Comments on: LightSquared and the FCC’s $10B problem https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/ Satellites, spectrum and other stuff Tue, 03 Feb 2026 21:36:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TMF Associates blog » SpaceX and the FCC’s $16B problem https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-106733 TMF Associates blog » SpaceX and the FCC’s $16B problem Sun, 05 Apr 2020 19:41:32 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-106733 [...] and a half years ago, I wrote a blog post that got a lot of attention inside the FCC, comparing LightSquared’s request for a license [...] [...] and a half years ago, I wrote a blog post that got a lot of attention inside the FCC, comparing LightSquared’s request for a license [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » It’s academic… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1226 TMF Associates MSS blog » It’s academic… Thu, 02 May 2013 00:27:56 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-1226 [...] cap should obviously bound these losses in exactly the same way (as an aside the $10B number was actually the windfall to LightSquared from the FCC’s waiver, not the value of the licenses themselves). If it does not bound either estimate, then of course [...] [...] cap should obviously bound these losses in exactly the same way (as an aside the $10B number was actually the windfall to LightSquared from the FCC’s waiver, not the value of the licenses themselves). If it does not bound either estimate, then of course [...]

]]> By: Another one bites the dust « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL. https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-895 Another one bites the dust « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL. Tue, 15 May 2012 01:42:48 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-895 [...] more at the link. The Telecom, Media and Finance Associates, Inc. blog noted: Once this $10B windfall is more widely recognized, I think it is going to represent an [...] [...] more at the link. The Telecom, Media and Finance Associates, Inc. blog noted: Once this $10B windfall is more widely recognized, I think it is going to represent an [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » Spectrum bill dishes on DISH deal… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-830 TMF Associates MSS blog » Spectrum bill dishes on DISH deal… Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:15:14 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-830 [...] Assuming that this additional 15MHz of spectrum is intended to be contiguous with the other spectrum listed above (rather than being a single 15MHz contiguous block, which seems unlikely to be feasible), then it appears that DISH will give up 2x5MHz of its 2x20MHz of DBSD/TerreStar spectrum (2000-05/2180-85MHz), and move its uplink frequencies up by a further 5MHz into the original J block uplink (2020-25MHz) in exchange for the waiver, and so that there is no windfall to be criticized as in the case of LightSquared. [...] [...] Assuming that this additional 15MHz of spectrum is intended to be contiguous with the other spectrum listed above (rather than being a single 15MHz contiguous block, which seems unlikely to be feasible), then it appears that DISH will give up 2x5MHz of its 2x20MHz of DBSD/TerreStar spectrum (2000-05/2180-85MHz), and move its uplink frequencies up by a further 5MHz into the original J block uplink (2020-25MHz) in exchange for the waiver, and so that there is no windfall to be criticized as in the case of LightSquared. [...]

]]> By: An interesting direction : monoblogue https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-828 An interesting direction : monoblogue Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:44:53 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-828 [...] raise $586 million from a variety of sources. Estimates of the value of this spectrum ranged up to $12 billion, based on the value of other (failed) companies which possessed smaller frequency segments. [...] [...] raise $586 million from a variety of sources. Estimates of the value of this spectrum ranged up to $12 billion, based on the value of other (failed) companies which possessed smaller frequency segments. [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » Discretion is the better part of valor… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-734 TMF Associates MSS blog » Discretion is the better part of valor… Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:53:45 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-734 [...] it makes recent assertions by Brattle Group that generic “unencumbered spectrum” (such as LightSquared’s spectrum with a waiver) should have a value of roughly $1.00/MHzPOP look hugely [...] [...] it makes recent assertions by Brattle Group that generic “unencumbered spectrum” (such as LightSquared’s spectrum with a waiver) should have a value of roughly $1.00/MHzPOP look hugely [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » Sprint’s fundraising efforts… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-712 TMF Associates MSS blog » Sprint’s fundraising efforts… Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:48:12 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-712 [...] course, that statement once again highlights the issue of LightSquared’s own $10B windfall problem which the GPS industry are now making so much of, and makes it harder for the FCC to grant DISH a [...] [...] course, that statement once again highlights the issue of LightSquared’s own $10B windfall problem which the GPS industry are now making so much of, and makes it harder for the FCC to grant DISH a [...]

]]> By: TMF Associates MSS blog » DISH plays it cool, Sprint changes its tune… https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-695 TMF Associates MSS blog » DISH plays it cool, Sprint changes its tune… Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:04:19 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-695 [...] the FCC still has to avoid giving DISH a similar spectrum windfall to LightSquared and if DISH is to avoid having to give up part of the spectrum for reauction, it will have to come [...] [...] the FCC still has to avoid giving DISH a similar spectrum windfall to LightSquared and if DISH is to avoid having to give up part of the spectrum for reauction, it will have to come [...]

]]> By: ORBITRAX https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-666 ORBITRAX Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:12:11 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-666 You stated… “which is exactly why January’s action (which was not even brought before the full Commission) was such “an unprecedented and surprising development???.

Especially given the same International Bureau’s Globalstar ruling 2 months earlier which stated @42

“42.

Thus, to the extent the Commission would consider changes in its rules that “might permit more extensive standalone terrestrial operations” in this frequency band, this action would be taken following a proceeding in which a full record concerning all potentially available options can be developed.”

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1740A1.pdf

ORBITRAX

]]> By: ORBITRAX https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2011/09/20/lightsquared-and-the-fccs-10b-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-665 ORBITRAX Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:52:03 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=2455#comment-665 MSV's terminal did not operate with "temporary permission" similar to Globalstars. i.e." Hard Termination Date". The only expiration date was the expiration of the AMSC space station license 6 years into the future. However, they would be prevented to sell "additional" ATC terminals if the MSV-1 (Skyterra-1) license was unapproved or terminated at some future date, but ATC authority would not be suspended as it reads until the space station license expired, if not renewed. The MSV "envisioned terminal" was deemed to fully meet the "Safe Harbor" standard with the understanding that it would be able to communicate with a future satellite that I believe at the time, was "unlicensed, un-financed, and lacked at construction contract". Let alone having any "firm expiration date" attached to it, only that the ATC authority would expire when the AMSC space station license expired 6 years in the future. The issue is that of meeting the "Safe Harbor" requirements. If the Globalstar "dual-mode" user terminal, as originally proposed, i.e. "stand alone" "commercially acceptable form factor" providing low speed MSS simplex data, High Speed duplex ATC data, had been deemed to meet the Safe Harbor requirement, then the timing of the launch of next generation satellites, spare satellite requirements, and integrated service offering would be moot. Or at least equal treatment with the MSV that stated that the ATC "Safe Harbor" would expire with the Globalstar Space Station License in 2012,pending a new satellite/new constellation. While, at the same time, the MSV "Safe Harbor" compliant terminal in a 'stand alone", "commercially acceptable" configuration could not communicate in any form with the existing on-orbit satellites. Let alone having the requirement to provide "High Speed" Data services on the MSS segment. The issue for Globalstar was not so much gating requirements, i.e. Satellite Coverage, Spare Satellite requirements, but more so that the FCC failed to establish that the originally envisioned ATC user terminal met the "Safe Harbor" standard, while MSV's "envisioned" and approved "Safe Harbor" ATC terminal could not establish any communications with the on-orbit satellite without being converted into a "commercially unacceptable" form factor, i.e. external power boosters/antennas. Hence, the MSV (now Lightsquared) ATC user terminal was effectively a "stand-alone" Terrestrial device until a future time, which was unmetered, that a new satellite was licensed, financed and launched at a future date. In the end, we tend to think you have it backwards. That your view that the 2011 waver was out of step with previous history of FCC rulings. Versus our view that the September 14, 2010 ruling against Globalstar was "clearly out of step" with the overall history of FCC rulings associated with ATC. I believe you yourself described the Globalstar ruling as "shocking to most observers" http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2010/09/14/the-fcc-takes-a-hard-line-on-atc/ Like you opined at the time: ", and in the near term, LightSquared recently delayed the launch of its first next generation satellite to December 2010, which will also require a waiver from the FCC, and questions are sure to be raised about whether this delay was solely attributable to technical problems." However.. Not one question was raised. ORBITRAX MSV’s terminal did not operate with “temporary permission” similar to Globalstars. i.e.” Hard Termination Date”. The only expiration date was the expiration of the AMSC space station license 6 years into the future. However, they would be prevented to sell “additional” ATC terminals if the MSV-1 (Skyterra-1) license was unapproved or terminated at some future date, but ATC authority would not be suspended as it reads until the space station license expired, if not renewed. The MSV “envisioned terminal” was deemed to fully meet the “Safe Harbor” standard with the understanding that it would be able to communicate with a future satellite that I believe at the time, was “unlicensed, un-financed, and lacked at construction contract”. Let alone having any “firm expiration date” attached to it, only that the ATC authority would expire when the AMSC space station license expired 6 years in the future.

The issue is that of meeting the “Safe Harbor” requirements.

If the Globalstar “dual-mode” user terminal, as originally proposed, i.e. “stand alone” “commercially acceptable form factor” providing low speed MSS simplex data, High Speed duplex ATC data, had been deemed to meet the Safe Harbor requirement, then the timing of the launch of next generation satellites, spare satellite requirements, and integrated service offering would be moot. Or at least equal treatment with the MSV that stated that the ATC “Safe Harbor” would expire with the Globalstar Space Station License in 2012,pending a new satellite/new constellation.

While, at the same time, the MSV “Safe Harbor” compliant terminal in a ‘stand alone”, “commercially acceptable” configuration could not communicate in any form with the existing on-orbit satellites. Let alone having the requirement to provide “High Speed” Data services on the MSS segment.

The issue for Globalstar was not so much gating requirements, i.e. Satellite Coverage, Spare Satellite requirements, but more so that the FCC failed to establish that the originally envisioned ATC user terminal met the “Safe Harbor” standard, while MSV’s “envisioned” and approved “Safe Harbor” ATC terminal could not establish any communications with the on-orbit satellite without being converted into a “commercially unacceptable” form factor, i.e. external power boosters/antennas. Hence, the MSV (now Lightsquared) ATC user terminal was effectively a “stand-alone” Terrestrial device until a future time, which was unmetered, that a new satellite was licensed, financed and launched at a future date.

In the end, we tend to think you have it backwards. That your view that the 2011 waver was out of step with previous history of FCC rulings. Versus our view that the September 14, 2010 ruling against Globalstar was “clearly out of step” with the overall history of FCC rulings associated with ATC.

I believe you yourself described the Globalstar ruling as “shocking to most observers”

http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2010/09/14/the-fcc-takes-a-hard-line-on-atc/

Like you opined at the time:

“, and in the near term, LightSquared recently delayed the launch of its first next generation satellite to December 2010, which will also require a waiver from the FCC, and questions are sure to be raised about whether this delay was solely attributable to technical problems.”

However.. Not one question was raised.

ORBITRAX

]]>