I would second Nathan's experience. Tried to use them for our corporate office as a life boat when our T1 provider was sold to an outfit that didn't answer the support lines. Clear's NAT is atrocious and can't be turned off, so you can't drop a real firewall behind it on a single static.
-J -------- Jason J. W. Williams, COO/CTO DigiTar [email protected] V: 208.343.8520 F: 208.322.8522 M: 208.863.0727 www.digitar.com On Dec 3, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: > >> This came up in another thread yesterday or today, and I just got the >> solicitation mailer for Clearwire's WiMAX service in Tampa Bay, which they >> call "4G", though the ITU disagrees. >> >> The AUP is here: http://www.clear.com/legal/aup > > I cannot strongly enough discourage you from using their service. My > experience with them has been consistently awful - and given that they're > headquartered in my area, that's unacceptable. I'm informed that my > experience is not at all unique - either to the Seattle area or to their > service at large. Their Wikipedia article tells you pretty much everything > you need to know. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearwire > > Their definition of unlimited tends to be "barely acceptable throughput > levels, until you start streaming youtube/netflix or doing a long-running > download or using bittorrent to seed files to your work PC and laptop or > using your VPN to retrieve a document, in which case, we won't turn you off, > we'll just silently jail you into a 32-128kbps bandwidth profile. Also, > have some poorly implemented NAT on our ludicrously underpowered CPEs!" > > I also understand that they've been having financial difficulties, so they're > unlikely to address the issues their customers are faced with. > > If I were you, I would keep your backpack offline until another option is > available. You're not going to be able to use VOIP on their service, anyways. > > Nathan > (Speaking as an individual - not as the company I work for.) > > !SIG:4cf9826a241136755510774! >
