Back to news

May 11, 2020 | International, C4ISR

DoD Pushes To Reverse FCC OK Of Ligado 5G Network

"The impact is significant, and it's unacceptable," Gen. Jay Raymond told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

By on May 06, 2020 at 8:14 PM

WASHINGTON: DoD is pressing for the FCC to reverse its controversial decision to approve Ligado's plan to create a mobile 5G communications network, one the Pentagon asserts will jam GPS receivers.

“It is clear to DoD that the risk to GPS far outweighs the benefits of this FCC decision. And the FCC needs to reverse their decision,” DoD CIO Dana Deasy told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing during a marathon hearing this afternoon. A formal “re-petition” action has to be taken by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) by the end of May.

NTIA, which falls under the Commerce Department, coordinates federal agency use of the radio frequency spectrum. DoD, Deasy told the SASC, is working to provide NTIA with the necessary technical information to do so.

SASC members were divided on the wisdom of the FCC's April 20 decision to approve Ligado's latest plan to repurpose its current L-band spectrum for use in a US-wide terrestrial 5G network. The SASC hearing did not fall along partisan lines. Instead, the division came between the SASC leadership and the committee's members who also sit on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It has jurisdiction over the FCC.

For example, while Republican SASC Chairman James Inhofe and Democratic Ranking Member Sen. Jack Reed excoriated the FCC decision, Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Commerce committee, expressed support for the FCC.

Indeed, a number of senators with a foot in the Commerce Committee raised the fact that the FCC's decision not only was approved unanimously by the five FCC commissioners, but also has been praised by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr. (Barr was tapped by President Donald Trump on April 4 to head a new Telecom Team designed to ensure that China cannot dominate the 5G marketplace and undercut the security of emerging US networks.)

DoD and many other agencies, including the Transportation Department, have opposed the planned Ligado (formerly LightSquared) network for nearly a decade, arguing that it will drown out GPS signals in most current receivers.

Their protests have been echoed by a wide swathe of the defense and commercial transport industry, including the Aerospace Industries Association and the National Defense Industrial Association. Indeed, according to a press release put out today by Inhofe's office:

“This opposition extends to the private sector as well. Numerous industries across the gamut – commercial air, satellite communications, weather, construction, and more – have also registered their objections to the FCC's Order.”

Mike Griffin, head of DoD Research and Engineering, explained that the issue is the “noise” that will be created by Ligado because it will use spectrum designed for satellite use to rebroadcast via terrestrial cell towers. He said that the situation for the vast number of GPS receivers today would be analogous to trying to hear the “rustling of leaves” through the noise of “100 jets taking off all at once.”

Perhaps most significantly, Griffin pushed back hard against Ligado's assertions in FCC filings (and most recently in a letter today to the SASC obtained by Breaking D) that most receivers would not be affected.

He said testing done by the Transportation Department showed that high-end GPS receivers used in civil aviation, which costs some $10,000 each, are impacted by Ligado's planned signal strength. Even those “hardened” receivers are “barely capable” of discerning GPS signals through the “noise” caused by Ligado's 9.8 dBW — an energy level about equal to that put out by a 10 watt light bulb).

More worryingly, Griffin asserted that most commercial GPS receivers — including those that would be used to guide self-driving cars in the future — “lose lock” on the signal at a power level some 100 times lower than Ligado plans to use.

Gen. Jay Raymond, double hatted as the head of Space Force and Space Command, told the SASC that Ligado's network would have a “significant impact” on Dod's homeland defense mission, as well as on military and commercial space launch capabilities.

“In my opinion, the impact is significant, and it's unacceptable,” he said.

While Deasy said one avenue for reversing the decision could be legislative action, it remains unclear what the SASC can actually do, however — should the committee even be able to agree on a course of action.

Inhofe said it is legally unclear to him right now whether the Congressional Review Act, that allows Congress to overturn a decision by a federal agency, actually applies to the FCC decision for technical reasons. (The FCC officially is independent of the Executive Branch.)

Retired Adm. Thad Allen, former Coast Guard Commandant and chair of the Space-Based Positioning and Timing National Advisory Board, suggested that the Senate Commerce Committee should hold a hearing and force the FCC to reconsider. Those members of that committee participating today, including Wicker, seemed reluctant to consider the idea of even having an exploratory hearing.

For example, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal suggested that the matter perhaps might be better adjudicated in the courts, given the questions raised about the legalities of the FCC's administrative process that have been raised by members of Congress as well as several industry groups.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/dod-pushes-to-reverse-fcc-ok-of-ligado-5g-network/

On the same subject

  • Could soldiers silently communicate using brain signals in the future?

    November 26, 2020 | International, C4ISR

    Could soldiers silently communicate using brain signals in the future?

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — A breakthrough in decoding brain signals could be the first step toward a future where soldiers silently communicate during operations. New research funded by the U.S. Army Research Office successfully separated brain signals that influence action or behavior from signals that do not. Using an algorithm and complex mathematics, the team was able to identify which brain signals were directing motion, or behavior-relevant signals, and then remove those signals from the other brain signals — behavior-irrelevant ones. “Here we're not only measuring signals, but we're interpreting them,” said Hamid Krim, a program manager for the Army Research Office. The service wants to get to the point where the machine can provide feedback to soldier's brains to allow them to take corrective action before something takes place, a capability that could protect the health of a war fighter. Krim pointed to stress and fatigue signals that the brain gives out before someone actually realizes they are stressed or tired, thus letting troops know when they should take a break. The only limit to the possibilities is the imagination, he said. Another potential future use is silent communication, Krim said. Researchers could build on the research to allow the brain and computers to communicate so soldiers can silently talk via a computer in the field. “In a theater, you can have two people talking to each other without ... even whispering a word,” Krim said. “So you and I are out there in the theater and we have to ... talk about something that we're confronting. I basically talked to my computer — your computer can be in your pocket, it can be your mobile phone or whatever — and that computer talks to ... your teammate's computer. And then his or her computer is going to talk to your teammate.” In the experiment, the researchers monitored the brain signals from a monkey reaching for a ball over and over again in order to separate brain signals. But more work is to be done, as any sort of battle-ready machine-human interface using brain signals is likely decades away, Krim said. What's next? Researchers will now try to identify other signals outside of motion signals. “You can read anything you want; doesn't mean that you understand it,” Krim said. “The next step after that is to be able to understand it. The next step after that is to break it down into into words so that ... you can synthesize in a sense, like you learn your vocabulary and your alphabet, then you are able to compose. “At the end of the day, that is the original intent mainly: to have the computer actually being in a full duplex communication mode with the brain.” The Army Research Office-backed program was led by researchers at the University of Southern California, with additional U.S. partners at the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; Duke University; and New York University. The program also involved several universities in the United Kingdom, including Essex, Oxford and Imperial College. The Army is providing up to $6.25 million in funding over five years. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/11/25/could-soldiers-silently-communicate-using-brain-signals-in-the-future/

  • Palantir wins competition to build Army intelligence system

    March 29, 2019 | International, C4ISR

    Palantir wins competition to build Army intelligence system

    By Shane Harris The Army has chosen Palantir Technologies to deploy a complex battlefield intelligence system for soldiers, according to Army documents, a significant boost for a company that has attracted a devoted following in national security circles but had struggled to win a major defense contract. Industry experts said it marked the first time that the government had tapped a Silicon Valley software company, as opposed to a traditional military contractor, to lead a defense program of record, which has a dedicated line of funding from Congress. The contract is potentially worth more than $800 million. The Army's decision to go with Palantir, which was co-founded by Peter Thiel, the billionaire investor and sometimes adviser to President Trump, brings to a close the latest chapter in a fierce competition. In March 2018, the Army chose Palantir and Raytheon to vie for the next phase of the Distributed Common Ground System (or DCGS-A, for Army), which lets users gather and analyze information about enemy movements, terrain and weather to create detailed maps and reports in real-time. The system is designed to be used by soldiers fighting in remote, harsh environments. But critics within the Army and in Congress have for years complained that DCGS-A cost too much and didn't deliver the intelligence and capabilities that soldiers needed. Some soldiers said the system was too hard to use and searched for alternatives. Many became backers of Palantir, which sells to governments and businesses, including in the financial and health care sectors. Palantir and its advocates argued that their software was cheaper and could meet all the Army's requirements. But Army brass defended their decision to pay for a custom-built platform. In 2016, Palantir successfully argued in court that the government was required by law to consider purchasing commercial products, when available, rather than custom ones. That sent the Army back to the drawing board and led to the face off between Palantir and Raytheon. Before his death. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) praised the new approach on Twitter, noting that after the Army had already spent $3 billion in development costs, “it was time to find another way.” Raytheon and Palantir were allowed to test their respective software platforms with a live audience of soldiers, who told them what they liked and didn't and what they would change. The two companies then refined their offerings to suit the Army's needs. Traditionally, the government first chooses a company to build a system according to a set of detailed requirements. But this approach let the Army take both companies' products for a test drive before settling on the winner. “The Army changed its approach to acquisition,” Doug Philippone, a former Army Ranger who leads Palantir's defense business, said in an interview. He said the company was always confident it could win if it were allowed to adjust its technology after getting feedback from soldiers, who he said put the software through a rigorous test, even parachuting out of airplanes with reinforced laptops containing Palantir's software. Chris Johnson, a spokesman for Raytheon, said the company was disappointed in the outcome. “We will wait for the Army's de-brief to understand their decision.” The Army did not provide a comment for this story. Raytheon and Palantir may compete for subsequent phases of work on the program. Unlike most Silicon Valley start-ups, which aim to make their fortunes building consumer applications and software, Palantir at its founding set its sites on Washington, believing that its data analytics tools would find an eager market among U.S. spy agencies and the military, which are constantly trying to manage ever-expanding streams of information. Philippone said the Army win had validated Palantir's strategy. “We founded the company around solving this particular mission,” he said. The company faced initial skepticism from investors, who thought it couldn't overcome entrenched bureaucratic interests and what they saw as political favoritism that led the Pentagon to spend billions every year with the same small group of Beltway contractors. “Everyone told us we should stay away from Washington because it was corrupt and we didn't know how to play golf with senators,” Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder, said in a 2011 interview. The company got an early investment in 2005 from In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital arm, which tries to quickly develop technologies that the intelligence agency might use. The In-Q-Tel connection helped Palantir get meetings with U.S. officials and intelligence analysts, and even test its software with the CIA's counterterrorism center, according to people familiar with the matter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/palantir-wins-competition-to-build-army-intelligence-system/2019/03/26/c6d62bf0-3927-11e9-aaae-69364b2ed137_story.html

  • Analysis: Military push for Canada to go to 'wartime footing' to produce armaments will be costly for taxpayers

    May 20, 2022 | International, Land

    Analysis: Military push for Canada to go to 'wartime footing' to produce armaments will be costly for taxpayers

    The push is on both in the U.S. and Canada to gear up industry to go to a “wartime footing” and significantly boost production of weapons.

All news