LightSquared: Lights out
FCC rejection of a planned satellite/wireless network that interferes with GPS frequencies is welcome recognition that technological realities trump crony capitalism.
The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday moved toward revoking a waiver that required LightSquared to show the interference problem could be solved. The Hill's Hillicon Valley blog reports the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration told the FCC "there are no mitigation strategies that ... solve the interference issues ... ."
That's good news for GPS-reliant commercial aviation safety and military operations -- and bad news for big Obama donors backing LightSquared and for the president, who invested $50,000 in 2005.
Hedge fund operator Phil Falcone put $2 billion-plus into LightSquared. A major Obama donor, he now says he's a Republican who didn't try to influence the FCC process.
Yet an Air Force Space Command general and the national GPS office director have said the White House pressured them to play down LightSquared concerns before Congress. (And that aspect of this case still requires a full investigation.)
Kudos to the FCC for acknowledging that neither LightSquared nor political pressure could surmount insoluble technological obstacles -- and for protecting crucial GPS functionality.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.