Mathew, can you go into more detail? Given the garbage their online web
portal is and the laughable excuses for no CLI, I expect problems to be met
with less than stellar support. So the more history of user experience i
have the quicker I can get to RMA or full return if these give us grief


On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the point is, on a B11 link (well, both of ours, anyway), the
> modulation will be all over the place at any given time for no apparent
> reason. Every other licensed radio I've ever used will sit at full
> modulation (or whatever it's supposed to be at) unless there's something
> wrong with it, or there's a major storm going through that causes enough
> fade for the signal level to drop. B11's tend to act much more like I would
> expect an unlicensed link to act.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> So does that mean that the SAF radios and 80GHz radios that only do
>> 256QAM or 64QAM aren’t doing full modulation?
>>
>> You use what works and is in your budget.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:43 AM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Figuring out what our FCC application says
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you could say it is not at full modulation if it is not using the
>> full channel width, but yeah, even if it is FSK is is still fully
>> modulating.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bill Prince
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 10:33 AM
>>
>> *To:* [email protected]
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Figuring out what our FCC application says
>>
>>
>>
>> All of our newer radios do 1024 QAM, and a couple do 2048 QAM. They're
>> always running at full modulation (unless something is wrong).
>>
>> bp
>>
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/17/2017 9:19 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>>
>> What do you define as full modulation?  These are 256QAM radios and they
>> modulate at 256QAM?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to