DSL vs. satellite worth the change?

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Mon May 03, 2010 2:58 am

I was with a friend the other day who's net provider is the satellite company Clear. He gets 4g connection for $55 a month

I'm paying about $60 for 7mb DSL.

I get 6.71 dl speeds and about 395kbps upload

He gets 8.48mb dl speeds and 1.23 upload

I can see he's much faster, but I'm wondering if satellite is any good for gaming these days...?

I've stuck with DSL because of the desire for solid gaming pings, but if satellite is equal to dsl, then I'm ready for a switch for the faster speeds.

Thanks!

Thenior · Post by **Thenior** » Mon May 03, 2010 6:05 am

Satellite typically is limited by how much you can download per day (250-500MB).

Speed tests only confirm how quickly something can get there - but if want to know about quality, try http://www.pingtest.net/ .

I'm on a 1.5 Up/down wireless setup, and I can tell you it usually sucks. But, it's good enough I play MW2 online xbox live decently - and I get a D grade on that test.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon May 03, 2010 6:40 am

I got an A. Descent is great until the pingfloods start

. You know who you are

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon May 03, 2010 7:19 am

The inherent latency involved (The signal delay) can be as much as 250 milliseconds to 900 milliseconds (one way), which makes this service unusable for applications requiring real-time user input, such as online games or remote surgery.

Sickone · Post by **Sickone** » Mon May 03, 2010 7:52 am

I thought online gaming was remote surgery

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon May 03, 2010 8:00 am

Its no good for gaming or voip, the latency is too high.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Mon May 03, 2010 10:51 am

Rats...well, that's good to know. I'll keep searching for a better connect (not an easy task from an island in the middle of the ocean).
I actually do pretty well with the DSL they offer, just the upload speeds are very slow IMO.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon May 03, 2010 4:49 pm

Clear is not satellite. Clear is WiMax which is similar to cellular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Mon May 03, 2010 7:45 pm

I scanned that article but didnt see anything related to gaming or consistency with pings/connection.

Anyone have an opinion about using it for gaming?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon May 03, 2010 8:17 pm

Where you at Readyman?

Try this link.

http://www.clear.com

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon May 03, 2010 8:18 pm

I had the impression that even playing online through a wireless router was considered to be a negative thing... Or is that an opinion held by people who are super in-tune to why they're not winning at any given moment?

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Mon May 03, 2010 9:32 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I had the impression that even playing online through a wireless router was considered to be a negative thing... Or is that an opinion held by people who are super in-tune to why they're not winning at any given moment?

Yes on both counts.

And they're both right (to a certain extent, certain conditions are exceptions).

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon May 03, 2010 10:09 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I had the impression that even playing online through a wireless router was considered to be a negative thing... Or is that an opinion held by people who are super in-tune to why they're not winning at any given moment?

I can confirm that my wireless connection has given me the occasional spikes in ping and network loss during the few times I've been in-game recently. Then again, my machine is in the part of the house furthest away from our wireless router, and I have occasional connection issues during even normal browsing, so I'm hardly the most ideal example.

Sickone · Post by **Sickone** » Mon May 03, 2010 10:40 pm

The Full 'N' wireless can give good results in most cases even for gaming. I never thought the 'B' or 'G' were worth crap for gaming.

ReadyMan · Post by **ReadyMan** » Tue May 04, 2010 12:07 am

I'm in Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. Clear has coverage here, and even on the small island of Lanai.
My DSL here is much less as far as speed goes, than it was in CA...

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Tue May 11, 2010 9:04 pm

stay away from clear.

we use them in some of are C Stores and the connection is so unreliable.

I would stick to DSL.

I ahve Fiber DSL here and the 20mbps Down 3mbps up is oh so nice.

FireFox · Post by **FireFox** » Wed May 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Warlock wrote:I ahve Fiber DSL here and the 20mbps Down 3mbps up is oh so nice.

just another small reminder how far behind this country is with internet connection speed and options. Fastest DSL line available here is like what 4mbps so yea I have no further comment and will go on my way on my 384kb DSL line

(at least it's uncapped now

)

SirWinner · Post by **SirWinner** » Wed May 12, 2010 3:33 pm

Most satellite connections like the one you are talking about are SHARING bandwidth... so I wouldn't bank on the speed staying consistently high.

If you go with a guaranteed Satellite Speed you will pay more for that for sure.

If you have satellite issues, you are at the mercy of whomever owns the satellite then the contact from the provider to that satellite unit, etc.

My opinion is to stick with DSL.

My DSL provider is / was very stable.

Currently using Cable at my office and it isn't as stable as DSL... It's not down much anymore but for a while every time we had a minor or large amount of rain the Cable was down for hours on end!

DSL vs. satellite worth the change?

DSL vs. satellite worth the change?

Re:

Re:

Re: