8PSK or 16-QAM. 77W is on 16-QAM which might be a good fit for the dry air in the west.
End of Life Receivers
- Thread starter nelson61
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 172
- Views 30K
8PSK or 16-QAM. 77W is on 16-QAM which might be a good fit for the dry air in the west.
The continent is divided into zones by FCC with different power levels allowed in each zone. The southeast has the highest levels due to the high humidity/moisture which attenuates the signal (requiring a stronger signal for 24/7 reception while the West has the lowest allowed levels because the air is dry and requires lower power level for stable reception. 16-QAM is similar in that it has the potential to carry more data (but with increased risk of data loss).
Google 16-QAM and you will find "Notably absent from these various schemes is 8-PSK. This is because its error-rate performance is close to that of 16-QAM — it is only about 0.5 dB better[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] — but its data rate is only three-quarters that of 16-QAM. Thus 8-PSK is often omitted from standards and, as seen above, schemes tend to 'jump' from QPSK to 16-QAM (8-QAM is possible but difficult to implement)."
They are getting rid of 301's. They simply will not re-activate them once they are deactivated.
I got about 100 I'm sitting on from commercial accounts that switched to Directv.
About ready to go and dump them in the dumpster.
Thanks for providing that. I have not seen 16-QAM before. Whatever I have read has been QPSK, 8PSK, and MPEG4. I thought those were the transition stages that the Western Arc was going through.
I think I seen 64 QAM. A company is coming out with WAM to replace QAM. Supposed to increase bandwidth 50%, improve noise tolerance, increase signal distance 400%, use a lot less power. They are calling it a 20 year leap in technology. It is going to be showed off at CES 2014.
Okay, can someone help me understand this? I have two old pre-DVR receivers in my closet that we bought however many years ago--I think they're 301's. I've been hanging onto them because I was hoping they could "tide me over" if my DVR goes wonky. Should I just haul them to the recycler? (BTW, I still have all SD--I can't get HD because of a tree problem.)
301's no.. 311's yes.
I'm always installing 311's and 322's for the vast majority of mexicans and people that have very poor credit in my area. I'd rather install these all day long with a simple Dish500 rather than try to find a LOS for 129 using a 1k2 and then get hit for connectivity when they have none cause Dish is defaulting to VIP's like 211's and 222's now.
Is all the shop talk really relevant in the general dish forum? I feel your pain, but your rants seem better suited for the installer zone.
Most dish consumers probably don't care for all the trials and tribulations of the dish installation business.
I think dvrexpander could have left out two words, "mexicans and", and it would have offended no one. Other than that, IMHO his post was fine for the general run-of-the-mill Dish forum member.
While I do find it interesting, must consumers don't care about the connectivity and los issues and other installation related problems, they just want their service to work as advertized.
Maybe I am just too sensitive..
Maybe I am just too sensitive..
Is all the shop talk really relevant in the general dish forum? I feel your pain, but your rants seem better suited for the installer zone.
Most dish consumers probably don't care for all the trials and tribulations of the dish installation business.
Naw I like to bring up issues here as well cause people just don't ever know what happens behind the scenes...
Not tryin to sterotype just making a reference of common customers around the area...
Still the point is there that many 311's and 322's are still widely used, to stop using them causes issues with how Dish forces conditions on technicians that many people don't realize.
So much easier to do a 500 with a 322 than a 1k2 and a 222, mostly for the line of sight issues that make installation of the dish locations more annoying and require more time.
