01.19.12
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 9:21 pm by timfarrar
Last week I expressed the view that LightSquared’s new investors could very well prolong the fight between LightSquared and the GPS industry. However, signs are starting to emerge that the FCC might be more willing to act than I had anticipated, and rule against LightSquared, which would potentially create a Material Adverse Change (MAC) in LightSquared’s first lien debt covenants, allowing the new investors to force the company into bankruptcy, and wrest control from Harbinger. While I still believe that the end game will involve liquidation of the business (not to mention litigation against all and sundry), the current debt investors would certainly benefit if they didn’t have to wait until all of LightSquared’s money had been spent in advance of a bankruptcy filing.
What evidence is there of a shift? Firstly the FCC responded very quickly to LightSquared’s assertions that the recent testing was “bogus” with a statement that:
We are awaiting completion of recommendations from NTIA. As we have said from the outset, the FCC will not lift the prohibition on LightSquared to begin commercial operations unless harmful interference issues are resolved.
Of course that is not what the FCC has said from the outset. Last year they said the agency won’t let LightSquared activate its network “until harmful interference issues are resolved”. Though subtle, that is quite a change in position, and an acknowledgement that the interference issues might not be resolvable.
More importantly, today has seen the resignation of a second high ranking FCC official and now both Ed Lazarus and Paul de Sa, who apparently negotiated the deals with SkyTerra (in early 2010) and LightSquared (in late 2010/early 2011) are leaving the FCC at a time when Sen. Grassley is shortly expected to receive details of LightSquared’s communications with the FCC. Indeed these two officials also met with Mr. Falcone when he visited the FCC on January 4.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to lose one official may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness. If (and I do mean if) there is something problematic to emerge from the communications between LightSquared and the FCC, then it would certainly help to defuse the ensuing political firestorm if the FCC had already acted on the recommendations of the NTIA (which I think will very likely follow those of the PNT Excom). Communications Daily is now reporting that the NTIA has received the full report from the PNT Excom and will now review it and “eventually” advise the FCC how to move on the issue. However, if high precision testing is not going to be undertaken in advance of formulating these recommendations, the FCC could be in a position to rule relatively soon.
Permalink
01.18.12
Posted in LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 12:15 pm by timfarrar
Well it seems like all LightSquared has left now is an attempt to claim that the US government is biased against it, representing a remarkable turnaround from this time last year, when most people thought that any favoritism was going in the opposite direction. However, it appears that LightSquared’s protests are going to have absolutely no effect, because all of their allegations about how the testing was not “fair and accurate” simply reflect the NTIA’s own mandates for how the testing should be conducted.
Firstly LightSquared claim that considering a 1dB interference degradation threshold was a sign that “the testing was rigged“. However, the NTIA Administrator, Lawrence Strickling, specifically set out in his memo of September 9 requiring this round of additional testing that:
We want to do what is necessary so that our recommendations to the FCC regarding cellular and personal/general navigation GPS receivers can be conclusive and final. To that end, I want to make it clear that our recommendations will be based on NTIA standard definitions and methodologies for assessing interference. We will not accept conclusions or analysis based on propagation models and other tools that depart from our standard methodologies.
Of course the “standard definition” as agreed for the June TWG report was 1dB of degradation, and it was only when LightSquared discovered that the June results were unfavorable that they came up (at the last minute) with their alternative proposal of allowing 6dB of interference degradation, which was never accepted by the NTIA.
Secondly, the Sep 9 letter requested that “that the test plan include a retest of the 10 devices that were shown by the TWG testing to be more susceptible to the lower 10 MHz scenario”. Thus it was at Mr. Strickling’s explicit request that the testing “deliberately focused on…devices that were least able to withstand potential interference”.
Finally the tests were “shrouded in secrecy” because they involved technical performance data on individual GPS devices which both the FCC and NTIA agreed to keep confidential. The same procedure was used in the first round of tests in order to avoid data being released on individually identifiable devices and it is far from clear what LightSquared is alleging was done differently this time. Indeed, with the most “susceptible” of the previously tested devices being included in the second round of tests, it would have been necessary to keep the list of tested devices confidential in order to avoid revealing which these “susceptible” devices were.
It therefore seems clear that by LightSquared’s definition Mr. Strickling himself would count as one of the “government end users [who] manipulated the latest round of tests to generate biased results”. That doesn’t seem like a recipe for success when you are asking the NTIA to “objectively re-evaluate this initial round of testing” and ignore the recommendations of the PNT Excom.
What I find even more surprising is that LightSquared was briefing its investors as recently as Tuesday last week that everything was “under control” with respect to interference, when their letter to Mr. Strickling on Friday Jan 13, after the PNT Excom letter was released, noted that:
LightSquared has communicated its concerns repeatedly to PNT EXCOMM, NPEF and Air Force Space Command throughout this process, both verbally and in correspondence. All of these concerns have been seemingly disregarded. As you are aware, we have also corresponded with your office to make sure you were advised as the process unfolded.
In addition, the letter states that the FAA had “unilaterally decided to suspend any further collaboration” with LightSquared. These two statements are very hard to reconcile with LightSquared’s briefing to investors that the interference issues were “under control”, which was the reason that new investors became involved with the company. As a result, these (and other) investors might now feel that its not only LightSquared’s (currently invisible) CEO who is lacking in credibility. There was certainly a rush for the exits yesterday, with prices on LightSquared’s first lien debt opening with a markdown of ~9 cents to 40-44 cents on the dollar, and then falling further to 38-42 cents during the day.
Permalink
01.13.12
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 4:53 pm by timfarrar
As I indicated in my post on Thursday last week, the PNT Excom has recommended today, in a letter sent to the NTIA Administrator, that the high precision testing be put on hold, because “there appears to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS”.
This letter confirms that it will be impossible for LightSquared to move forward with its buildout plans in the foreseeable future. However, in the absence of any final decision from the FCC or NTIA, it seems unlikely that LightSquared will change its current course of pursuing approval by all possible means, for as long it has the money to do so. As a result, it may still be many months before this saga reaches a definitive conclusion.
The primary reason for my belief that this will drag on for many months is that Harbinger’s position in LightSquared’s capital structure (subordinate to at least $1.6B of debt) makes it inconceivable that Harbinger would receive any recovery in a bankruptcy situation, and the first lien lenders are unable to stop LightSquared simply continuing to spend the current cash on LightSquared’s balance sheet for as long as it lasts. The only exception would be if a Material Adverse Change (MAC) occurred under the terms of LightSquared’s first lien loan, which could allow the lenders to issue a notice of default before the money is gone. However, it is hard to imagine that a MAC could have occurred solely as a result of an advisory committee’s recommendation and even if a response was to be issued by the NTIA in the near future, it is far from clear that a triggering event would have occurred.
Nevertheless, this news does make it clear that my expectation about the ultimate outcome of a LightSquared bankruptcy (namely that no terrestrial network will ever be deployed) is rather more plausible than the assumptions made by Icahn and other new investors that they could ultimately force through an approval. They must feel pretty upset that LightSquared was assuring them as recently as Tuesday that the technical issues had been solved (despite LightSquared apparently being unable to offer any “practical solutions or mitigations” to the problems identified in the November tests) and that it was only the politics of the situation that were preventing the FCC from approving their network.
UPDATE: This presentation was also posted by NOAA on Friday, giving more details of the November 2011 testing. Apparently these tests did include some high precision devices, which were badly affected by the LS lower 10 signal, even at very low operating power levels. As a result, NOAA conclude that a new filter will be required for these devices, and that is presumably one additional reason why LightSquared’s latest “power on the ground” proposal was not deemed to be a “practical solution”.
Permalink
Posted in Financials, Inmarsat, Maritime, Operators, Services, VSAT at 9:26 am by timfarrar
Back in 2008, the decision of Maersk to choose Inmarsat’s FleetBroadband service for 150 (later increased to 370) vessels was described by Inmarsat as “a ground-breaking deal” which represented “the strongest possible endorsement of our revolutionary FleetBroadband service”. As a result, this week’s revelation that Maersk is now going to shift 400 vessels to VSAT must be a correspondingly earth-shattering blow to Inmarsat, because not only has Maersk decided to move away from FleetBB, but it has opted for a Ku-band solution from Ericsson and Thrane & Thrane (with a 7 year service agreement), rather than the XpressLink service from Inmarsat which would provide an upgrade path to the Ka-band Global Xpress service.
Maersk’s average spend for the 370 ships using the FleetBB service was about $2600 per ship per month retail, implying that wholesale revenues to Inmarsat in 2011 were between $8M and $9M (and making them Inmarsat’s biggest single maritime customer for L-band service). While Maersk will presumably keep Inmarsat as a backup, its safe to say that the vast majority of this revenue will likely be lost once the transition is completed. The decision to make this change comes after Inmarsat’s move to impose usage caps on maritime vessels in October 2011 (with the data rate limited to 20kbps once the cap is reached), because Maersk had apparently been generating as much as 25% of all I4 (BGAN+FBB+SBB) traffic under its former unconstrained deal, and Inmarsat was worried about the saturation of its I4 network in regions such as the Middle East, which could impact higher value traffic from defense and media users.
This news also comes in the wake of Inmarsat’s major reorganization, which was revealed in early January, and has led to the exits of a number of senior managers in the government and maritime business. Despite Inmarsat’s claims that it “does not intend to change its policy of distributing its services primarily through independent channel partners”, the new management structure will have both direct and indirect sales reporting to the same people, which has been very poorly received by Inmarsat’s distributors, who clearly expect Inmarsat to cut them out of the business in the future, as Inmarsat emphasizes its own direct sales channels and gets “closer to our partners and customers” as the new CEO describes it.
I’m told another part of the reorganization is that Inmarsat’s financial reporting will be realigned from Q1 2012 so that the four new business sectors (Inmarsat Maritime, Inmarsat Government US, Inmarsat Government Global and Inmarsat Enterprise) will report their own results on a total (retail) basis, rather than breaking out wholesale L-band revenues in land, maritime and aeronautical sectors separately. This will mean that a maritime customer transitioning from a FleetBB L-band service to a resold Ku-band service such as XpressLink will bring in the same (or more) retail revenue (albeit with a much lower gross margin), whereas previously Inmarsat would have had to take a hit to its wholesale L-band revenues to facilitate this transition.
However, this is going to make financial analysts even more confused about the prospects for the company than they already are. Most analysts have maintained a very positive view of the company, and apparently the consensus view is that Inmarsat should continue to derive value from its North American spectrum assets, whether or not LightSquared files for bankruptcy. With the triple threats of continuing bad news in the maritime sector (where there is a pretty bleak outlook for shipping companies), reductions in defense spending (including the pullout from Afghanistan) and that Inmarsat might ultimately end up paying money to LightSquared’s creditors rather than receiving future lease payments, Inmarsat’s next results call is definitely going to be worth listening to.
Permalink
01.11.12
Posted in Financials, Inmarsat, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 3:05 pm by timfarrar
Yesterday, LightSquared held an investor call to provide an update on regulatory progress, including Mr. Falcone’s meeting last week at the FCC (which failed to gain the attention of the FCC Chairman, unlike Mr. Ergen’s visit to the FCC the same day). LightSquared’s investors clearly want to know whether there is any prospect of approval being granted, and a Debtwire story on Jan 3 reported that some of the previous investors have lost confidence in a successful resolution of the issue:
Farallon Capital Management dumped its stake in LightSquared’s USD 1.6bn first lien loan last month as the telecom company and sponsor Harbinger Capital battle regulatory controversies, according to two buyside sources and a source familiar with the matter. Displaying a greater taste for potential distress, Icahn Enterprises has emerged as a recent buyer of LightSquared’s bank debt in the low 40s, the two buyside sources said.
The exit of Farallon signals the loss of one of LightSquared’s former anchor investors. The California hedge fund was one of the biggest par holders in LightSquared’s capital structure, owning more than USD 150m of the Libor+ 1,200 bps term loans the company raised to finance the build out of the its 4G long term evolution (LTE) network, the sources said.
The loans were recently quoted at 43-45 from 90-92 at the beginning of August, according to Markit.
However, I understand that the new investors, including Icahn, haven’t stopped believing that they will be able to overcome the opposition of the GPS community, and ultimately gain approval on the back of (what was described to me as) their greater “sophistication” and financial resources compared to Harbinger. Indeed, part of Mr. Falcone’s objective in his FCC meeting may have been to suggest that the FCC would have to deal with less cooperative owners of the assets in the future, if they delay approval and allow LightSquared to fall into bankruptcy.
Its suprising that anyone could believe that they will succeed where Harbinger has failed, especially as the NTIA now appears determined to spin out the testing process for as long as possible (and almost certainly to beyond the November 2012 election). In addition, it would be easy for the FCC to initiate a (multi-year) rulemaking proceeding on receiver standards for GPS receivers, if they want to kick this issue even further into the long grass. Nevertheless, the implications are that LightSquared’s debt investors are likely to allow the company to keep pushing for approval, rather than trying to force it into bankruptcy more quickly in order to liquidate the assets before all the cash is gone. That would suggest a bankruptcy filing later in the second quarter rather than in the next couple of months.
Ultimately, I think this will look a lot like the Iridium bankruptcy in 1999, where investors thought there was something worth billions of dollars that could be rescued with a bit more money and better execution, and spent nine fruitless months before they finally conceded that $5B of investment needed to be completely written off. The fundamental reason why I think their efforts will fail is that the continuing lease payments to Inmarsat ($115M per year) very likely outweigh the value of 20MHz of L-band spectrum, which at best might be usable terrestrially in 5-10 years time (if approval was even granted).
At this point there is no way that Inmarsat is going to compromise on these lease payments, because the whole LightSquared affair (which Inmarsat enabled through the 2007 Cooperation Agreement) has deeply upset the DoD, which accounts for ~20% of Inmarsat’s total revenues (and probably an even higher proportion of the Global Xpress business plan). Indeed, some within Inmarsat might feel they would give back the money paid to date, if only the whole LightSquared mess could be made to go away. Inmarsat already appears to be telling the DoD that it was not their fault, because they were ordered by the FCC (under a Republican administration) to enter into the Cooperation Agreement, against their better judgment. In that context, Inmarsat’s protests in January 2005 that approval of the ATC plans proposed by LightSquared (then MSV) would lead to substantial degradation of MSS services due to overload interference, now appear very prophetic.
As a result, I expect the end game (which is now unlikely to be reached before 2013) to involve a combination of trying to recover the money paid to Sprint and not spent on deployment, selling the ground spare to Boeing, and agreeing to sell Inmarsat the in-orbit satellite and spectrum assets in exchange for a return of a sizeable proportion of the ~$500M paid to date. Whether that will be sufficient to provide downside protection to buyers of LightSquared’s first lien debt (totalling ~$1.6B) “in the low 40s” remains to be seen.
Permalink
01.05.12
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 4:49 pm by timfarrar
Over the last couple of weeks a steady drumbeat of negative reports have emerged about LightSquared, including that it is “running out of cash“, that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has “stack[ed the] deck against LightSquared” and now that Sprint has put its investment in the partnership with LightSquared “on hold”. Indeed the FCC Chairman reportedly even joked at a December dinner that “LightSquared has two tables…A quick note from the Hilton staff – those of you sitting at the upper table will need to vacate the table, and those of you at the lower table are still too loud.”
However, I’m told that even more damaging information is likely to emerge shortly, indicating that the NTIA’s planned testing of the compatibility of high precision GPS devices with LightSquared’s network has been put on hold. This testing was supposed to take place in the near future (perhaps as soon as this month, although a more realistic timetable was spring 2012). It was reported in December that LightSquared had not yet provided the filters for this testing program and it is unclear whether this is a contributing factor in the decision, or if the NTIA has simply decided that it is not worth expending resources on the testing until the issues revealed in December about the interference with general purpose navigation devices and an aviation terrain avoidance system have been addressed. It seems that the full details should be forthcoming once the NTIA sends its formal report and recommendations from the December 14 meeting to the FCC.
UPDATE (1/6): When FierceWireless asked the NTIA about this blog post, their spokesperson indicated that “federal testing has not yet begun on high-precision devices. We won’t speculate further on timing other than the fact that it would be appropriate for the high-precision testing to take place after the analysis of the location-based/navigation device testing is complete.” This certainly appears to be a change in stance from the September 9 letter from the NTIA to the FCC, which stated “At that time [when LightSquared presents its filtering solution for testing and evaluation], the federal agencies will need to develop and execute a plan to test and analyze LightSquared’s proposed mitigation”, because LightSquared certainly believes it has already “presented” its proposed solution to the Federal agencies for testing and evaluation. Separately, another source has confirmed to me that there is no agreed timeline or funding for the high precision and timing testing, especially given recent cuts in the FAA budget.
As an aside, the Reuters article on LightSquared’s finances appears to broadly confirm my assessment that LightSquared is likely to run out of money by the second quarter of 2012. In view of the net loss of $427M in the first three quarters of 2011, it also seems that my estimate of LightSquared’s cash burn rate is in roughly the right range. However, I’m told by another source that my supposition that LightSquared might not have repaid the Boeing vendor financing is incorrect, and that in fact, as LightSquared has stated, the company has raised “over $2.5B in debt and equity” (at least $150M more than I had estimated), which accounts for this discrepancy. Indeed, with the Boeing loan repayment only being $120M, LightSquared’s cash burn over the last two years must have been even more than I had projected.
Permalink
12.14.11
Posted in LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory at 6:02 pm by timfarrar
As scrutiny of the LightSquared and Harbinger situation intensifies, it seems to me that there are more and more questions to be answered. Firstly, will the FCC concede to Sen. Grassley’s request for its communications with LightSquared, to overcome the hold he has placed on the two nominees for vacant Commissioner slots? This certainly seems to be very likely (especially as LightSquared and Harbinger have apparently agreed to produce their communications with the FCC, which I doubt they would have done if they did not believe the FCC would produce these documents anyway). If that is the case, could last night’s unexpected resignation of Chairman Genachowski’s Chief of Staff, Ed Lazarus, have anything to do with what these emails might contain?
A second question relates to what role Jared (Jerry) Abbruzzese, who featured as a witness in the corruption trial of Senator Joseph Bruno back in 2009, has been playing at LightSquared/Harbinger? Bruno (a Republican state senator in New York) was paid consulting fees by Motient, the predecessor of TerreStar, and one time parent company of MSV, which ultimately became LightSquared. The New York Times mentioned Abbruzzese in a 2007 article on President Obama’s 2005 investment in SkyTerra, and a host of allegations related to Abbruzzese’s involvement in Motient/TerreStar and connected companies were made by Highland Capital in 2006. iWatchNews reported in July that “Abbruzzese eventually left the [TerreStar] satellite group”. However, in the White House FOIA email production from November, Abbruzzese turns up being copied on an internal LightSquared email to senior executives and legal counsel in August 2011.
Permalink
12.12.11
Posted in LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 7:50 am by timfarrar
As I mentioned on Friday, the test results from the draft NTIA report indicated that 75% of cellular and general navigation devices suffer from harmful interference. These are the 400 million “cell phones and auto systems” which LightSquared claimed were “already compatible” with its network, based on the “new plan, which was announced in June”. Now LightSquared claims that the tests did not take into account “a critical element in LightSquared’s mitigation proposal to manage the power from its network that GPS devices will be able to receive”. However, this “power on the ground” proposal was first set out in a presentation to the FCC in early September, and was never part of LightSquared’s June proposal. That was only a day or two before the NTIA mandated this further round of tests, so it is hardly surprising that it was not considered as part of the recent testing.
It is important to note that this phase of testing related to operation solely in the lower 10MHz block of L-band spectrum at LightSquared’s revised operational power limit of 32dBW (exactly as proposed by LightSquared in June). I understand that the test criteria was a limit of 1dB increase in the signal to noise ratio (rather than the 6dB that LightSquared originally proposed but the NTIA refused to accept), with line of sight to the tower. LightSquared’s newer “power on the ground” limits proposed in September do reduce the output power below 32dBW (to as little as 21dBW, i.e. ~15 times less) on the shortest towers (because these will produce the highest interference level close to the tower). However, LightSquared also proposes to increase these power levels by 3dB (i.e. double) in Jan 2015 and another 3dB (double again) in Jan 2017, so that far more towers will be operating at the 32dBW output level tested by the NTIA. Even a tall tower operating at the full power level could have a vehicle passing nearby in line of sight to the main beam, e.g. if the tower is next to an elevated roadway.
All in all, it is certainly true to say that the government conclusions are based on conservative assessments of interference (modest impact on devices in line of sight to a tower operating at the maximum power level). However, this is understandable when general navigation devices are relied on for vehicle safety, including in light aircraft.
As an aside, I found the holiday card pictured above in Target. If you come across it, then do send a copy to Mr. Falcone (450 Park Ave, Floor 30, New York NY 10022) or Mr. Ahuja (LightSquared, 10802 Parkridge Blvd, Reston VA 20191). I’m sure you will find the message inside (“Get lost in the spirit of the season”) to be very appropriate, especially if you add your own punctuation after the second word.
Permalink
12.09.11
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 12:46 pm by timfarrar
Bloomberg now has a copy of the results from the recent NTIA testing that I noted yesterday and is reporting that “LightSquared signals caused harmful interference to majority of GPS receivers tested” and “millions of fielded GPS units are not compatible” with the planned network. The presentation goes on to conclude that “No additional testing is required to confirm harmful interference exists”. This language is particularly important because the FCC Public Notice in September requesting this further testing stated that:
This Public Notice is issued pursuant to the provision of LightSquared Subsidiary LLC’s (LightSquared) conditional Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) authorization that LightSquared may not commence ATC operations until the Commission, in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), finds that Global Positioning System (GPS) interference concerns have been satisfactorily resolved. Following extensive comments received as a result of the technical working group process required by the International Bureau’s Order and Authorization dated January 26, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with NTIA, has determined that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential commercial terrestrial services offered by LightSquared will not cause harmful interference to GPS operations.
In other words, assuming this conclusion is endorsed by the NTIA at its meeting next week, the FCC would be perfectly within its rights to deem that no further testing is required to confirm that the conditions of the January 2011 waiver cannot be met and it must be revoked. Not only that, but LightSquared committed in January that “this process must be completed to the FCC’s satisfaction before LightSquared commences offering commercial service pursuant to approval of our requested modification with regard to our L-band MSS frequencies”, so it appears the FCC could potentially prevent LightSquared from offering any terrestrial commercial service at all. Though I suspect LightSquared will try to argue that this commitment is only applicable to service under the waiver, it will be hard to win that point when it was very clear from LightSquared’s discussions with the FCC and White House in January what was intended.
The FCC therefore is now confronted with a tricky decision: does it simply wait for LightSquared to run out of money, so it can try and avoid the inevitable legal action, or does it allow testing to continue, and risk the wrath of Congress (and Sen. Grassley in particular) for appearing to be supportive of LightSquared.
Coming after the SEC issued a Wells Notice to Harbinger Capital this morning, and Harbinger subsequently suspended redemptions from its funds, this news could hardly have come at a worse time.
Permalink
12.08.11
Posted in LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 4:02 pm by timfarrar
Despite LightSquared’s best efforts to spin the GPS interference issue as “needlessly complex” and turning “basic engineering issues into a political debate”, I’m told that this spin is yet again doomed to fail, once the results of the NTIA tests of cellular and general navigation results are published next week.
These results were described to me as “devastating”, because far from confirming (as most people have assumed) that there is no problem with cellular and general navigation devices if LightSquared limits its operations to the lower part of the L-band, in fact a “good chunk” of these 400 million devices will suffer interference at the 1dB C/No degradation that the NTIA has set out as the maximum acceptable impact level, even if the interference is not as overwhelming as under LightSquared’s original plan.
This comes only a day after LightSquared proclaimed to the FCC that it is “well on its way to demonstrating that GPS interference issues have been resolved”. As a result, it will be interesting to see how LightSquared tries to spin its way out of this problem. Perhaps LightSquared will tell the FCC that it should ignore not only the “subjective views” of the federal agencies but all of their testing as well?
After all, surely we can rely on LightSquared’s own “independent testing” to be more unbiased than those pesky federal agencies? And I’m sure that all of those politicians taking LightSquared’s side yesterday had carefully verified LightSquared’s technical claims before speaking out on the company’s behalf. No wonder our international partners are “absolutely aghast” that we are even having to discuss this “Made in the USA” fiasco.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
