[Goo++]

BTW, the UPLOAD images don't work in the "NEW" blue format but do in the "OLD" gray format:

[las vegas drunk]

[olecapt]

Hmmm..Cox is slow tonight down but fast up...

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Hmmm..Cox is slow tonight down but fast up...

Still, it is WAY better than my result. Here is mine on the same test you used.

[olecapt]

Here is the more typical numbers I see...




I wonder if the video guys download in the middle of the night.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Here is the more typical numbers I see...




I wonder if the video guys download in the middle of the night.

That is really fast. I have cox at home, and it performs no where near as good. My roommate must have ordered the slowest speed.

[Goo++]

With Speedtest.net, Olecapt has used the Las Vegas site for his statistics. A comparable test will require using the same site, not the default site in Idaho.

Since they use different metrics, Speedtest.net - The Global Broadband Speed Test and Broadband Speed Test : testmy.net are also not directly comparable. Testmy.net will yield lower, more conservative results.

Another snapshot test from Intel will yield even more conservative (and variable) results:

Broadband Speed Test - Intel

[Goo++]

Hmmm.... Someone keeps editing/truncating my post.

This post is quoted (except for the map) in the following post, so I won't bother to repost.

However, here is a link to the swiss cheese Clear WiMax reception coverage map referred to:

http://lasvegasmixx.com/images/clear-north-hdsn.jpg (north Henderson area)

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by Goo++

Clear WiMax will never compete with Cox cable on speed. Clear is obviously a much better mobile choice and a lower cost choice for those who do not subscribe to Cox TV service. Clear should also be more reliable than Cox.

Even though I am in one of the fringe areas of the valley, apparently in a bad reception area, my problem with Clear is not speed (even 2-3 Mbps is good enough for my use) but poor latency caused by distance from the Wimax broadcast towers. From its design, wireless broadband will always have more latency than cable broadband but I suspect that Clear has their towers spread too far apart to offer even reasonable latency to a third of its customers.

From what I have read elsewhere, Clear now has only 80 or the planned 300 towers active. From the image below, I see that even in the more establish and densely populated area of north Henderson, Clear coverage is a swiss cheese of good reception with lots of dead spots. I suspect that in the western parts of the valley like mine, that map looks even worse.

I just wish that Clear would be more honest with potential customers about reception potential (and future tower expansion areas) before we sign up. They have the detailed reception maps for all of the valley and I am sure that they have projected coverage expansion maps. Why not share them with us?

The big green reception area map Clear has on its web site just does tell the true story. We need to know what are dead zones too.

I also have poor latency with Clear. Look at my test, I got 19 at home with Cox, but 226 at work with Clear.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Goo++

With Speedtest.net, Olecapt has used the Las Vegas site for his statistics. A comparable test will require using the same site, not the default site in Idaho.

Since they use different metrics, Speedtest.net - The Global Broadband Speed Test and Broadband Speed Test : testmy.net are also not directly comparable. Testmy.net will yield lower, more conservative results.

Another snapshot test from Intel will yield even more conservative (and variable) results:

I hit 8.8 to 18.9 on the Intel test...I would presume they are using a very small object and seeing the second to second variablity.