In message <4B130E24.6050004@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >That particular aspect have been in deep investigation, and so has the >M-codes. Their similarity in strength and code separation make the >effect less than the gain you get. The BOC code aids to insert signal in >the null of the L1 code which causes additional spectral/code division. I'm told that a lot of people got busy again, after the US' L5 experiment went haywire... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4B130E24.6050004@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes: >> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> That particular aspect have been in deep investigation, and so has the >> M-codes. Their similarity in strength and code separation make the >> effect less than the gain you get. The BOC code aids to insert signal in >> the null of the L1 code which causes additional spectral/code division. > > I'm told that a lot of people got busy again, after the US' L5 > experiment went haywire... Yes, but not for that reason. The problem is derived to how the L5 payload was hooked into the antenna array which causes L1 and L2 reflexes due to impedance missmatches. The receiver manufactures have been trying to figure out how to handle these issues in the receivers. It's a one off error for that bird. All according to my recollection of available information. Cheers, Magnus