William Young, Ph.D.

The NASCTN “LTE Impacts on GPS” Project 

Brief for the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board
2

• Discuss the scope of the recently completed NASCTN Project: “LTE 

Impacts on GPS”

• Review comments and questions received in June, 2016 during the test 

plan review process from 

the Honorable John Stenbit, Dr. Brad Parkinson, and Dr. John Betz 

• Information on the project is found here:

▫ https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/impact-lte-signals-gps-receivers

Outline
3

National Advanced Spectrum and Communications Test Network (NASCTN)

• Established by NIST, NTIA, and DoD in 2015

• Mission: provide robust test processes and validated measurement data necessary to

▫ develop, evaluate, and deploy spectrum-sharing technologies

▫ inform spectrum policy and regulations

What is NASCTN?
4

• Final report is found here:

▫ http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1952.pdf

• Request data from the testing via this link:

▫ https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/02/15/impact_of_lte_on_gps_-

_measurement_data_request_form.pdf

3 Month Measurement Campaign

• 1476 test hours

• 38222 raw data files

• 19220 parsed data files

Deliverable: 3859 data files (780 MB) 

Encompassed: 

• 968 LTE exposure tests

• 83 Timing tests

• 5155 Time-To-First-Fix tests

• 891 Time-To-First-Reacquisition tests

Test Summary Statistics and Information
5

Acknowledgments

U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground (EPG), Fort Huachuca, Arizona

National Technical Systems (NTS), Longmont, Colorado

Manufacturers for support of their products
6

• Develop rigorous test methods to investigate the impact of 

adjacent-band LTE signals on GPS L1 devices

▫ Repeatable

▫ Calibrated

▫ Well-documented

• Perform radiated measurements on a representative set of 

GPS devices to validate test methods

• Provide test data

Objectives
7

• The NASCTN test method and report makes no value judgement on the 1 dB 

degradation in C/N0 criterion. 

• Data from the NASCTN test include the 1 dB degradation results.

▫ For all devices, LTE power level sweeps crossed the 1 dB degradation condition, or 

reached the limits of the LTE power output 

 i.e., in excess of -5 dBm LTE Effective Isotropic Incident Power (EIIP)/ @ DUT. 

▫ Time-to-first-fix, time-to-first-reacquisition tests included a 1 dB degradation target

• Associated uncertainty analysis and depth of testing enables clear distinction on 

changing C/N0 and other measurand (or Key Performance Indicator (KPI)) behavior. 

• Allows comparison of the data with other measurement efforts that only provide the 

1 dB degradation criterion results. 

• Testing beyond the nominal 1 dB degradation C/N0 point allows the data to be used 

to estimate margins and supports extrapolation to real-world conditions.

Comment 1: To justify replacing the 1 dB criterion for tolerable interference will require a 

very extensive justification looking at many worst case GPS/GNSS operational situations.
8

How to: Examples of Steady-State Median Plots

Baseline (BL) – No LTE Power

Fig. 5.4 pg 109 Fig. 5.5 pg 110

Overlapping with the confidence 

bound of the baseline –

No statistically significant 

difference

Statistically significant difference
9

Comment 2: Plan should add goal of answering the key question: determining the level of 

LTE interference that can be accepted by satnav receivers operating satisfactorily under 

all relevant conditions.

• NASCTN worked within the bounds of a realizable test within a meaningful 

timeframe for all stakeholders as well as regulators. 

• GPS L1 is the primary satnav signal used in the proposed region of LTE 

deployment– testing must ensure first and foremost that potential impact on 

this satnav signal is understood.

• Additional points with respect to test integrity are answered in question 9 

below
10

• Test plan priorities: 

▫ 1) Detailed results for nominal conditions

▫ 2) Detailed results for “limited” conditions 

▫ 3) Time permitting, motion for receivers designed and intended 

for motion

• Testing includes a “limited” satellite constellation condition: 

▫ Reduced number of available satellites

▫ Carrier power levels were reduced w.r.t. nominal 

• Testing included LTE power-sweeps that either 

▫ identified the loss-of-fix point for the device

▫ or reached an LTE power level that exceeds -5 dBm at the 

device-under-test (DUT)

• Motion was not tested – more discussion in answer to 

question 5 below.

Comment 3: Plan should address highly stressed conditions – the “envelope” conditions.

-128.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB -133.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB

-138.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB -143.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB

WAAS 5° horizon cutoff
11

Selected receivers reflect recommendations from a variety of stakeholders

▫ Original device list was modified to focus on precision devices, including timing, after input from 

stakeholders

▫ Access to measurands was a key consideration in device selection

 5 General Location and Navigation (GLN); 

 4 High Precision Positioning (HPP) with 2 in Real Time Kinematic Mode (RTK) & Multiple antenna options

 3 GPS Disciplined Oscillator (GPSDO)

 2 Development Boards (DEV)

▫ Total number of device configurations: 20

▫ Time-to-first-fix, time-to-first-reaquisition are the most rigorous completed to date 

(100 trials per LTE power level.)

Receiver classes not tested:

Certified-aviation, non-certified aviation, space-based, cellular, and military grade

Comment 4: Plan should include all receiver classes, receiving modes and states, 

particularly those that are well known to be most sensitive to interference, e.g. acquisition 

(cold start) and reacquisition.
• Testing included HPP and RTK receivers, which have similar receiver chip 

architecture as other high precision receivers (timing, geodetic, etc.)

• Geodetic receivers (resolution abilities better than 1 mm ) requiring:

▫ Sophisticated RTK : Multiple reference stations and NOAA reference tables. 

▫ Real time subscription services

▫ Significant networked backhaul infrastructure

▫ Long-term averaging capabilities

Are impractical to test: maintain efficient test times, time-syncing of data streams or 

purchasing of subscription services 

• Test conditions on order of multiple weeks for a single LTE power level.

▫ Note: The NASCTN tests of GPSDOs disciplined by a cesium clock required 2.5 hrs per LTE 

power level, 40 hr test run times were the upper limit of practical test sequences. 

Comment 4 (cont.): Assessing all classes of Precision Receivers
Comment 4 (cont.): Assessing all classes of Precision Receivers

• HPP devices were tested 

with wide, narrow, & dual 

bandwidth antennas

▫ Normalized boresight 

antenna pattern 

measurements are 

provided in the report

• The test data is publicly 

available in a common 

format. It can be used to 

independently ascertain 

the accuracy of 

measurands.
14

Comment 4 (cont.): Assessing all classes of Precision Receivers

• The NASCTN test data allow analysis of KPI jitter

• Baseline (no LTE) and LTE-present 

• The NASCTN tests of precision and timing receivers performance are 

extensive and detailed, and include devices from the late 1990’s to 

current technology 
• Highly dependent on specific use cases

• GPS receiver design limitations

• Measurands to consider: 

▫ position- latitude, longitude, and altitude; 

▫ velocity- x, y, and z directions

▫ acceleration – x, y, and z directions

• Motion track: 

▫ Length, elevation change, 

▫ corner design , laps

• Statistical Considerations

▫ Need sufficient sampling and randomization: 

 Multiple repetitions of motion path – e.g., number of laps

▫ Limited by maximum practical test time

▫ Randomize over motion parameters, e.g., (jitter-walk)

▫ Reduce variability by maintaining view of simulated satellites

 KPIs are sensitive to satellite transitions over horizon

Comment 5: Plan should include moving receivers.

Example tracks courtesy of: 

Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, 

Road America, Road Atlanta, 

Daytona 500

Image from: http://www.pacificsandiego.com/localentertainment/red-bull-air-race-2017/
16

• Other sources need to be well-defined, and specific details and their impact on GPS 

need to be known before inclusion in a rigorous testing protocol

▫ i.e., what specific noise profile(s) should be included

▫ Test conditions must remain consistent during testing to correctly attribute the source of 

changes to the DUT performance

• Overall raising of the noise floor due to out-of-band and in-band emissions of other 

sources is a regulatory issue and was not considered. 

• Additional considerations during testing

▫ Temperature fluctuations impact the amount of noise contribution by the receiver

▫ Ongoing research investigates the impact of temperature variation on C/N0 degradation

 Supports performance estimates under conditions outside of controlled chamber environments

Comment 6: Plan should include other sources of interference.
Tech Note under development:

• “Estimating Interference Impacts in Realistic 

Noise Environments Based on Receiver SNR SelfEstimates from Anechoic Test Results”

• LTE Impacts on GPS test conditions fixed to 

ambient thermal noise ~300 K

• Decoupling receiver and ambient noise 

contributions is challenging and time-consuming

• LNA integrated into antenna

• LNA integrated into antenna+receiver

• Instead: estimate impacts across representative 

values of

• antenna efficiency, LNA NF, ambient temperature

Active Research: Application to “Live Sky” Noise Conditions

Ambient temperature 300K

(anechoic test result)

Ambient temperature 340K

(estimated response)

LTE Equivalent Isotropic Incident Power at the DUT (dBm)
18

• NASCTN testing included a “limited” scenario, with 8 

GPS satellites at various power levels

Comment 7: Plan should include various received power levels and numbers of satellites.

-128.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB -133.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB

-138.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB -143.5 dBm ± 2.7 dB

WAAS 5° horizon cutoff

-128.5 dBm Baseline (BL) – No LTE Power

-133.5 dBm Baseline (BL) – No LTE Power

-138.5 dBm Baseline (BL) – No LTE Power

-143.5 dBm Baseline (BL) – No LTE Power
19

• The RTK setup included 

multiple receivers using 

“zero-baseline solution” 

method

• In discussions with 

stakeholder, the highest 

priority was interference on 

rover.

Comment 8: Plan must include multiple receivers simultaneously, at least in some cases.

Note: Testing of multiple receivers simultaneously raises the potential for 

self-interference between receivers (and their support cabling). 
20

• Testing included all of the GPS L1 signals that were supported in the simulator 

and were the focal point of the testing

▫ See page 19 of report: L1 C/A, L1C pilot, Pseudo Y, and M-Code, WAAS

• Testing of GPS L2 and L5 bands, Galileo, and GLONASS was not within the scope 

of this project

• Testing all GNSS signals could be done with different simulator equipment or 

combining several simulators

Comment 9: Plan should include receivers for more satnav signals, including L1C and from other 

GNSS. These advanced signals are the basis for many high productivity applications.
21

• Drawbacks with testing multiple satnav signals simultaneously: 

▫ can mask the impacts of a potential interfering source much like a device with 

dual band capability or network connectivity

 difficult to determine which satellite signals are actually used by the device under test 

▫ increased uncertainty in the test conditions 

Comment 9 (cont.): Plan should include receivers for more satnav signals, including L1C 

and from other GNSS
22

• Testing did use absolute power levels

▫ Uncertainty analyses of the power levels of the GPS signals and the LTE powers are 

provided 

▫ Testing of devices in the highly automated, controlled fashion allowed retesting a device

 Verified repeatability

▫ High-degree of automation reduced the contribution to uncertainty due to human error 

• Codified a technically-specific way to discuss the incident power level condition at 

the device-under-test

▫ Effective Isotropic Incident Power (EIIP)

▫ Allows extrapolation of results to different propagation models and environmental 

conditions

Comment 10: Plan should focus on absolute received power levels, not 

signal to interference ratio.
23

• The testing was akin to conducted testing but in a radiated manner 

▫ Required to incorporate the effects of antenna filtering or the use of 

embedded antennas often found in GLN devices

▫ Result for a range of power levels beyond the 1 dB degradation in C/N0 

allows selection of point on the dB-Hz curve other than the baseline

• The test plan discussed how the Friis path loss model can be used to 

extrapolate the results to different separation distances between the LTE 

source and the GPS device

▫ Other path loss models can be applied

• There is ongoing research on how to translate thermal noise conditions 

in an anechoic chamber to other temperature conditions

Comment 11: Plan should address how test data will be extrapolated to operational 

conditions.
24

• The limitations have been brought out in the test report and in briefings on 

the test data.

• If sufficient details, documentation, and data are available, comparisons 

across independent testing campaigns are both possible and useful

• From the Executive Summary, 

“Comparison among results of different test campaigns (including this study and [2–5]) requires an 

understanding of any differences in test conditions, devices, and parameters. Specific examples include 

GPS and LTE signal parameters, power levels, and test environments. Understanding these factors is 

crucial to drawing conclusions based on the aggregate of these heterogeneous test results. These types 

of analyses are beyond the scope of this project, but may be undertaken by other interested parties 

such as the GPS and cellular communications industry, government agencies, or spectrum regulators.”

• No policy recommendations are made in the NASCTN report or in any 

NASCTN briefing 

Comment 12: At a minimum, the test plan and test report should clearly and prominently highlight 

limitations of the testing, and the resulting restrictions on drawing conclusions from the tests.
25

• The testing reflected input incorporated from over a 150 comments on the 

original test plan, including a review of the ones here.

• Personnel from U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground (EPG), Fort Huachuca, 

Arizona that specialize in GPS testing supported the test team and helped 

design test conditions.

• World-renowned researchers in precision timing were consulted during the 

design of the timing device test development.

• GPS manufacturers were consulted in designing the test and the extraction of 

data from devices.

Comment 13: To have credibility with the PNT community, it is clear that real PNT 

expertise must be added to the test team. If the plan is to answer the real question, the 

satnav community can provide assistance.
26

Comment 14: The test plan review process should be open and formal.

• The initial and revised test plans were posted publicly on the NASCTN website.

• The initial test plan was sent to leading stakeholders, including the leadership 

of the PNT Advisory Board.

• Adjudicated comments were posted on the NASCTN website.

• All products of the test development and execution, including the initial test 

plan, revised test plan, final report and test data are publicly-available on the 

NASCTN website. 

• https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/impact-lte-signals-gps-receivers
27

Questions?