Clear internet

Does anyone use this? I just got it today and it seems pretty slow. Haven't tested it on mw3 yet though

I have it. I get 4-7 mbps and it is usually on the low end of that around 5-6:00 central

I live in vegas right along with you and let me tell you its garbage. You can get cox for less.

My sister has it at their cabin. I wouldn't recommend it for gaming. Its basically for web browsing.

JxVegas702 wrote:

You can get cox for less.

Can't wait for kjc to get a hold of that phrase.


4-7Mbps should be enough for online play.

audiopile wrote:

JxVegas702 wrote:

You can get cox for less.

4-7Mbps should be enough for online play.

Works fine for me. Also works well enough that I can have ESPN3 running on 2 TV's with 8 games

JxVegas702 wrote:

I live in vegas right along with you and let me tell you its garbage. You can get cox for less.

Wait a second, Vegas lives in Vegas, oh the irony!!!

My At type went form open to moderate... I'm even plugged in, so far not a huge fan. Maybe I'll go back to cox. I just switched to direct tv and I bundled it with clear Internet. It's cool that i can take my router Nd get Internet anywhere though.

ahhh where to start with this

clear and sprint orig had a deal - sprint was going to use them to deploy wimax...well that idea shit the bed the performance wasnt there and it was costing too much using clear as a third party contractor

also during this time tmobile and verizon especially were blowing the doors off clear / sprint performance wise with their LTE service

so sprint bailed from clear (so clear is on their own at this point and struggling in niche markets) and sprint is now going LTE (which btw still uses similar 2.4ghz frequency like that of clear) however their utilizing all the backend data circuits (and upgrading) in moderatly dense areas (like atlanta). it'll still be like 4 fucking years before Sprint gets off their ass and brings LTE to Michigan

anyhow - you're performance SHOULD be better than mine (Sprint 3g) I get about 2mb down and capped at .5mb up during off peak hours pings are 100ms at their best during peak hours they're in upwards of 200 to 300ms

the througput doesn't mean shit compared to latency (two figures you want to be fondly aware of with any wireless service) ping and jitter - for a long winded explanation of all that horseshit read my thread linked in my sig

test it by going to this website

http://www.megapath.com/speedtestplus/

and let me see your results

Most games I'm 2 bar - rare occasions 3 bar - and 1/3 the other times 1 bar LOL. Even at its best you'll be bitching because those with superior connections (sub 50 ms) will own you in gun fights time and time again

BlackDeath wrote:

Most games I'm 2 bar - rare occasions 3 bar - and 1/3 the other times 1 bar LOL. Even at its best you'll be bitching because those with superior connections (sub 50 ms) will own you in gun fights time and time again

This is true. In fact your entire post was good. +1 to you. However, if gaming companies would just start running server side games, that feature a ping cap, and a utility that pairs players by there average ping. This would not be a problem.

Notice how nice BF3 runs? That's why you pay you 10 bucks to use their servers.

Know why PS3 dosent charge for multiplayer gaming?

Because every game has one of these behind it:



Some games however (BF3 for example) Run on their own dedicated server, not sont's and its worth every penny, to play that game, server-side.


Know why EA games does, be it ps3 or not?

Because of this:



These are just a few of teh reason I own multiple consoles. And refuse to jump on the fanboy bandwagon.

No true gamer would give up the opportunity to play a game, simply because its not available on their console of choice.

My choice is clearly Playstation. Sony has been owning the console world since the debut of the first playstation in 95-96.

However, there is still many reasons I play both ps3 and xbox.

I got way off subject.


Cable internet - Pro's: usually the fastest connection in highly populated Urban areas.
Prolly the best bargain for the average american. Unless you plan on paying out the ass for a t1 or t3. (If its even available in your state due to a lot of laws not offering them to individual civilians. (Not too mention the cost to install such a setup) Great for gaming.

Con's: Cable can an does fluctuate. Not too mention, if you live in an apartment complex, its not uncommon for some terrible at his job installer, to fuck up your internet, when messing with a neighbors cable. Usually horrible customer service.

You are running off whatever hub is near you. The distance can make a bid difference in your speeds, and latency.

DSL: Pro's: The speed hardly ever fluctuates. You will not go from 4.5 down to 1.3 and so on. A dsl tends to stay steady at what it is supposed to be at. Also pretty decent for the average console gamer.

Con's: It's usually through Verizon in the us. And their connection is generally slow, and costly for the crap you get. They insist on you using their product, which is usually some India made router which is worse than the dusty 30 port switch that's been in my closet since 1990... The speeds do not even compare to that of cable. Also Very bad customer service.

Clear or other small "Take it where you go internet"

Pro's: It's nice to have in a jam, or if you need web service in a very rural area. Its useful, and certainly better than no internet. It's very cheap. It provides a useful tool, if you are say a truck driver, or someone who spends most of their time traveling. Did I mention cheap. Very convenient for the person on the go. And in some cases, people who live on a mountain, cannot afford to have lines/poles ran for phone or internet. In this scenario the clear, or netzero, or earthlink... Whatever low budget company that offers this particular style internet wins for sure.

Con's: Although someone, somewhere is calling this broadband... Its dial up... It's just like 3g and 4g, you may as well be bridged to a cellular telephone. Weather can cause this to fluctuate in speeds and in ping and or latency. Its probably the slowest internet, next to dial-up or other satellite based isp's. It's terrible when watching Netflix and some clouds roll in, your hdtv, just turned to like 280i or some horrible pix-elated crap because Netflix likes to adapt the resolution based off connection speed. To prevent lag. Its horrible for gaming.


I recommend taking the extra step and just going with cable. If you have Comcast in your area. You can order simply internet, at a decent price for the first 6 months, and then tell them you want to keep that price, or you will take your business elsewhere. They usually honor this by keeping your price. Hell I have been paying 28 bucks a month for about 3 years for this:



Anytime they raise my price, I threaten them with leaving, and they honor the grandfathered business. Anyone else who is a new customer, is liable to pay like 60-100 bucks (possibly more) a month for this speed.

I truly suggest you just upgrade. Whatever bundle you are getting now, isn't worth sacrificing a good time of gaming for.

PS: I hope this was informative, and that I didn't waste your time reading such a long post.

I did two tests here are the results.
Megapath.com
1.51mbps download
1.01mbps upload
Packet loss 0%
latency 85ms
Jitter 20

Ookla
3.77mbps download
0.93 Mbps upload

I have rarely had higher than 2 bars all day in mw3

wow those are less than stellar results for clear...your latency is right on par with me but your throughput should be in the 5 to 8mb down range

these services are absolutely dependent on signal strength...more signal means more bandwidth

is there anyway for you to know your signal strength? is it displayed somewhere in your router or some application they had you install? if signal is listed in dB the closer to zero the better (e.g. -60dB is better than -80dB).

btw how much are they charging? and do you have unlimited data?

i pay 59.99 /mo for unlimited data then i get a 25% discount thru my employer - verizon wanted 79.99 and capped data at 10gb their service was much faster but there was no way I could stick within that data cap working from home and having kids stream videos all day then me playing xbox at night - i hit the cap 2 weeks in

That was with a 4 or five out of 5 signal strength. It was $50. I couldn't even watch my favorite you tube video (steady aim) without feeling like I was using dial up. Called them today told them to give me my money back. They offered to lower it to $25 a month but their max is only 6 to 8 mbps. Called up cox and for $4 more I get up to 19 with min of 14 Mbps. Needless to say I won't be on after today until cox comes n Monday.

oh Jesus that's a no brainer if you have cable internet available go with that

i live in the burmuda triangle of technology and im too far away for cable and dsl

Man it's nice having a good cable provider.

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/Packages/

I think if light squared had not been stop by the government, clear and other 4G carries would be doing much better. I also think the government should have told gps radio manufacturers that they should have built their shit with in the band width. I mean fuck the whole digital TV and close of the 1G market was all to increase band widths in other market to increase the tax revenue per wave lenght.


But I digress into a nerdy topic few choose to follow.

Dead_Eric wrote:

I think if light squared had not been stop by the government, clear and other 4G carries would be doing much better. I also think the government should have told gps radio manufacturers that they should have built their shit with in the band width. I mean fuck the whole digital TV and close of the 1G market was all to increase band widths in other market to increase the tax revenue per wave lenght.


But I digress into a nerdy topic few choose to follow.

Analog is very missed in this dojo....

audiopile wrote:

JxVegas702 wrote:

You can get cox for less.

Can't wait for kjc to get a hold of that phrase.


4-7Mbps should be enough for online play.

How did I miss this??

Vegas knows how much you can get cox for? not surprising...

kjcolby1978 wrote:

audiopile wrote:

JxVegas702 wrote:

You can get cox for less.

Can't wait for kjc to get a hold of that phrase.


4-7Mbps should be enough for online play.

How did I miss this??

Vegas knows how much you can get cox for? not surprising...

He does live in Vegas and prostitution is legal. The real question is buying or selling.