{"id":22592,"date":"2020-09-09T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-09-09T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/09\/09\/differences-in-technologies-could-have-led-fcc-astray\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T17:56:09","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T17:56:09","slug":"differences-in-technologies-could-have-led-fcc-astray","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/commentary\/2020\/09\/09\/differences-in-technologies-could-have-led-fcc-astray\/","title":{"rendered":"Differences in technologies could have led FCC astray"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cAstounded,\u201d shocked\u201d and \u201cdismayed\u201d were some of the adjectives used by a vast array of experts to describe the Federal Communications Commission\u2019s April decision to approve an application by Ligado Networks<\/a>. Government testing had shown that Ligado\u2019s operations would interfere with reception of GPS signals<\/a> for many users. The application had been strenuously opposed by the executive branch, particularly the departments of Defense and Transportation, and myriad industry and citizen groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the decision was announced most had considered the issue safely dead. Yet, the FCC approved the application in the face of this overwhelming opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By way of explanation, the commission said its technical experts had concluded that interference with GPS signals was unlikely. And if it did occur, it would be very minor. Unfortunately, they offered no analysis or technical evidence to support the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This left many scratching their heads as to how government experts at the FCC could come up with findings so different from government experts at the departments of Defense and Transportation. <\/p>\n\n\n\t