Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(5,477 posts)

14. +1

Mon May 14, 2012, 05:48 PM

May 2012

If you are into conservation of resources, you should be against Lightsquared simply for the impact they would have had on precision agriculture.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lightsquared is dead (these are the guys who wanted to build a low-priced fiber network) [View all] DainBramaged May 2012 OP

This has been discussed for months. The only GPS systems effected Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #3

Educate yourself Indydem May 2012 #4

+1 TroglodyteScholar May 2012 #14

Take your own advice. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #16

Fiber? Try poorly designed wireless network, Indydem May 2012 #2

Maybe you should go way back on my journal or search the DU archives DainBramaged May 2012 #7

Hold the phone there... Llewlladdwr May 2012 #8

When Grassley defends something,run like hell. Wellstone ruled May 2012 #5

So, do I have this right? naaman fletcher May 2012 #9

The Lightsquared spectrum was allocated to satellite downlinks FarCenter May 2012 #10

gotcha. nt naaman fletcher May 2012 #12

NAILED it! TroglodyteScholar May 2012 #15

Lightsquared used a loophole in the regulations bananas May 2012 #11