FCC opens door to GPS alternatives, but risks undermining its greatest strength

On March 27, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unanimously approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to explore GPS alternatives, amid escalating threats to security and system resiliency. The move signals growing federal concern about the reliability of space-based navigation and timing infrastructure amid rising global interference and spoofing incidents.

But while the FCC’s broad consideration of alternative technologies is a welcome step forward, its framing also risks weakening one of GPS’s most important defenses: the growing adoption of multi-constellation strategies across the commercial sector.

Rising Threats, Broader Mandates

The FCC’s decision follows the release of the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) latest safety report, which documented a 175% increase in GPS interference and a 500% rise in spoofing attacks year-over-year. These incidents pose critical challenges to aviation safety, emergency services, telecommunications, and countless other sectors that rely on Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services.

Against this backdrop, the Commission’s vote reflects a bipartisan sense of urgency. The NOI invites public comment on a range of technologies that could serve as complements or alternatives to GPS, including low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, terrestrial signals, and enhanced end-user devices. This broad framing is encouraging and acknowledges the multifaceted nature of PNT resilience.

A Multi-Layered Approach to PNT

The FCC’s focus on diversification — across space-based, terrestrial, and user-level technologies — is not only prudent, but essential. Enhancing national security and system redundancy requires more than a single backup solution. It demands layered resiliency that integrates complementary modalities into a cohesive ecosystem.

It is very encouraging that the NOI outlines a wide array of candidate technologies that could play a role in improving the U.S. PNT infrastructure. These range from inertial navigation systems and time transfer services to novel terrestrial radio signals and commercial LEO constellations. By casting a wide net, the FCC opens the door to innovation and allows market forces to contribute meaningfully to PNT modernization.

Commercial Reality vs. Government Narrative

However, the FCC’s discussion notably underplays a key reality: few commercial technologies today rely solely on GPS. The commercial PNT landscape has already moved beyond single-source dependency, with the vast majority of systems integrating multiple GNSS constellations (such as GPS, Galileo, BeiDou and GLONASS) alongside additional sensor and signal data to ensure robust coverage and accuracy.

This multi-constellation approach is arguably the single most powerful tool we have to strengthen the resilience of GPS-dependent systems. By allowing receivers to pull data from multiple GNSS sources, users gain spatial and signal diversity, enabling them to cross-check signals, reject spoofed or erroneous data, and maintain accurate position and timing even in degraded environments. It’s important to remember that a device can’t selectively use GNSS networks depending on the user’s geography. If U.S. device makers disable BeiDou and GLONASS, then anywhere in the world that receiver goes it will be less performant and competitive. In recent field tests, we found that disabling the BeiDou constellation decreased a device’s positioning accuracy by 30% to 40%.

This accuracy and resilience are especially important in sectors like aviation, autonomous systems, and emergency response, where signal fidelity and redundancy can be life-saving. Multi-constellation GNSS use isn’t theoretical: it’s already the industry standard.

The International Tightrope

Despite this, key elements of the NOI, as well as comments during the meeting, reflect a growing U.S. government skepticism toward the inclusion of foreign GNSS systems, especially BeiDou and GLONASS. While geopolitical caution is understandable, overly rigid restrictions on international signals could do more harm than good.

These systems are not merely foreign-owned alternatives. They are integral components of the modern GNSS environment. Many U.S. commercial devices — ranging from smartphones to augmented reality, fleet tracking systems, drones, and more — already leverage multiple GNSS sources by default. Future technologies such as autonomous vehicles, robotics and urban air mobility will also require multiple GNSS signals to function. Prohibiting or restricting their use could mean rolling back years of progress in signal resilience, not to mention stymying future technologies, and all for a speculative and largely unquantified national security risk.

While there are some valid concerns about adversarial control over PNT infrastructure, the FCC must weigh these carefully against the real, measurable benefits of an open and interoperable GNSS ecosystem. An overcorrection risks introducing new vulnerabilities in the name of mitigating others. In reality, the more vulnerable elements of the threat surface are GNSS receivers and mobile networks, particularly 5G systems, where user location is actually determined and tracked. Unlike the largely speculative and technically unproven threats tied to adversarial GNSS constellations, there are well-documented cases of compromised receivers and nation-state exploitation of mobile infrastructure – the very reason several countries have banned Chinese 5G providers. The FCC should focus on these clear and active risks, rather than reacting to theoretical scenarios that experts argue are not technically feasible.

Innovation at Risk

There is a significant opportunity at this moment. The NOI rightly identifies emerging technologies that can enhance U.S. resiliency, including advanced chipsets, LEO-based positioning, crowd-sourced signal verification, and next-generation timekeeping tools.

However, that innovation cannot thrive in isolation. If the U.S. limits the ability of domestic systems to take full advantage of all available GNSS sources, it will undermine both resiliency and competitiveness. Even worse, it could widen the gap with foreign alternatives, especially China’s BeiDou system, which is already surpassing GPS in both accuracy and global coverage. GNSS has always thrived on multi-national cooperation and the opportunity of soft power influence. Both of which are diminished by exclusion, which is likely why there have not been bans by other countries to date.

A Path Forward

The FCC is right to prioritize this issue. It is urgent for the U.S. to build a more robust and secure PNT infrastructure in the face of these mounting threats. But its long-term success will depend on whether or not it embraces the full complexity of the PNT landscape.

This means supporting:

• Open, multi-constellation GNSS access for commercial users.
• A flexible, layered approach that integrates space, terrestrial, and user-level technologies.
• Public-private collaboration to accelerate innovation and deployment.
• Clear regulatory guidance that balances national security concerns with commercial realities.

The future of secure and reliable PNT lies not in isolating GPS, but in augmenting it through interoperability, diversity, and resilience at every layer of the system.

If the FCC’s inquiry can steer the country in that direction, it will be a pivotal moment not just for GPS, but for the entire space-based infrastructure upon which modern life depends.