[time-nuts] Giove A has become "official" now.

Magnus Danielson cfmd at bredband.net
Mon Jan 15 14:24:54 UTC 2007


From: bg at lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Giove A has become "official" now.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:59:16 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1141.210.4.139.138.1168869556.squirrel at webmail.lysator.liu.se>

> Today GNSS is woven very deep into national infrastructure - CDMA radio
> systems, power generation, network time, etc, etc. Had the US elevated GPS
> from a US DoD system to a "NATO controlled" system in the late nineties
> that might have defused the drive from one or a few of the larger NATO/EU
> countries to build GNSS-2 that is now known as Galileo.
> 
> I think its a very good idea - for everyone including the US - that EU now
> builds a third Global GNSS system.
> 
> Why do you think Galileo will not be free for the user of the open service?

The license fee required for the "open service"?

I have heard that the proposed fee was 1 EUR, but I don't know the current
idea about it.

If there is a license fee, then it will be a "gold" system only, where those
that want more sats that GPS only pays the extra fee to have GPS and Galileo.
If the GPS constellation is big (and it is way beyond the initial nominal size
of 24, and by the look on things, ~30 is reasnoble for a fairly long time with
all the moderinsations sats awaiting launch and in the progress) then it might
not be such a big problem for most to "only" use GPS. Thus, the penetration of
the GNSS market for Galileo will not be very deep.

If they would do the "open service" license free (which was one of the things
which made GPS SPS to caugth on) and let the European (and possibly others)
taxpayers pay the mainpart, then a deeper penetration can be acheived.

This is pure and simple buissness economics. That they have failed to do the
calculus amazes me.

A 1 EUR "virtual component" on a receiver is an expensive component by the time
that the Galileo constellation is mature enought to make a reasnoble
alternative. I'm sure some dodgy manufactures will make receivers without
paying the fee. It is an old way of doing things which doesn't match the
modern way of doing things, but I guess this was they way they shaped it up to
make it accepable and pass the EU system.

I'm not sure this is what Poul-Henning meant, I am sure he is better informed
on this than me, but it is at least my views and understanding on the matter.

I beleive the Galileo system is for real, but I think some unwise decission was
made and for it to be a succsess that would have to change before it is
supposed to hit the streets.

Oh, and Galileo doesn't really makes the state much better for the civilian
community in relation to intentional or non-intentional disturbances. It will
shift the numbers a bit in the margin, but in the overall it doesn't provice as
much backup as one would wish. Keyed solutions is better but not good enought.
Doing it with sats is cool and all that, but for some things it is not always
the solution.

Cheers,
Magnus




More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com mailing list