss of GPS receiver function. 

The LightSquared upper channel interference from phase zero deployment exceeds the GPS receiver minimum operation performance standards related to the environmental limit by a factor ranging from 18,000 to 380,000, depending on the operational scenario 

that was involved. 

Further, because of the size of the single station deployment, 

GPS base stations below 2,000 feet would be unavailable for a large 

radius around the metropolitan deployment center. 

This means that if the GPS receiver will not be able to provide 

a position with any sort of continuity if at all, GPS based operations cannot be undertaken. 

Given the situation in the high-altitude East Coast scenario, GPS 

based operations would likely be unavailable for a whole region of 

altitude at which aircraft normally fly. 

However, the results of this study also indicate that terrestrial 

based station operations at the lower 5 MHz wide channel is compatible with aviation GPS operations for all the representative scenario’s. 

Further, the study indicates that for terrestrial based stations 

using only the lower 10 MHz channels, there is a small positive 

margin for GPS tracking, not necessarily initial acquisition, in the 

presence of a mean aggregate terrestrial network interference. 

But, and this is an important but, these conclusions are based 

upon specific assumptions about the system operation provided by 

LightSquared to the committee. 

Worse impacts would result if LightSquared were to operate at 

the limits allowed by the FCC authorization. 

22 

Let me give you two examples. The study assumed LightSquared 

base stations operate at 1.6 kilowatts channel per sector, whereas 

the FCC license allows up to 16 kilowatts. 

Second, the number of base stations per unit area was limited for 

the model provided by LightSquared for the study, whereas the 

FCC license does not limit density. 

In fairness and to enable a consensus to be reached, GPS receiver mitigation’s were also explored. The RTCA committee found, 

however, that the only viable option is through the invocation of 

more stringent performance requirements for GPS antenna/receiver 

combination that would require manufacturers to layer filtering 

throughout the receiver front end. 

This approach would take many years to be installed on the entire fleet, since it would require new standards to be developed, 

TSOs to be issued by the FAA, new receivers to be built and certified to the new standard, and finally, installed on the entire fleet. 

This would be extremely disruptive to aviation, since it would 

cost billions of dollars and take somewhere between 10 and 15 

years to finish. 

Let me summarize. The recommendations from the study, number one, from an aviation perspective, LightSquared upper channels operations should not be allowed. 

Further study is recommended to determine refined terrestrial 

base station power versus frequency limit. This is particularly important in verifying the committee’s conclusion for the 

LightSquared operation in the 10 MHz channel. 

In closing and on behalf of the hard working committee volunteers, and particularly their chairmen, Chris Hagarty and George 

Ligler, I thank you for the opportunity to testify here on this important topic, and I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Straub? 

Mr. STRAUB. Mr. Chairman, ranking members, and members of 

the committee, I am Philip Straub of Garmin International. 

I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to speak with 

you today as you assess technical opportunities and challenges we 

face in a similar but slightly different way than we do in industry. 

We are here to help you understand both the technical and policy 

issues resulting from the use of spectrum by competing technologies. 

Before I continue, I, like most people, want more options for 

broadband. I pledge the resources of my company to work with 

anyone in or out of Government to help achieve that goal in a way 

that is compatible with existing spectrum. 

Turning to specifics, LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial network 

is just not a good neighbor to the GPS environment that is so critical to aviation and maritime safety. 

I would like to leave you with two thoughts today. One, 

LightSquared’s proposed broadband terrestrial network will cause 

catastrophic and perhaps life threatening harm to reliable GPS 

services. 

And two, LightSquared’s claim to reduce the risks, the so-called 

mitigation, is not proven technically or practically. In short, their 

claims are not feasible. 

23 

Why? A quick technology review. GPS signals come from solar 

powered satellites that are at a distance of over 12,000 miles away. 

GPS signals leave the satellite with a power of about a 50 watt 

light bulb. GPS receivers, therefore, must be very sensitive to detect, acquire and hold on to a signal of a small fraction of a watt. 

After such a great distance, listening requires it to be very quiet, 

and where accuracy is paramount, some GPS devices must use a 

wide band GPS receiver. 

Adjacent strong signals overload GPS capacity that hear those 

signals, much the way loud talk drowns out a whisper. If you concentrate hard enough, you might hear the whisper, but chances are 

not enough to make any sense of it. 

And to the topic at hand, LightSquared’s proposal is sort of like 

running a lawnmower in a library where people whisper. 

Speaking as an engineer, at 800 meters from a LightSquared 

transmitter, its signal is 4 billion times stronger than a GPS signal. 

GPS receivers are just not designed to exclude such strong signals, something that was never contemplated before the 

LightSquared waiver. 

Our test of LightSquared’s proposed system, at nominal power 

against a FAA certified Garmin receiver, showed harmful interference at 13.8 miles and a complete loss of GPS position at 5.6 

miles. 

And yes, we did submit this data to the FCC in a timely fashion. 

Turning to LightSquared’s claim that filters are the answer, let 

me be emphatic and clear. Filters do not exist that would protect 

GPS receivers from LightSquared’s proposed transmissions, none, 

not at all, not even prototypes. 

This is more promotion and PR than reality. We cannot test this 

claim. 

Let’s also be real. If real filters do appear, they will have to be 

tested against stringent requirements imposed on all products, but 

especially those installed in the aircraft environment. 

They must withstand extreme conditions, temperature ranges, 

intense vibration, and even lightning strikes. They must also meet 

strict size and weight limitations. 

Add to that, time for certifications and approvals and retrofitting, 

it would take years and years, stressing both FAA and the industry. 

Plus, due to design variances, there is no one-size-fits-all solution 

to this problem. Numerous filters would be required to fit a variety 

of GPS receivers. 

So even if we actually see one, the barriers are just too numerous 

to make filter use practical. 

Let me turn briefly to the latest solution that their initial service 

will only use the lower 10 MHz. 

The RTCA report says operation of a single lower 5 MHz channel 

might be compatible with aviation GPS receivers. That is based 

upon an assumption that LightSquared would operate at one-tenth 

of its authorized power limit, something their other statement recently put into question. 

RTCA simply did not reach any conclusion on the compatibility 

of a single lower 10 MHz channel with aviation use. 

24 

So in conclusion, along with others, we’ve dedicated millions in 

resources, worked in good faith with technical working groups, and 

so far, results confirm the potential harm, confirm the degree of 

difficulty, and demonstrate the impracticality of their proposal. 

Just as Congress is in no mood for wasteful spending, we in the 

GPS industry are not either. 

Please do everyone a service, help put an end to this dysfunctional exercise, work to ensure the FCC’s rescission of 

LightSquared’s conditional waiver, as well as an overall review of 

ATC operations in the L-Band spectrum. 

At a minimum, LightSquared’s proposed service should be moved 

to different frequencies outside of the MSS L-Band, away from 

GPS. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this 

matter of vital importance to the reliability and the safety of our 

Nation’s transportation system. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Fuller? 

Mr. FULLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and 

Ranking Member Costello, thank you, and members of the committee for this hearing. 

I have submitted a statement for the record, and I am joined by 

my colleagues in the general aviation community at the National 

Business Aviation Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, EAA, and NATA, who concur in that statement. 

I would like to spend my few minutes here talking a little bit 

about the policy process. Ironically, 28 years ago, I was the head 

of the Office of Cabinet Affairs in President Reagan’s White House, 

where the GPS policy was circulated, debated, discussed among all 

the Federal agencies, including the FCC. 

The decision was made to open this up to civil use. We had absolutely no idea that it would amount to the trillions of dollars of investment and utilization of GPS, and the hundreds of thousands of 

jobs over this 28-year period. 

I was a pilot at the time, and was not even sure it would be that 

valuable to me. 

It was not immediately valuable. In fact, two individuals, one 

named Gary and one named Min, took a few years, about 6, to form 

their company, called Garmin. 

Ten years after the decision had been made by President Reagan, 

we began to see hand-held Garmin GPS units in our aircraft. Ten 

years later, a 2003 Bonanza that I fly today, has two of them. It 

allows me to fly instrument approaches using nothing but the GPS 

signal, avoid weather, and avoid other obstacles. 

Throughout this 28-year period, administrations and Congresses, 

leadership on both sides, have protected a policy which I would call 

the ‘‘do no harm’’ policy. In other words, they recognized the use 

of GPS as a national asset and said do no harm. 

As I listen to the experts this morning and the testimony of this 

panel, I think there is an analogy with drug manufacturers in an 

odd sort of way perhaps. 

In the drug manufacturing world, we encourage investment. We 

benefit by investment, research, study, and testing of new drugs. 

25 

There is an agency that looks at that process, and when a drug 

does harm, it does not come to market. Billions sometimes are invested, but if the drug does harm, it does not come to market, and 

if it does come to market for some reason that was not foreseen, 

and it is found to do harm, it is recalled. 

We have had a policy process that I characterize as a petition to 

use a satellite based transmission for datacom. Seems kind of reasonable. Then it seemed to need some ground transmitters, as has 

been discussed, to supplement that satellite based signal. 

Then it seemed to need more ground transmitters, like about 

40,000. Then it seemed it might cause interference, so filters would 

have to be used. Oh, the filters actually have to be used on the 

GPS units, not the transmitters that the new company is going to 

design. 

By the way, filters do not actually exist, but we think there is 

a way to get a hold of them. Oh, actually, there is a big problem, 

so we are not going to use the initial allocation we were given, we 

are going to switch to another allocation. 

I think we are probably working with a very innovative company. 

They move very rapidly through a whole series of alternatives. 

My biggest beef, frankly, is with the Agency that is supposed to 

control the policy process. The Agency that is supposed to control 

the policy process is the FCC, and they can and should do better 

than that because for 28 years, from 1983, when they were part of 

the original decision, through multiple administrations, we have 

seen fit to protect this technology. 

Mr. Costello asked a very good question, so what do we do now. 

We have certainly gone to the FCC in advance of them granting 

the waiver and told them the extent of the problem, told them they 

are putting jobs at risk, told them they are putting lives at risk, 

told them they are putting GPS at risk. 

We will continue to do that, but in all honesty, like the FDA, I 

think they need to issue a recall. I think they need to say we want 

innovation, we like innovation, but this is simply a toxic drug. This 

will not work in the system we have today. Let’s pull it back. Let’s 

go back to the drawing board. 

We in the general aviation community are certainly willing to 

work with any company on innovation for datacom services. 

I also think that given the 28-year history and the importance, 

as you have heard today, in terms of jobs and investment in GPS, 

that the Congress ought to investigate this policy path we have 

been on. 

It is very confusing. We cannot on an ad hoc basis simply look 

at new proposals and say well, we hope it works, so let’s go down 

that path. 

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hendricks? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Good morning, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello and members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify in this matter which is so critical to the airline industry, as well as other transportation modes, commercial 

enterprises, and recreational users. 

26 

My name is Tom Hendricks. I am the Senior Vice President of 

Safety, Security and Operations for the Air Transport Association 

of America, representing the major passenger and cargo airlines of 

the United States. 

Prior to joining ATA, I was a pilot for Delta Airlines for 23 years, 

as well as a military pilot for both the Navy and the Air Force. 

I want to emphasize at the outset that while the U.S. airline industry supports public and private sector efforts to expand wireless 

broadband service across the country, we strongly oppose any proposed service that would compromise the integrity of the Nation’s 

Global Positioning System. 

Given that 5,600 commercial aircraft and tens of thousands of 

business and general aviation aircraft are GPS equipped, the continued unimpeded use of GPS is indispensable to the future of aviation. 

With respect to the U.S. airline industry, over 86 percent of our 

aircraft are already equipped with GPS. This has been achieved 

without any regulatory mandate and is based entirely on the remarkable capabilities of this navigation system. 

We are using GPS based arrival and departure procedures that 

are more precise and fuel efficient than radar and surface based 

navigation system procedures, and enable increased aircraft 

throughput. 

Today’s commercial and general aviation users are heavily committed to GPS, and its importance to aviation will intensify over 

the coming decade. 

As the subcommittee knows, the civil aviation community has 

embarked upon the most ambitious transition in air traffic management ever undertaken. 

The system, known as NextGen, utilizes the positioning function 

of GPS to provide continuous navigation signals to airplanes, which 

then down link a position report at least once a second to air traffic 

control. This is a significant enhancement over the existing radar 

based system, enabling improved air traffic management. GPS will 

be used in all phases of flight, departure, in route, terminal area, 

approach and landing. 

GPS is a core technology behind NextGen, and will allow the national airspace system, which is increasingly constrained, to accommodate growing air traffic demand reliably and efficiently, while at 

the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

GPS spectrum has been protected until the Federal Communications Commission in a highly unusual regulatory action effectively 

revised its own rules for LightSquared, subject to certain tests and 

conditions. 

This provision, which the FCC characterized as a waiver, opens 

the door to the construction of 40,000 high-powered ground-based 

transmitters that will effectively render GPS signals unusable over 

the populated areas of the United States. 

This is not an exaggeration. Recent tests by RTCA, the Federal 

Advisory Panel on Aviation Navigation and Air Traffic Management Policy, definitively concluded that LightSquared’s network 

would render GPS unusable by aviation users below 2,000 feet, in 

the vicinity of a single city deployment, and at all altitudes in 

dense metropolitan areas. 

27 

Similarly, the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and 

Timing Systems Engineering Forum concluded that LightSquared’s 

system ‘‘Cannot successfully coexist with GPS.’’ 

Given the multiple Government and industry reports of GPS interference issues posed by LightSquared’s proposed system, 

LightSquared and GPS industry stakeholders have begun to discuss potential mitigation options. 

While well intentioned, the cost to the U.S. airline industry and 

other GPS users to implement the potential mitigation’s far outweigh the benefits of allowing LightSquared to deploy its wireless 

broadband network. 

The first mitigation option would allow LightSquared to operate 

in the lower part of its currently licensed frequency spectrum at a 

reduced power setting. While this may be feasible, it is fraught 

with technical challenges not yet fully understood. 

Significant research and modeling is required to fully define this 

mitigation and conclusively prove whether it would achieve the desired effect. 

The second mitigation option would be to equip GPS receivers 

with filters to preclude interference from LightSquared’s high-powered neighboring signal. 

Avionics manufacturers have questioned the feasibility of designing such filtering equipment, which do not currently exist for commercial aviation. 

It is possible that filters could interfere with the precision of the 

GPS signal, thus, limiting the usefulness of GPS receivers. 

Even if the development of filtering equipment proves technically 

feasible, the U.S. airline industry simply cannot afford to purchase 

and install it in over 7,000 aircraft, which would cost billions of 

dollars. 

This is not a viable option for an industry that has lost $55 million and 160,000 jobs over the last decade. 

Moreover, it would take at least a decade for filters to be developed, tested, and then certified by the FAA. 

This process would grind NextGen implementation to a halt, 

along with the creation of at least 150,000 U.S. jobs. 

The bottom line is that the U.S. airline industry and other GPS 

users did not cause this interference problem. We have relied on 

longstanding U.S. Government policy and international standards 

in the development and implementation of GPS equipment. 

If the FCC is determined to allow LightSquared to launch its 

wireless broadband network, the Agency should find alternative 

spectrum that will not compromise the GPS network. 

We ask the Congress to ensure that this vital national resource 

known as GPS, which is critical to commercial aviation and many 

other industries and relied upon by millions of consumers, be fully 

protected from any encroachment that could possibly compromise 

its effectiveness. 

I look forward to hearing your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Carlisle? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Chairmen Petri and LoBiondo, Ranking Members 

Costello and Larsen, and members of the subcommittees, thank 

you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before you 

28 

today to discuss our plans to bring services to American consumers 

in a manner that is fully compatible with uses of GPS. 

Members of the committees, I want to be absolutely direct, clear 

and unequivocal. LightSquared has no intention of operating its 

system in any way that will compromise Government or commercial aviation or maritime operations in the United States, nor do 

we believe the FCC would ever allow us to do so. 

LightSquared is investing $14 billion over the next 8 years to 

build a wireless broadband network that will allow Americans to 

communicate anywhere any time through integration with its satellite. 

This investment is going to support over 15,000 jobs a year for 

each of the 5 years that it will take to construct the network. 

When completed, our ground network will cover 260 million peo- ple and provide over $120 billion in benefits to American consumers. 

It is important to understand that coexistence of our system and 

GPS is not a new issue. It did not just come up in the last 6 

months. We have worked with the GPS industry for 10 years, and 

I have provided this history as Attachment 1 to my testimony. 

As a result of this work, we restricted our signal from intruding 

on the GPS band 9 years ago. In 2005, the FCC authorized us to 

transmit at the power levels we are going to use. We could have 

built the same network in 2005 that we are building today. 

In September 2010, the GPS Industry Council first raised a different issue. Certain GPS receivers are designed to not only capture GPS signals in the GPS band, but also capture signals in our 

band, and as a result of this design, these receivers can be desensitized or overloaded by our signals in our licensed spectrum. 

I have provided illustrations of this effect as Attachment 2 to my 

testimony, and they are on the screens to the side and the back. 

What followed was perhaps the most extensive set of studies of 

interference ever conducted. The technical working group cochaired by LightSquared and the U.S. GPS Industry Council, and 

comprised of dozens of engineers from across several industries and 

Government, tested over 130 devices representing all GPS receiver 

categories. Numerous devices were also tested in independent testing by Government and private entities. 

Data that is publicly available from independent reports points 

the way to mitigation. The vast majority of GPS receivers look only 

at that part of LightSquared’s spectrum that is immediately adjacent to GPS, the spectrum we had planned to use first. 

However, the recent Government Engineering Forum report, referred to as the NPEF report, RTCA, and a report by the National 

Public Safety Telecommunications Council, indicate that our operation in the lower part of our band, furthest away from GPS, does 

not cause interference. 

We believe that of the 400 to 500 million GPS receivers that are 

estimated to be in use today in the United States, operation in the 

spectrum farthest away from GPS will avoid overload for over 99 

percent of the receivers, including those used for aviation and maritime operations. 

LightSquared believes the TWG results will largely confirm the 

direction pointed to by these tests and reports. 

29 

Accordingly, we are proposing a three part solution. One, we will 

operate at the same power levels the FCC authorized us to operate 

in 2005 and voluntarily give up using higher power levels. 

Two, we will agree to a standstill in terrestrial use of the upper 

10 MHz immediately adjacent to GPS, and we will not incorporate 

those frequencies into our terrestrial network until the FCC and 

NTIA are satisfied this can be done without risk to GPS. 

Three, we will commence terrestrial operations on the spectrum 

farthest away from GPS. 

The remaining less than 1 percent of devices are comprised of 

high-precision network and timing devices. There are filtered antennas available today for timing devices, and there are technical 

and operational solutions that can be used for high-precision and 

network devices. 

We can coordinate our roll out so that high-precision agricultural 

receivers will not be near base stations for several years. 

For those uses in urban areas that may be affected sooner, we 

can work out coordination of operations and spot replacement of 

high-precision and network receivers. 

These are activities that wireless companies do every day when 

they are rolling out in an area where there are incumbent users. 

We will also work with MMARSAT to find a place in our band 

where the augmentation signal for high-precision and network receivers can be isolated from terrestrial operations and can have a 

much higher certainty for their ongoing operations than they have 

today. 

LightSquared takes seriously the sincere concerns expressed by 

the GPS community. We will not interfere with aviation or maritime operations in the United States. 

The steps I have outlined that we are taking are not easy and 

they are not inexpensive, but they can and must be done and we 

are willing to do them. 

We are stepping up to this commitment so that Americans can 

get the benefit of our investment in critical infrastructure and continue to have all the benefits of a robust GPS system. Americans 

across the country should have both. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your statements. Our 

colleague, Mr. Cravaack, actually had an opening statement, if you 

would like to do that, and then begin questions to the panel. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. It is not your fault, Mr. Chairman, I was out of 

the room. I apologize. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Costello, once 

again for this valuable and informative hearing, and I look forward 

to the testimony of the panel. Thank you very much for that. 

As a former Navy and commercial airline pilot, this issue specifically has some interest for me. 

From the outset, I want to be clear in stating that I appreciate 

LightSquared’s goal in creating a nationwide 4G broadband network. Coming from a rural area up in Minnesota, it would be nice 

to have that. 

At this point, I am greatly concerned about the impact 

LightSquared’s proposed network would have on our Nation. After 

looking into this issue and researching it, it is apparent that the 

30 

interference from LightSquared’s network has the potential to endanger our Nation’s transportation system, which is heavily dependent upon GPS technology. 

The last thing a pilot wants to hear is that horn going off when 

he has lost signal coming in on an approach and in heavy weather. 

Talking of mitigating LightSquared’s interference with some 

form of a filter, quite frankly, at this time—that is not available 

as I understand it—should be dismissed and is not an option. 

Even if a filter should be designed to block the interference and 

permit GPS use, the cost of the proposed filters would be harmful 

to our Nation’s aviation industry, both commercial and general, 

and would put another burden on the general aviation pilots as 

well. 

In addition, I am gravely concerned about how LightSquared’s 

interference could impede the work of the Coast Guard and other 

important Department of Homeland Security operations. 

According to written testimony by Assistant Secretary Takai, interference from LightSquared’s operations could also pose a problem for our national defense. Our national security is paramount 

in importance to me, and I will be looking at it closely. 

I appreciate your comments in regard to LightSquared. I would 

like to jump right into that, Mr. Carlisle. 

I note that the RTCA’s report concluded that the interference to 

aviation GPS might be avoided only if LightSquared was limited to 

the lowest 5 MHz of the L-Band spectrum; is that correct? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Congressman, the RTCA report concluded that the 

lowest 5 MHz is compatible with aviation uses. The next 5 MHz 

requires further analysis to determine if acquisition of the GPS signal is possible with regard to our operation. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You proposed the use of the next 10 MHz as well; 

is that correct? 

Mr. CARLISLE. What I am suggesting is the five that RTCA has 

said is compatible with aviation use and the next five that is under 

consideration, so both of those 5 MHz groups add up to 10. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. What would you use the other five for? You said 

you are using five now; correct? 

Mr. CARLISLE. We are not using it now. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You plan to use the lower five? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Right. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. The next five, you said there is a proposal for 

that; is that correct? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Right. It would be used for our broadband service. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Do you have any data saying if that would interfere with GPS at this point? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Actually, yes. The technical working group has 

tested for a number of receivers, including aviation receivers, at the 

lower 10 MHz, and that data will be filed with the FCC next week. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can you give us a little hint? 

Mr. CARLISLE. I can say what was publicly released by the RTCA 

report, which I believe is consistent with what the technical working group report will show, that aviation receivers actually performed significantly better than the minimum performance standards that were analyzed. 

31 

That is not a justification to not analyze the worse case scenario 

used by the minimum performance standards, but it does indicate 

the bottom 10 could be used without interference to aviation operations. Further work needs to be done. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Let me ask you a question. If LightSquared does 

not really plan to use the higher frequencies, and if you find out 

the next five frequencies—I am assuming we are going to have a 

lot of testing with this. 

Would LightSquared commit to us today and inform the FCC in 

writing that you or any subsidiary or future entities of 

LightSquared would not deploy a terrestrial system in the higher 

channels, if those prove to be harmful to GPS? 

Mr. CARLISLE. What we would like to do is be able to move forward with our deployment on the spectrum farthest away from 

GPS. For the spectrum that is closest to GPS, the 10 MHz closest, 

what we would want to do is have further discussion of whether 

there is a possible glide path forward, not over 6 months or a year, 

but over several years for use of that spectrum consistent with GPS 

operations, and that is going to require further discussion of whether there are mitigation options, whether there can be modifications 

to our operations. 

We believe that discussion should occur, and will need more time 

to occur. 

However, I would be very clear on this. We would not be able to 

use that upper 10 unless we were specifically authorized to do so. 

The FCC would have to consult with NTIA, FAA, DOD, the Coast 

Guard, all the affected Government agencies, before they did so, 

just as they consulted with them over the 4 years when they created these rules, 2001 to 2005. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I just wanted to make sure that—you sound like 

you definitely want to do the right thing for the right reasons. I 

appreciate that. 

I just want to make sure that if we do find a problem, that 

LightSquared is ready to shut it down if we have to. That is the 

question I am asking your company. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Congressman, I appreciate that question. As I said 

at the beginning of my testimony, we have absolutely no intention 

of operating this network in a way that will cause danger to the 

American public. We want to operate it responsibly and deploy it 

responsibly. 

That is why we have engaged in this process to test it out. It 

sounds like a relatively recent process that started. This is actually 

the 10th year of the work that we have been doing with the GPS 

community in order to work with GPS and in order to handle GPS 

interference, and we will continue that work. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. If I can just have 

indulgence for just one more question. 

Ms. Jenny, if you can answer this question. Being an old pilot, 

backup to the GPS is LORAN–C, and that is what I used to fly 

with in South China Sea. 

I was wondering if you could tell me, do we have a possible 

backup plan if GPS is affected? 

32 

Ms. JENNY. I think I would like to defer. I am really here to try 

to explain what the study showed for interference on GPS. I think 

the policy on the backup for GPS is still being determined. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Currently, there is no backup? 

Ms. JENNY. No, I did not say that. I think it is probably a better 

question for the Department. For the study in question, the assumptions here were that GPS would be the primary means. The 

only question was what kind of interference would we get from 

LightSquared’s deployment for GPS receivers onboard aircraft. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can anyone on the panel answer that question, 

backup to GPS? 

Mr. FULLER. As a practical matter, we do not have LORAN in 

our aircraft any more. We do obviously have VOR ground receivers 

that are still there, although they are being decommissioned. 

I would take this opportunity to add that the considerable interest and direction we have been moving with NextGen has at the 

very heart of it the utilization of the global positioning satellite system, GPS, in the aircraft, and indeed, it is the GPS signal that is 

so much more accurate in the aircraft than what our controllers 

have on the ground, that we want to get into the hands of the controllers. 

Putting that at risk puts at risk the whole NextGen effort as 

well. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you for the Chair’s indulgence, I yield 

back, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Straub, in your written testimony, you conclude that 

LightSquared’s proposed operation should be moved entirely to a 

different frequency away from GPS; is that correct? 

Mr. STRAUB. That is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I wonder if I could ask the other panelists, with 

the exception of Mr. Carlisle, if you agree with that. Ms. Jenny? 

Ms. JENNY. Yes. The study conducted, it did indicate that it is 

compatible at the lower five, provided they stayed within their 

power levels that we tested to, which were not the same as what 

they are authorized, and the density of the transmitters is what 

they told us they would do in the study. 

If those two things are true, then the lower five is compatible. 

The lower 10, if you add another five, needs more study. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Fuller? 

Mr. FULLER. I am not a technical expert. I stand with what I 

said earlier. I think the technical experts at the Agency responsible 

for this policy, FCC, have to engage in very robust and active tests. 

We appreciate the notion that their company would work with 

people in the GPS community or who use GPS, but working with 

and concurring in are two different things. I do not know of anybody in the GPS community that believes that at least the approach as fully tested today would satisfactorily solve the conflict 

problem with these signals. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Hendricks? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, thank you. I would just offer that we have 

created the safest form of transportation in the United States that 

exists. It has been a long process for the Congress, for the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:25 May 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~1\6-23-1~1\67048.TXT JEAN
33 

ment, for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for the industry 

itself. 

We have all worked together to shape the policies. As long as we 

can be guaranteed protection through our processes of certification 

done by the FAA in future avionics, then we would be satisfied 

with whatever proposal comes forward. 

I would like to emphasize the growth of GPS in the aviation community without question has increased our safety margins due to 

the highly accurate positioning function that we are able to achieve 

with it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Graves? 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are for Mr. 

Carlisle. I have two concerns about your statement. 

In your opening statement, you said ‘‘LightSquared can coordinate its roll out so high-precision agricultural receivers will not be 

near LightSquared’s base stations for several years.’’ 

What does that mean? What happens in several years? 

Mr. CARLISLE. What that means, Congressman, is that during 

the first 2 or 3 years of this deployment, we will primarily be focusing on urban areas where we can quickly meet our coverage requirements, and then ultimately, we will move out to less dense 

areas. 

That means there are several years available in order to work on 

technical solutions for precision receivers that will result in more 

resilient units that will not go all across our band like they do 

today. 

Mr. GRAVES. You are hoping you will find a solution before that 

happens. What do you define as an ‘‘urban area?’’ Are you going to 

deploy in smaller communities? What is a ‘‘smaller community?’’ 

What is an ‘‘urban area?’’ Obviously, you are going to go after those 

areas that have a little bit more density than just plain rural. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Ultimately, we will. Again, for the first 2 or 3 

years, we are not going to be deploying near where the majority of 

those agricultural devices are used. 

Mr. GRAVES. Two to three years is different from several years, 

to be quite honest. That concerns me. 

The next thing you said is ‘‘LightSquared will address this issue 

for over 99 percent of the receivers currently used.’’ Ninety-nine 

percent, that is a pretty high mark. That means there are going 

to be some out there where it is not going to work. 

You talk about filters. Do you understand the process of how you 

get something certified for an aircraft and how expensive that is, 

and how expensive it is going to be for me to buy the damn thing 

to put in my aircraft? 

It is a long process. It takes a lot of money. Whatever that company is that comes up with that filter, they are going to have to 

ensure product liability, because if something happens and somebody gets in an accident, then the finger is going to be pointed at 

them. 

You have product liability and then you have the certification 

process. The certification process takes a while. Again, it is very, 

very expensive, for a piece of equipment that I am going to have 

34 

to add to a piece of equipment that I already have, that is working 

well. 

I do not know if you understand that process and what it takes 

to get a piece of equipment into an aircraft. It is not as easy as just 

developing a filter and slapping it in there. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Congressman, I absolutely hear your serious concern about this. We do understand the certification process is very 

involved and takes a long time. 

Let me make clear that the proposal we have made to move to 

the bottom 10, we are making it because of the indications that we 

are getting that aviation receivers, use of aviation receivers, would 

be compatible with that use, and would not require additional filtering. 

On the upper 10, the 10 closest to GPS, it seems likely that filtering would be required for that. Part of this discussion has to be 

exactly what that process would be and if it is feasible. We want 

to engage in that conversation with the industry and figure out 

what the costs are and the benefits, and what the alternatives are. 

Mr. GRAVES. Both of those statements concern me. We know 

there is going to be a problem out there. You have obviously demonstrated there could be a potential problem out there, and that 

concerns me for all those pilots that are going to have to buy another piece of equipment for their airplanes. 

It is getting tougher and tougher to be able to afford what we 

need to be safe in the air the way it is. Now, some are going to 

have to have a filter, and it concerns me for agricultural aviation, 

too. 

For 2 or 3 years, it is not going to be a problem, but it is going 

to be a problem after 2 or 3 years. We do not know if there is going 

to be a solution. 

In my part of the country, we depend heavily on agricultural 

aviation, and it is a very important aspect. 

I am not a technical wiz either. I just know what stuff is going 

to cost me, and I know it is getting harder and harder to fly. 

I know if it is affecting agricultural aviation, when it comes to 

GPS, I know it is going to affect other types of GPS for agriculture, 

because we use the same high-precision stuff when we are farming, 

and that means that is going to cost me more money to be able to 

fix that. If it is affecting agricultural aviation, again, I am not a 

technical genius, but it tells me it is going to get closer than I 

would be comfortable with when it comes to affecting other areas. 

I am terribly concerned about this. I will be honest with you, I 

am not comfortable with it whatsoever. I am not supportive whatsoever. 

I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Costello for holding this hearing today. 

I just want to say I concur with some of the concerns that Mr. 

Graves has about the certification process for general aviation. 

I want to focus on something else here. I think everyone can 

agree that GPS is critical to our national defense and affects virtually every mode of transportation. 

35 

Billions of dollars have been invested in this system and billions 

of dollars depend on it. 

The bottom line is we need to do everything possible to ensure 

that GPS absolutely works, both now and in the future. 

As a member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am particularly 

concerned about LightSquared’s potential impact on aviation, and 

what it will mean for NextGen. 

As everyone here knows, NextGen is a satellite based aircraft 

surveillance in GPS, and it really is critical that we move forward 

on NextGen so that we can realize all of the savings in time, fuel, 

and safety increases we can have with NextGen. 

I want to ask Mr. Straub, Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Fuller a couple 

of questions. I would like each of you to comment on how the 

LightSquared proposal would impact efforts to boost NextGen. 

Will the proposal lead to any delays in implementation in your 

view, and if so, why would this occur? 

Mr. Straub? 

Mr. STRAUB. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I think one first clarification point on the lower 10 MHz of testing that was done, I want 

to first point out that was only done at one-tenth of the FCC authorized power limit, so one-tenth of the power was used here, and 

we found that there are at the minimum operational performance 

requirements, initial acquisition performance problems and degradation. So, we cannot at all say there is no issues in that lower 

10 MHz. 

As to NextGen, one of the key attributes of GPS is its availability 

as a system. It has to be there. As the pilots know, when you fly 

an instrument approach, if the approach cannot be completed, you 

must go on to an alternate location, and each step like that takes 

away one safety net from the completion of the flight. 

That is a very serious concern. Also relating to NextGen is our 

ADSB system, basically, knowing where the aircraft are. The ‘‘D’’ 

in ADSB is dependence upon GPS, so it has to be there. It has to 

be precise. You have to count on its continuity of availability. If we 

cannot count on those things, then I think we have to go back to 

the drawing board of NextGen and determine where we are and 

how we go forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FULLER. That is a very good question. Today and every day 

this week, the FAA’s air traffic control system will manage something on the order of 50,000 aircraft over a 24-hour period. 

These are commercial aircraft and general aviation aircraft. One 

aspect of all those flights is they rely on GPS systems to navigate. 

In the aviation community, if you say well, there is only a 1 or 

2 percent problem, would you really want to go flying today if I told 

you that somewhere between 500 and 1,000 aircraft are likely to 

lose their signal? 

Would you like us to rely on the instrumentation that is a fundamental part of NextGen technology to land aircraft when 500 or 

1,000 of them might lose their signal on approach, flying low over 

urban or rural areas? 

I think not. I think that is a standard in the aviation community 

we just do not accept. 

36 

I know it will be said, well, it does not look like aviation has a 

problem. Yet, the very people who make the systems that we rely 

on in our planes that are certified by the FAA are saying we are 

not sure, we do not know. We do not see a solution. 

I think that has to weigh very heavily on us, and I guarantee you 

that if anything causes concern about the reliability of the GPS 

system that is in place, it will absolutely interfere with the development and advancement of NextGen. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Hendricks? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Congressman Lipinski, thanks for the question. 

I appreciate it very much. 

I would like to offer my perspective on this. I am privileged to 

co-chair the Aviation Rulemaking Committee on ADSB and also I 

co-chair the NextGen Advisory Subcommittee. I am very engaged 

on NextGen activities. 

The process of certification that Congressman Graves spoke to a 

few moments ago highlights how we have been able to create this 

very safe system in the United States. It is very deliberate. It is 

very thorough. 

We build great confidence in any component we put into our commercial aircraft today that it is going to work as it has been designed and certified by the FAA. 

In fact, Congressman LoBiondo’s constituents in his district at 

the FAA technical facility in Atlantic City play a key role in this 

process. 

It is a deliberate process. It takes time, but it builds confidence 

and it has proven to be an important underpinning of the safe operations we have been able to develop over years, and they are just 

getting safer. 

Another key element of this is if NextGen is delayed, and by 

some estimates, if we go through this certification process, 

NextGen could be delayed up to 10 years, we are going to forego 

the opportunity to create what we estimate are 150,000 jobs in the 

United States as a result of moving towards NextGen. 

We have very serious concerns. GPS is the cornerstone of how we 

are going to modernize our national airspace system and go to an 

even safer system than we have today. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. I just want to say I am 

concerned about those job losses. I think this delay could really 

hurt American manufacturers, put them behind in developing and 

getting out their aviation products to market. 

There might be a role that DOT and DOD should play in the 

FCC process when it comes to matters that potentially impact GPS. 

I think it is something we certainly should look at. 

When I am out running with my Garmin on my wrist, concern 

about losing the signal certainly is not that detrimental, but when 

we are looking at other matters of concern, such as aviation, it certainly is. I think we all agree upon that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. Just a couple of questions. 

37 

The big issue that we are facing is job loss and really getting this 

economy rolling again. I just wanted to address my first question 

to Mr. Hendricks. 

In the airline industry, I wondered if you could discuss quickly 

what you would see as the impact on job creation if new cost burdens associated with interference mitigation would be born by the 

industry, what is your best guess of what the impact would be? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, thank you for the question. We are very 

concerned about the cost to certify, purchase, and equip any new 

capability in the aircraft to compensate for the spill over of signals 

into the GPS spectrum as we currently use it today. 

Estimates for the U.S. commercial airline industry are as high as $2 billion in additional costs. Our economists estimate that for 

every billion dollar of cost, we put 12,500 U.S. airline industry jobs 

at risk. 

I would just refer to my previous comments that NextGen for the 

country, we estimate that over a 10-year period, we would create 

150,000 jobs. 

Job loss, the lack of job creation is a serious concern if NextGen 

is impacted the way we feel it could be. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Switching gears a little bit, Mr. Hendricks, in 

your opinion, are there currently available technical solutions that 

would fully protect those GPS devices from LightSquared’s interference? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. I am unaware of any certified equipment available today to accomplish this task. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Straub, if I can ask you quickly, it seems to 

me that if the entire aviation industry were to have to equip avionics with GPS filters to meet new standards, manufacturers like 

Garmin could make a lot of money, but is it even feasible, are there 

technical solutions out there to address this GPS interference? 

With this interference, if you could help me understand a little 

more functionality, what would really be the impact, if there are 

filters there, how would it impact the functionality? 

Mr. STRAUB. Let me begin by saying right now, we know of no 

filters. We have seen PowerPoint presentations and hypothetical 

filters, but nothing that works. 

Without getting into a lot of the technical details, some of the 

things that have been proposed simply cannot work with the system. The antennas and the GPS receivers work together as a system to provide the required performance function. 

The upper 10 MHz is especially troublesome because it is immediately adjacent to the GPS band. We are talking about, if you can 

think of that 4 billion to 1 ratio, a terrestrial based high-power 

transmitter just is not compatible with a very weak 50 watt light 

bulb in space type signal. 

We simply do not see a path at all to allow that to happen, regardless of what type of new filter innovations could ever exist. 

That is not touching necessarily upon the practical deployment side 

if such a thing did exist. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you again. I appreciate you all being here. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I have a couple of questions and then we 

will have another round as well. 

38 

Mr. Straub, I guess you have been looking at this. It has been 

discussed for a number of years. It is not just something that came 

up last week. You have been working in this area for most of your 

life, I assume, professional life. 

You did not mince words. You had a rather strong statement 

talking about lawnmowers and trying to help people understand 

the technology of it. 

I just wanted to give you an opportunity, if you refer to the testimony of Mr. Carlisle and their efforts to modify their approach to 

accommodate aviation and other industry concerns, I just wonder 

if you could give us your analysis of that, if you see any problems 

with it and the like. 

Mr. STRAUB. I think we sincerely come to the table to try in goodwill to reach a compromise or a solution that can work. But, some 

of the challenges we have encountered—as I mentioned earlier, the 

FCC authorization was for up to 72 dBm of power. I think 

LightSquared had said they would execute at a maximum of 62, 

which is where the RTCA testing and analysis was done. 

In the recent press release this week said, well, we will come out 

at only 50 percent of what was authorized, I believe. That is actually 69 dBm versus the 62 we tested out. 

Not to get into engineering speak and technical terms, but that 

is on a logarithmic scale. So, 10 dBm is a factor of 10. 

In reality, what they are proposing at this point is still far above 

what the testing and analysis was done at. 

That raises troubling concerns about what does that power spectrum really look like, and we simply do not know. If it is at that 

level, that is a very challenging level to deal with. 

We have invested millions of dollars, as I said, in basically understanding the proposal and how can we mitigate issues, and are 

just coming to the end that we do not see a means to do that. 

We look at it as an industry, a company, we realize that 

LightSquared must also be profitable in the end. And if they’ve 

said before their deployment is dependent upon being able to use 

all the spectrum out there to have the up links and down links of 

the required bandwidth they need. 

If that is a requirement and that upper spectrum is just not compatible at all with GPS, we just do not understand how they can 

get to a successful deployment over time. 

I guess it is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. Eventually, the whole camel is going to be in the tent. In this case, that 

means GPS would cease to function. 

Mr. PETRI. It is my understanding that the studies showed they 

could use one-fourth of their capacity at one-tenth of the power, but 

they are certified at half the power by the FCC. 

You would object to them going forward without modifying the 

FCC authority to put it down to one-tenth, but even then, it is 99.5 

percent safe, and there is the worry, as Mr. Fuller and Mr. Hendricks pointed out, that in aviation, we do not shoot for 99.5 percent. That is not acceptable when you are dealing with human life 

and the like. 

You would object and feel that the FCC authorization should not 

be allowed to go forward under any circumstances unless it is sigVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:25 May 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~1\6-23-1~1\67048.TXT JEAN
39 

nificantly modified, and even then, there would be some risks; is 

that correct? 

Mr. STRAUB. I think we want to remove all the ambiguity about 

what are the limits, what can it be authorized at, and then let us 

do that analysis and testing. 

I guess I keep coming back to the point of if 5 MHz is not adequate for the business case to deploy ubiquitous broadband coverage, we would like to have some reassurance of what the plan is 

to make that happen. 

Because this is obviously a very costly—many industries, companies, ourselves, have spent millions and millions of dollars on this 

defending and protecting the GPS user base. 

We would want to have assurance of what is that plan to achieve 

the end goal. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Fuller, are there any legislative areas or problems? We are basically here doing oversight. This is an area where 

it was basically FCC dealing with radio stations, and suddenly, we 

are dealing with conflicts between major corporations, between 

major sectors of our economy, becoming a hugely important economic infrastructure, so to speak, use of spectrum, and different capabilities that are built into how we lead our lives. 

Is there need for some review or study as to how we go about 

the process of resolving these conflicts or should it be left up to the 

FCC without modification as it currently appears to be done? 

Mr. FULLER. Since we are sort of flashing back to the 1980s, I 

will use the phrase ‘‘trust but verify.’’ It is very promising that a 

company would say they want to work with us, and we want to 

work with them. 

It is sort of curious to me that the FCC would grant authority 

and waivers but say go see if you can work with these people and 

reduce the problems. 

Again, I think the FCC should do better than that. Nothing that 

I have heard says anything is coming off the table. We are going 

to voluntarily do this. We are going to explore that. 

Six years from now, we might have a different idea or a different 

plan. 

I think there is such a fundamental flaw in the policy process 

that legislatively, top of mind, I actually think the Department of 

Transportation, the FAA, and DOD should be required to sign off 

on something that is going to be a threat to this national asset we 

call GPS. 

It is going to fundamentally disrupt the whole NextGen initiative. 

I actually think there is something to be learned in the process 

we have gone down, where a company that is agreeable to working 

with everybody finds themselves in a position where they are allowed to go down a path and invest a lot of money. 

My view is just because a company has invested a lot of money, 

like the drug manufacturers, it does not mean we have to say well, 

gee, let’s try to see if something will work, even though it might 

be dangerous. 

I do think there is a role for Congress both with respect to oversight and investigation and putting very clear requirements on the 

FCC, which apparently has gotten away from the interagency 

40 

clearance process that used to exist, to make sure that before they 

take any further action, they clearly have requirements to get concurrence and sign off by other agencies that are going to be affected. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Did you have additional questions? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, actually, I had a question but you 

just asked it. That is the exact question I was going to ask, from 

a legislative standpoint, is there something we ought to be doing. 

Mr. PETRI. You might have suggested it to me. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We have the extension coming up on Friday, we 

could put it in the FAA extension this Friday. 

I do not have a question, but I agree with you, Mr. Fuller. Mr. 

Chairman, I think it is something the two of us can work on and 

we should work on. 

In the interest of fairness, since we have four to one here, I am 

going to ask Mr. Carlisle if he wants to respond to any comment 

that has been made here. 

Mr. CARLISLE. Thank you very much, Congressman. I very much 

appreciate that. 

I would make two main responses. One to comments by Mr. 

Straub and other comments that have called into question the 

power levels, and I want to be very clear about this. 

The testing was conducted at the power levels we were authorized to use in 2005, 1.6 kilowatts. The commitment that we have 

made is to only use that power level going forward, even though 

we are authorized by the FCC today to transmit it up to 15 kilowatts. 

We are giving that up, and we would seek a modification of our 

license so it is binding on us, so we would only move forward with 

the 1.6 kilowatt power level. 

The other thing that I would respond to is concept that Mr. 

Fuller brought up. We absolutely have an obligation to operate 

safely and operate without causing harmful interference outside of 

our bands. 

When this service was first authorized under FCC rules, that 

was not an overnight process. It was 4 years. It started in 2001. 

The rules were finalized on reconsideration in 2005. 

There were thousands of pages of comments from the airline industry, from the GPS industry, from the cellular industry, from the 

satellite industry. 

Moreover, part of that process was our voluntary agreement to 

limit our emissions out of our band in order to protect GPS because 

that is what the GPS Industry Council told us at the time, they 

needed to protect GPS receivers. 

In 2005, the FCC made two very important decisions. It lifted 

any limit on the number of base stations that could be deployed in 

this network and it established the current power levels of 1.6 kilowatts. 

That decision was not appealed. It was not reconsidered. There 

was no subsequent petition for rulemaking, and nobody approached 

us to seek a further modification of our agreement on our power 

levels for the next 6 years. 

In fact, in 2009, when we sought the increased power levels, the 

GPS Industry Council participated in that proceeding and withVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:25 May 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~1\6-23-1~1\67048.TXT JEAN
41 

drew. They did not object to power levels that were 10 times higher 

than what we are planning to use. 

That was in 2009. That was not 6 years ago. That was a very 

recent opportunity to come in and talk about this issue. 

The important thing about this is certainty. When we invested $4 billion in this company, in developing this spectrum, the GPS 

Industry Council had withdrawn without objecting to higher power 

levels less than a year before. 

We came in, we invested the money to develop this network. 

Now, if there is extraordinary action taken on a legislative or regulatory basis as a result of this—let’s make one thing perfectly clear. 

If the waiver went away tomorrow, it would not make any difference to the interference issue. We would still be broadcasting at 

the same transmission level with the same number of base stations. The waiver did not in any way impact the interference issue. 

If there is extraordinary regulatory or legislative action taken, if 

we are not allowed to try to work this out on a cooperative basis, 

certainty on spectrum and the valuation of spectrum will be severely undermined in this country, severely undermined, depending 

on what version of the budget you look at, it is assumed that between $23 billion and $28 billion of revenue would come into the 

Federal Government over the next 10 years on the basis of auctions 

of spectrum. That is not going to happen if investors cannot have 

some measure of certainty in the value of spectrum. 

What I would ask is that we be allowed to try to work this out 

on a cooperative basis going forward. We have made a reasonable 

proposal. We are willing to talk about that reasonable proposal. 

Thank you very much for your time and your patience. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Carlisle. Appreciate that statement. Thank you very much. 

One of the things I am hearing from the panel is the filter systems have not really materialized yet. I understand from the GPS 

point of view, hey, we have been using GPS quietly, nobody has 

been bothering us. 

This comes in and there may be a potential problem. As I understand it, there may be a potential filter associated with this. 

The problem I see, like Congressman Graves was saying, this is 

an added expense to general aviation, to commercial aviation, you 

name it, whoever uses GPS. 

My question is would LightSquared be willing to pay for those 

filters going forward in the future? 

Mr. CARLISLE. Thank you very much for the question, Congressman. We will detail this more as we detail our proposal at the 

FCC. As I mentioned briefly in my testimony, we are willing to underwrite the development of filtering technology for the new receivers and work on that cooperatively with the industry. 

On the question of available filtering, we know sitting here today 

filters are available. Filters for these devices are less than a nickel. 

There are filters for timing devices that are available on the market today for $100, from two different suppliers. 

There may not be filters for every type of GPS receiver, but there 

are filters available out there. Let’s make no mistake. We also 

know as a result of the testing that certain receivers are much 

42 

more resilient to this type of interference than others. There are 

best practices in the industry in terms of front-end design and filtering and other methods of eliminating this kind of effect. 

We know that is possible, and it has been possible for the last 

6 years, certainly. 

Thank you for the question. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you for the answer. 

In your press release on Monday, you stated the new development plan involves a 50 percent power reduction on base station 

transmitters for the lower 10 MHz of the spectrum furthest from 

the GPS. 

Is this 50 percent reduction what LightSquared committed to the 

technical working group or from the FAA authorized level? 

Mr. CARLISLE. In 2005, we were authorized to—I will give you 

both numbers. The number in the FCC order in 2005 was 32 dBW. 

That equates to approximately 1.6 kilowatts. 

In 2010, we were authorized to transmit at 42 dBW or approximately 15 kilowatts, so 10 times higher. 

This is the level that we will not be using. We did not engineer 

our network to operate at it. We actually have engineered it to use 

the 2005 power levels. 

The only cell transmitters that exist are transmitters that operate at that level. 

That is the level we will use going forward, let me be very clear. 

That is what we are committing to going forward. If we have to 

clarify that further, we will do so. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Are there any comments from the rest of the 

panel on that? It seems pretty clear. 

Mr. STRAUB. I think that is the clarity we are looking for, at least 

as a basis to understand where they propose going forward. 

There was ambiguity, it was not clear. As you asked, Congressman, is it 50 percent below that initial level? I have 16 kilowatts, 

15, whatever that is; or is it something in between that and the 

2005 level? 

I think that is the spirit of cooperation and that we need to know 

so we can analyze those effects. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much, panel, and thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Any further questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. If not, we thank you very much for a very informative 

discussion. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67048.0014
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67048.0015
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67048.0016
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67048.0017
47 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67048.0018
48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67048.0019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67048.0020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67048.0021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67048.0022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67048.0023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67048.0024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67048.0025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67048.0026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67048.0027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67048.0028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67048.0029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67048.0030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67048.0031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67048.0032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67048.0033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67048.0034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67048.0035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67048.0036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67048.0037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67048.0038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67048.0039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67048.0040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67048.0041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67048.0042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67048.0043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67048.0044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67048.0045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67048.0046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67048.0047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67048.0048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67048.0049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67048.0050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67048.0051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67048.0052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67048.0053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67048.0054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67048.0055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67048.0056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67048.0057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67048.0058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67048.0059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67048.0060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67048.0061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67048.0062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67048.0063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67048.0064
94 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67048.0065
95 


Insert offset folio 66 here 67048.0066
96 


Insert offset folio 67 here 67048.0067
97 


Insert offset folio 68 here 67048.0068
98 


Insert offset folio 69 here 67048.0069
99 


Insert offset folio 70 here 67048.0070
100 


Insert offset folio 71 here 67048.0071
101 


Insert offset folio 72 here 67048.0072
102 


Insert offset folio 73 here 67048.0073
103 


Insert offset folio 74 here 67048.0074
104 


Insert offset folio 75 here 67048.0075
105 


Insert offset folio 76 here 67048.0076
106 


Insert offset folio 77 here 67048.0077
107 


Insert offset folio 78 here 67048.0078
108 


Insert offset folio 79 here 67048.0079
109 


Insert offset folio 80 here 67048.0080
110 


Insert offset folio 81 here 67048.0081
111 


Insert offset folio 82 here 67048.0082
112 


Insert offset folio 83 here 67048.0083
113 


Insert offset folio 84 here 67048.0084
114 


Insert offset folio 85 here 67048.0085
115 


Insert offset folio 86 here 67048.0086
116 


Insert offset folio 87 here 67048.0087
117 


Insert offset folio 88 here 67048.0088
118 


Insert offset folio 89 here 67048.0089
119 


Insert offset folio 90 here 67048.0090
120 


Insert offset folio 91 here 67048.0091
121 


Insert offset folio 92 here 67048.0092
122 


Insert offset folio 93 here 67048.0093
123 


Insert offset folio 94 here 67048.0094
124 


Insert offset folio 95 here 67048.0095
125 


Insert offset folio 96 here 67048.0096
126 


Insert offset folio 97 here 67048.0097
127 


Insert offset folio 98 here 67048.0098
128 


Insert offset folio 99 here 67048.0099
129 


Insert offset folio 100 here 67048.0100
130 


Insert offset folio 101 here 67048.0101
131 


Insert offset folio 102 here 67048.0102
132 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 103 here 67048.0103