From: Ad 

George Sherwood wrote:
> Ad wrote:
>
>> Depends on whether that project then becomes a commercial one. I accept
>> the US has always had problems with this wrt it's funding of Boeing by
>> other means (e.g. disguising state aid as "military spending").
>
> How is GPS a commercial venture?
>

http://gps.faa.gov/FAQ/faq-gps.htm#7

"GPS is owned and operated by the U.S. Government as a national
resource. DOD is the "steward" of GPS, and as such, is
responsible to operate the system in accordance with the signal
specification. The National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
(PNT) Executive Committee was established by Presidential directive in 2004
to advise and coordinate federal departments and agencies on matters
concerning the Global Positioning System (GPS) and related systems. This
Committee replaced the Interagency GPS Executive Board (IGEB), which
oversaw GPS policy matters from 1996 to 2004. The Executive Committee is
chaired jointly by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Transportation.
Its membership includes equivalent-level officials from the Departments of
State, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
NASA. Components of the Executive Office of the President participate as
observers to the Executive Committee, and the FCC Chairman participates as
a liaison.

DOD is required by law to "maintain a Standard Positioning Service
(SPS) (as defined in the Federal Radionavigation Plan and the Standard
Positioning Service Signal Specification) that will be available on a
continuous, worldwide basis," and, "develop measures to prevent
hostile use of GPS and its augmentations without unduly disrupting or
degrading civilian uses." These strict requirements and current
augmentation systems should actually make DOD use of the system transparent
to the civil user. (Note: There will, necessarily, be localized testing of
the system by military and development teams but the testing will fall
under strict notification guidelines of safety-of-life users such as Coast
Guard and FAA).

U.S. transportation, public safety, economic, scientific, timing, and other
users rely on GPS extensively. In aviation and maritime transportation, GPS
is used for "safety of life" navigation and it is a critical
system for these applications. DOD is the steward of the system,
responsible to maintain the signal specification; the PNT provides
management oversight to assure that civil and military needs are properly
balanced"

Sounds pretty much like some socialist utopia masquerading under DoD
"stewardship" to me.


>>
>> So encrypt the signals such that only mil systems can use it.
>
> why?  This would increase the burden on military equipment and the
> intended use of the GPS system.  Most military GPS aren't equipped with
> such gear.
>

So you're happy to see the US engage in state subsidy of a system so as to
exclude all potential free market private capital options given it's hard
to compete with free where free = gov subsidized.

Hey maybe the Eu could start making airbus'es free.....by paying the total cost....


>> Ah here you're wandering all over the place. Surely Galileo was
>> initially set up due to a political imperative which was to get an
>> independant positioning system much like have an independant deterrant,
>> independent reconnaissance system etc? Heck if it's such a vital mil
>> imperative then it must be a state enterprise anyway so all this
>> silliness over "private enterprise" is now simply
drawing to a close.
>>
>> So by your reckoning one could define having a functioning large
>> aircraft capability s a mil imperative (e.g. airbus) as is a functioning
>> missile program (ergo Ariane)  etc.etc. Gee looks like the WTO is going
>> to be out of business.
>
> And that business would give away the aircraft?

If the EU paid the bills then why not. The EU could pay for every airbus
then airbus could give em away for free & Boeing would have a hard time
with it's ROI & would over time fold. I suspect then the US gov might
get a bit upset.

> The comparison between
> a radio signal that is available and an aircraft/missile is just silly.

Bollox. It's not a "radio signal" it's a carefully maintained
constellation of satellites all built & launched at vast expense.

> Trying to create an issue that isn't there.  Show me any case with the
> WTO that would show that providing GPS as the US does violates anything.
>  Even the EU hasn't attempted anything like that.
>

That's because there aren't any private capital competitors because the
US's state funding & then dumping has killed any market. Were there to
be one (e.g. were these companies to decide to carry on vs the
GPS/GLONASS/PRC equivalent state funded model then there could well be a
complaint registered in the WTO.

>
>>
>>>> I am sure that the next stage will be to take the US mil
to court in the
>>>>   WTO etc. for offering a state sponsored free service
& thus "dumping".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all can't have illegal state aid on that sort of scale can we
>>>> now....
>>> As I said above they will try to make that link, but they haven't won
>>> against Boeing and this link is even weaker.
>>>
>> Easy way out george.....encrypt the signals so only mil tech can use GPS
>> as after all it's a mil system & not a US state sponsored
>> anti-competitive dumping strategy so as to maintain a monopoly....
>
> Why?  Wouldn't a monopoly have to either use their leverage to raise
> prices or take some action to keep competitors out of the business?  I
> don't see either of those with GPS.  Providing a GPS system that any one
> can use provides very little benefit to USG.
>

Why would they? How do you justify a ROI vs a state/taxpayer funded effort
where all costs are swallowed & the service is free?

WRT very little benefit...OK then turn it off or encrypt it.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5