cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Hi,


Can some please tell me if my signals looks ok.

CODA with 7.1.1.37 on 500/20 profile.

 

I compare them with my friend who uses CODA with the same firmware on 1gb/30 profile.   he has much better bufferbloat stats then me.   Under OFDM Downstream Overview, his #0 shows NA and PLC is 6.4 vs 8.9 (#0) and 9.5 (#1) on my.   Under his Upstream Overview Ports 1-4 use Channels (3, 4, 1 and 2) with Signal strength of 43, 43, 42 and 42.   On my modem I use channels 6, 8, 7 and 5 with signal strength of 38, 38, 38 and 37.

 

Are these within norm?

Downstream Overview
Port ID Frequency (MHz) Modulation Signal strength (dBmV) Channel ID Signal noise ratio (dB)
1 591000000 QAM256 9.800 7 38.605
2 597000000 QAM256 9.199 8 38.605
3 603000000 QAM256 9.000 9 38.605
4 609000000 QAM256 9.400 10 38.605
5 849000000 QAM256 9.500 2 38.605
6 855000000 QAM256 9.500 3 38.605
7 861000000 QAM256 9.400 4 37.636
8 579000000 QAM256 9.699 5 38.983
9 585000000 QAM256 9.699 6 38.605
10 279000000 QAM256 9.000 1 38.605
11 615000000 QAM256 9.500 11 38.605
12 621000000 QAM256 9.400 12 38.605
13 633000000 QAM256 9.699 13 38.983
14 639000000 QAM256 10.000 14 38.605
15 645000000 QAM256 10.199 15 38.983
16 651000000 QAM256 10.199 16 38.605
17 657000000 QAM256 10.199 17 38.605
18 663000000 QAM256 10.300 18 38.605
19 669000000 QAM256 10.199 19 38.605
20 675000000 QAM256 10.099 20 38.605
21 681000000 QAM256 10.000 21 38.605
22 687000000 QAM256 10.000 22 38.605
23 693000000 QAM256 9.900 23 38.605
24 699000000 QAM256 10.300 24 38.983
25 705000000 QAM256 10.000 25 38.605
26 711000000 QAM256 10.099 26 38.605
27 717000000 QAM256 9.699 27 38.605
28 723000000 QAM256 9.599 28 37.355
29 825000000 QAM256 10.000 29 38.605
30 831000000 QAM256 10.099 30 38.605
31 837000000 QAM256 10.000 31 38.605
32 843000000 QAM256 9.800 32 38.605
OFDM Downstream Overview
Receiver FFT type Subcarr 0 Frequency(MHz) PLC locked NCP locked MDC1 locked PLC power(dBmv)
0 4K 275600000 YES YES YES 8.900002
1 4K 827600000 YES YES YES 9.500000
Upstream Overview
Port ID Frequency (MHz) Modulation Signal strength (dBmV) Channel ID Bandwidth
1 25900000 64QAM 38.520 6 6400000
2 38700000 64QAM 38.520 8 6400000
3 32300000 64QAM 39.270 7 6400000
4 21100000 64QAM 37.010 5 3200000
5 0 QAM_NONE - --- 1600000
6 0 QAM_NONE - --- 1600000
7 0 QAM_NONE - --- 1600000
8 0 QAM_NONE - --- 1600000
OFDM/OFDMA Overview
Channel Index State lin Digital Att Digital Att BW (sc's*fft) Report Power Report Power1_6 FFT Size
0 DISABLED 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2K
1 DISABLED 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2K

 

 

**Labels Added**

 

 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Does my signal look ok?

Ok, your downstream signal levels are still too high, but, the question is, are you seeing any issues with downstream data or disconnects.  If not, then the best solution is to leave it alone.  You don't need the amplifier.  Disconnect it and put it aside just in case you decide to use a MoCA network at some point in the future.  

 

The best solution for this is to install a Forward Path Attenuator to drop the downstream signal levels  That attenuator will drop the downstream signal levels and leave the upstream levels where they are.  Here's an example:

 

https://www.amazon.ca/line-Signal-Forward-Attenuator-FPA6-54/dp/B07882H96R

 

That's a 6 dB Forward Path Attenuator.  The better solution would be a 9 dB Forward Path Attenuator, but, that looks to be fairly expensive.  So, I'd go with a 6 dB Forward Path Attenuator if I really wanted to do something about this. 

 

https://www.amazon.ca/FPA9-54-Forward-Attenuator-DOCSIS-Cable/dp/B08DMBWG8Q

 

I don't believe that Rogers techs carry Forward Path Attenuators in their vans.  I suspect that they would only have the normal attenuators on hand which drops the downstream signal level but ends up pushing the upstream signal level by the same amount.  That's not a great solution unless you have sufficient upstream room between the upstream signal level and the max output level of 51 dBmv.  If you were to install a normal 6 dB attenuator you would end up with approx 3 to 4 dBmV for the downstream levels and approx 45 dBmV for the upstream levels, which is still acceptable.  Ideally one would drop the downstream signal levels down to 0 dBmV, but, using a conventional attenuator, you would end up with the upstream signal levels around 48 to 49 dBmV, which is too close the max output limit of 51 dBmV for my liking.  Overtime, as the external cable and its connectors age, the downstream levels naturally drop due to cable losses, and the modem output levels are commanded to increase in order to arrive at the CMTS within the required specs.  Running at 48/49 dBmV before that starts is looking for trouble at some point in the future.  When the modem reaches its max output levels, its starts to drop upstream channels one by one in order to use the max output power across fewer channels.  That will happen channel by channel as required.  When you're at that stage, you will know it as the data rates will drop due to the loss of one or more upstream channels.  

 

If you had a splitter on hand, either a two port or a multi-port splitter you could use that temporarily as an attenuator.  Its not an ideal solution, but it would work.  A two port splitter drops the signal level by 3.5 dB, a multi-port splitter will usually have one port dropping 3.5 dB, and two or more ports dropping 7 dB.  You could use the 7 dB port for an experiment.  With either of those in place, you would see the difference in the signal levels at the modem.  The splitter isn't ideal as the unused ports should have a 75 ohm terminator installed to prevent any internal signal reflection back down the cable system.  They look like this:

 

 https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=75+ohm+terminator&i=electronics&crid=2A6KO2Y5SYI77&sprefix=75+ohm+terminat...

 

Hope this helps.  As they say, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  

 

Of note, you have two DOCSIS 3.1 downstream OFDM channels running, so, I'd expect pretty good downstream performance.  DOCSIS 3.1 upstream isn't running on your modem.  That has to be enabled at the CMTS, so, its most likely that your CMTS isn't running DOCSIS 3.1 upstream for any of it's connected neighbourhood nodes.



View solution in original post

17 REPLIES 17

Re: Does my signal look ok?

RRF1
I Plan to Stick Around
How many outlets (splitter ports) in the house? Is there an amplifier in the house? Any idea how far from the distribution tap you are?
Reason I ask is 10dBmv on the downstream seems slightly high unless you have just 1 outlet and are close to the tap.

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Hi,

Thank you for getting back to me.  I used to have 2 Rogers TV boxes with 1000/30 profile in the past.  The tech installed Antronix MVRA501B MoCA Enhanced VoIP Residential Amplifier and I still use it   Please see the pictures.  However at the moment I only use one output going to CODA modem.    There is also red filter on the output going CODA modem.  I'm about 30'-40' to the the tap box on the outside of the house. 

 

Should I try to bypass amplifier and go straight to the CODA modem and post results?    What should be good power 6-7 dBmv?

 

OFDM Downstream Overview

Receiver FFT type Subcarr 0 Frequency(MHz) PLC locked NCP locked MDC1 locked PLC power(dBmv)
0 4K 275600000 YES YES YES 9.500000
1 4K 827600000 YES YES YES

9.800003

 

 

Thank you so much 🙂

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

rog1.jpgrog2.jpg

Re: Does my signal look ok?

@amd7674 your DOCSIS 3.0 downstream channels (1 to 32) are too high.  They should all be centred around 0 dBmV with a signal to noise ratio of 36 to 40 dB.  The upstream DOCSIS 3.0 channels (1 to 4) should be running in the 36 to 40 dBmV range.  

 

Can you bypass the amplifier and post the signal levels.  After you bypass the signal levels, restart/reboot the modem, then copy the signal levels.  

 

Without any other devices, such as Nextboxes or Home Phone modems in the local cable network, you probably don't need the amplifier.  The signal levels will show if that's the case.  



Re: Does my signal look ok?

RRF1
I Plan to Stick Around

I see only 1 RF Output port being used, so I assume it feeds your modem and the Ignite Set Top Box is fed via WiFi. Correct? I ask because I see this is a MoCA splitter which can be used to extend WiFi over the Coax if the modem and STB supports MoCA, or there is another MoCA adapter at the STB.

 

The "filter" with the red stripe looks like an attenuator, which is used to reduce the signal strength into the modem. The specs for that amp show 0dB gain on the 4 RF outputs, so it would need approximately 8dB gain to overcome the losses of the internal 4-way splitter. This means, with 10dBmv measured on the downstream at the modem, the input to the amplifier must be at least 10dBmv plus the value of the attenuator. (That value will be stamped on the side of the attenuator.) This could be high for a residential amplifier. 

 

From the photo it looks like the spigot with the green light is connected to a cable providing just power from a AC transformer, and your RF only input is above that. I would first try by-passing the amp, by removing the RF only input and the RF cable with the red stripe attenuator and connect those 2 together. Keep the attenuator on the RF cable. You will need a "barrel splice" aka F-81 to make this connection. You will still have 10dBmv (which is in the upper range) at the modem downstream, but will have eliminated any over-driving of the amplifier. 

 

You could also try moving the attenuator to the upper RF Input spigot, to reduce the input to the amplifier.

 

 

 

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Thank you very much for your assistance and help.   I've bypassed the MOCA amplifier and I've connected outside coax straight with CODA modem.   I do not have any MOCA TV STBs/receivers anymore.   I don't have any wifi MOCA extenders in place.   The MOCA amplifier in the past was used for 2 TV receivers and CODA modem.   However for the last year or so I'm using only CODA modem.  The "filter" with the red stripe is not an attenuator but MoCA 'POE' Coax Filter Cable TV Eliminate Multi-Room DVR Interference & Modem.    Please see the stats after bypassing MOCA amplifier:

 

Downstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDSignal noise ratio (dB)
1651000000QAM25610.6991638.605
2591000000QAM25610.199738.983
3597000000QAM2569.500838.605
4603000000QAM2569.400938.983
5849000000QAM25610.199238.605
6855000000QAM25610.300338.605
7861000000QAM25610.199437.636
8579000000QAM25610.099538.605
9585000000QAM25610.199638.983
10609000000QAM25610.0991038.983
11615000000QAM25610.1991138.605
12621000000QAM25610.3001238.605
13633000000QAM25610.5001338.605
14639000000QAM25610.6991438.605
15645000000QAM25610.8001538.983
16279000000QAM2568.400138.605
17657000000QAM25610.8001738.605
18663000000QAM25610.9001838.605
19669000000QAM25610.8001938.605
20675000000QAM25610.8002038.605
21681000000QAM25610.8002138.605
22687000000QAM25610.9002238.983
23693000000QAM25610.8002338.605
24699000000QAM25611.0992438.605
25705000000QAM25610.5992538.605
26711000000QAM25610.5002638.983
27717000000QAM25610.0992738.605
28723000000QAM25610.1992837.636
29825000000QAM25610.4002938.605
30831000000QAM25610.5003038.605
31837000000QAM25610.5993138.605
32843000000QAM25610.4003238.605
OFDM Downstream Overview
ReceiverFFT typeSubcarr 0 Frequency(MHz)PLC lockedNCP lockedMDC1 lockedPLC power(dBmv)
04K275600000YESYESYES8.900002
14K827600000YESYESYES10.000000
Upstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDBandwidth
12590000064QAM39.02066400000
23870000064QAM39.02086400000
33230000064QAM39.02076400000
42110000064QAM38.01053200000
50QAM_NONE----1600000
60QAM_NONE----1600000
70QAM_NONE----1600000
80QAM_NONE----1600000
OFDM/OFDMA Overview
Channel IndexStatelin Digital AttDigital AttBW (sc's*fft)Report PowerReport Power1_6FFT Size
0DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K
1DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K

Re: Does my signal look ok?

Ok, your downstream signal levels are still too high, but, the question is, are you seeing any issues with downstream data or disconnects.  If not, then the best solution is to leave it alone.  You don't need the amplifier.  Disconnect it and put it aside just in case you decide to use a MoCA network at some point in the future.  

 

The best solution for this is to install a Forward Path Attenuator to drop the downstream signal levels  That attenuator will drop the downstream signal levels and leave the upstream levels where they are.  Here's an example:

 

https://www.amazon.ca/line-Signal-Forward-Attenuator-FPA6-54/dp/B07882H96R

 

That's a 6 dB Forward Path Attenuator.  The better solution would be a 9 dB Forward Path Attenuator, but, that looks to be fairly expensive.  So, I'd go with a 6 dB Forward Path Attenuator if I really wanted to do something about this. 

 

https://www.amazon.ca/FPA9-54-Forward-Attenuator-DOCSIS-Cable/dp/B08DMBWG8Q

 

I don't believe that Rogers techs carry Forward Path Attenuators in their vans.  I suspect that they would only have the normal attenuators on hand which drops the downstream signal level but ends up pushing the upstream signal level by the same amount.  That's not a great solution unless you have sufficient upstream room between the upstream signal level and the max output level of 51 dBmv.  If you were to install a normal 6 dB attenuator you would end up with approx 3 to 4 dBmV for the downstream levels and approx 45 dBmV for the upstream levels, which is still acceptable.  Ideally one would drop the downstream signal levels down to 0 dBmV, but, using a conventional attenuator, you would end up with the upstream signal levels around 48 to 49 dBmV, which is too close the max output limit of 51 dBmV for my liking.  Overtime, as the external cable and its connectors age, the downstream levels naturally drop due to cable losses, and the modem output levels are commanded to increase in order to arrive at the CMTS within the required specs.  Running at 48/49 dBmV before that starts is looking for trouble at some point in the future.  When the modem reaches its max output levels, its starts to drop upstream channels one by one in order to use the max output power across fewer channels.  That will happen channel by channel as required.  When you're at that stage, you will know it as the data rates will drop due to the loss of one or more upstream channels.  

 

If you had a splitter on hand, either a two port or a multi-port splitter you could use that temporarily as an attenuator.  Its not an ideal solution, but it would work.  A two port splitter drops the signal level by 3.5 dB, a multi-port splitter will usually have one port dropping 3.5 dB, and two or more ports dropping 7 dB.  You could use the 7 dB port for an experiment.  With either of those in place, you would see the difference in the signal levels at the modem.  The splitter isn't ideal as the unused ports should have a 75 ohm terminator installed to prevent any internal signal reflection back down the cable system.  They look like this:

 

 https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=75+ohm+terminator&i=electronics&crid=2A6KO2Y5SYI77&sprefix=75+ohm+terminat...

 

Hope this helps.  As they say, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  

 

Of note, you have two DOCSIS 3.1 downstream OFDM channels running, so, I'd expect pretty good downstream performance.  DOCSIS 3.1 upstream isn't running on your modem.  That has to be enabled at the CMTS, so, its most likely that your CMTS isn't running DOCSIS 3.1 upstream for any of it's connected neighbourhood nodes.



Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Thank you for all the info.  🙂 So  I bought 6 dB attenuator and some 75 ohm terminators.   For now I put two 3.5db + 3.5db splitters together to test.    The results look promising.

 

Downstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDSignal noise ratio (dB)
1651000000QAM2564.0991638.983
2591000000QAM2563.500738.605
3597000000QAM2562.799837.636
4603000000QAM2562.500937.636
5849000000QAM2563.400238.605
6855000000QAM2563.400337.636
7861000000QAM2563.299438.605
8579000000QAM2563.500538.605
9585000000QAM2563.500638.605
10609000000QAM2563.0001038.605
11615000000QAM2563.0991138.605
12621000000QAM2563.2001238.605
13633000000QAM2563.5991338.605
14639000000QAM2564.0001438.605
15645000000QAM2564.0991538.983
16279000000QAM2561.799137.636
17657000000QAM2564.0991738.605
18663000000QAM2564.1991838.605
19669000000QAM2564.0991938.605
20675000000QAM2564.0002038.605
21681000000QAM2564.1992138.605
22687000000QAM2564.1992238.605
23693000000QAM2564.1992338.605
24699000000QAM2564.4002438.983
25705000000QAM2564.0002538.605
26711000000QAM2563.9002638.605
27717000000QAM2563.4002737.636
28723000000QAM2563.5002837.355
29825000000QAM2563.7002938.605
30831000000QAM2563.7003038.605
31837000000QAM2563.5993138.605
32843000000QAM2563.4003238.605
OFDM Downstream Overview
ReceiverFFT typeSubcarr 0 Frequency(MHz)PLC lockedNCP lockedMDC1 lockedPLC power(dBmv)
04K275600000YESYESYES2.400002
14K827600000YESYESYES2.599998
Upstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDBandwidth
12590000064QAM45.02066400000
23870000064QAM45.02086400000
33230000064QAM45.02076400000
42110000064QAM44.01053200000
50QAM_NONE----1600000
60QAM_NONE----1600000
70QAM_NONE----1600000
80QAM_NONE----1600000
OFDM/OFDMA Overview
Channel IndexStatelin Digital AttDigital AttBW (sc's*fft)Report PowerReport Power1_6FFT Size
0DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K
1DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

BTW... do you know why am I using Channels 6, 8, 7 and 5 (back end) instead of 1-4?

Ok time for bed LOL...

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

@Datalink @RRF1 do you guys know if these are forward attenuators or something else?  I've placed an order on 6dB unit, but I wouldn't mind trying 8db and 10db variants.  However I don't believe these are the proper types.  Please advise.

Re: Does my signal look ok?

@amd7674 those attenuators don't look like Forward Path Attenuators.  Here's a link to a PPC spec sheet that shows the attenuator numbering scheme:

 

https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2057289/Downloadable_docs/Spec_sheets/Traps/Line_Conditioning/Attenua...

 

That attenuator that is shown on the spec sheet is probably the ideal attenuator for your situation.  Its an FPA10-54.  that is a 10 dB attenuator that starts at 54 Mhz and goes upwards from there.  Its too bad that the spec sheet doesn't show the performance above 860 Mhz, although I wouldn't expect much difference, if at all above 860 Mhz.  

 

Looking around, all I've see are attenuators that start at 5 Mhz, instead of 54 Mhz which is where the PPC Forward Path Attenuators start.  So, my choice at this point would be the PPC Foward Path Attenuators.  Don't know where to find them however as they don't seem to show up in a search.  I suspect that a cable supply company would have them on hand, just a question of whether or not their available for retail customers. 

 

Here's a link to the PPC residential products:

 

https://www.ppc-online.com/solutions/premises

 

Expand the product type and select "Attenuators".



Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Thank you 🙂  I will stick with quality one.   Do you think I should use "used" CODA Moca filter before going to the modem.  Although my CODA modem is supposed to be MOCA friendly, it won't hurt, right?   Also it should help to lower a power tiny bit.    I guess I can do test with and without it.

Re: Does my signal look ok?

RRF1
I Plan to Stick Around

I would try to get the attenuator from Rogers. That way it has been tested, verified and approved for service by their lab. That Blue FAM-* attenuator has been produced for 20 years under many names, so I would be suspicious of the specs.

 

When I retired from RE a few years ago, MoCA was just being tested. This document https://mocalliance.org/access/SCTE-235-2017.pdf

is easy to understand and outlines the MoCA architecture for typical deployments.

One thing to note, is that the filter is a requirement to isolate the MoCA carriers to your residence and not interfere with other residences. 

If you are the techy curious type , SCTE.org has an online MoCA deployment/troubleshooting course for $57 

https://www.scte.org/education/course-offerings/course-catalog/multimedia-over-coax-alliance-2/

 

 

 

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Thanks for all the info.   I spoke to Rogers, however I have my current workaround so they couldn't perform the test.   However due to the COVID situation and like @Datalink said (the tech might have this particular filter on hand) I would like to avoid any unnecessary visits.   I rather pay $20 from my own packet. 🙂

Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

sorry for stupid question would combining two 6dbs forward path filters work?  could I go -2db on dowstream? or it would be counter productive?

Re: Does my signal look ok?

Not a stupid question at all.  2 attenuators as indicated would work.  Ideally you would be at 0 dBmV or just slightly above.  When the next firmware version, 7.2.4.1.4b15 is loaded you will be able to keep track of the corrected and uncorrected codewords for the DOCSIS 3.0 downstream channels.  With those numbers available, you can run an experiment, one attenuator versus two, and compare the codeword numbers after a set period of time.  That should be the arbiter of which configuration works best.  

 

You should install the attenuators at the modem, so that the signal level remains high until it hits the attenuator(s).  That should keep any noise down to a minimum, which should be reflected in the codeword numbers. 



Re: Does my signal look ok?

amd7674
I Plan to Stick Around

Thank you @Datalink and @RRF1 .  I've installed single 6db forward path attenuator (screwed to the back of my CODA modem) before that I have 2 way splitter to lose 3.5dbs.    I'm still awaiting 75Ohms ends for my 2 way splitter.  I believe my current signal looks good.   The upstream at 43dbs is a little high... but within specs.  I might replace it if I can find 3db - 4db forward path attenuator 🙂

Downstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDSignal noise ratio (dB)
1651000000QAM2561.0001638.605
2591000000QAM2560.599738.605
3597000000QAM256-0.099838.983
4603000000QAM256-0.299938.605
5849000000QAM256-0.700237.636
6855000000QAM256-0.500337.636
7861000000QAM256-0.299437.636
8579000000QAM2560.500538.605
9585000000QAM2560.500638.983
10609000000QAM2560.2001038.605
11615000000QAM2560.2991138.983
12621000000QAM2560.2991238.605
13633000000QAM2560.5991338.983
14639000000QAM2560.9001438.983
15645000000QAM2561.0001538.983
16279000000QAM256-0.900138.605
17657000000QAM2561.0001738.605
18663000000QAM2561.0001838.983
19669000000QAM2560.7991938.605
20675000000QAM2560.5992038.605
21681000000QAM2560.4002137.636
22687000000QAM2560.5992238.605
23693000000QAM2560.7002337.636
24699000000QAM2561.0992438.605
25705000000QAM2560.7992537.636
26711000000QAM2560.7992638.605
27717000000QAM2560.2992737.636
28723000000QAM2560.0992837.636
29825000000QAM2560.0002937.636
30831000000QAM256-0.2003037.636
31837000000QAM256-0.4003137.636
32843000000QAM256-0.5993237.636
OFDM Downstream Overview
ReceiverFFT typeSubcarr 0 Frequency(MHz)PLC lockedNCP lockedMDC1 lockedPLC power(dBmv)
04K275600000YESYESYES-0.700001
14K827600000YESYESYES-0.900002
Upstream Overview
Port IDFrequency (MHz)ModulationSignal strength (dBmV)Channel IDBandwidth
12590000064QAM43.02066400000
23870000064QAM43.02086400000
33230000064QAM43.02076400000
42110000064QAM42.01053200000
50QAM_NONE----1600000
60QAM_NONE----1600000
70QAM_NONE----1600000
80QAM_NONE----1600000
OFDM/OFDMA Overview
Channel IndexStatelin Digital AttDigital AttBW (sc's*fft)Report PowerReport Power1_6FFT Size
0DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K
1DISABLED0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002K
Community Testing Lab

We’ve got an amazing opportunity to test our upcoming Gateway!

Click here to find out more!

Topic Stats
  • 17 replies
  • 1016 views
  • 6 Likes
  • 3 in conversation