Their bull got you right in your wallet.

The next time you hear a provider telling you usage-capped broadband is the way the rest of the world does business, understand one thing:

They are lying to you.

Stop the Cap! conducted extensive research on just what kind of broadband plans are sold around the world. We researched every member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and included several developing and non-aligned countries for good measure.

Our findings are conclusive: Unlimited broadband packages are the global norm. Some providers sell a mix of “light use” plans with usage allowances, but almost always side-by-side affordable, unlimited use options for those who want them. The only exceptions we found:

• Australia: The most common reason for usage caps comes from lack of capacity.  Countries in the South Pacific continue to experience international capacity shortages that are gradually easing with the introduction of new underseas fiber cables.  Several providers have promised to ease or eliminate caps as new capacity comes online.
• Canada: For reasons of marketplace concentration, lack of competition, and regulatory malpractice, Canadian broadband has lost its former status as a world-leader in broadband and has now become an also-ran, with almost universally usage-capped and throttled broadband from large cable and phone companies delivering expensive, comparatively slow service.
• Iceland: International capacity problems limit international broadband traffic with usage caps, but some providers offer unlimited service for domestic traffic.
• New Zealand: Just like Australia, New Zealand suffers from international capacity problems not seen in Europe, North America, or continental Asia.  Both Australia and New Zealand are using public finances to overcome broadband shortages and reduce or eliminate usage caps.

Some providers in the United States are following Canada’s lead attempting to monetize broadband traffic to maximize profits.  Some Canadian providers claim usage-based billing is necessary to finance the construction of broadband networks across the broad expanse of rural Canada.  Yet Russia, a far larger country with fewer financial resources, succeeds in delivering unlimited service where Canada fails.  Their arguments just don’t add up, and combined with the reality we present here proves providers are telling tall tales about the need for their Internet Overcharging schemes.

If Albania can deliver unlimited Internet access, why can’t your provider?

[Important Update -- 7:53am ET 4/7 -- Because of a technicality, it is important for everyone to reference H.129 when calling your state senators.  Members of the Senate Finance Committee are still evaluating the House version of the bill -- H.129, so senators will more readily identify the bill we are opposing when we reference the House version (and not S.87).  You can also call it the "Level Playing Field" bill, but with disgust.  Include the fact you found the name highly ironic, since the only thing it will "level" are the state's community broadband networks -- right to the ground.  If you already called, why not just send a follow-up e-mail opposing H.129.]

Stop the Cap! has learned lobbyists for North Carolina’s cable and phone companies are growing concerned over increasing opposition to their custom-written duopoly protection bill that will ruin community broadband developments across the state and threaten ones already up and running.  Now they’re in a mad dash to push S.87 (the Senate version of H.129) through the Senate Tuesday before you have a chance to call and express outrage over this corporate protectionism.

Our sources tell us the bill has been yanked from the Senate Commerce Committee and is moving faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL broadband to the Finance Committee, where bill sponsors hope for a quick voice vote and no public comment allowed.

The engineer of the legislative railroad in the Senate is Sen. Tom Apodaca (R) who serves the western North Carolina counties of Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk — areas with broadband challenges of their own.  Apodaca’s lead role pushing an anti-broadband bill is ironic considering his campaign website lists his priorities as:

• “Great schools for our children.” Western N.C. residents without broadband service at home are forced to resort to sitting in their cars in school parking lots or spend hours at overburdened public libraries to access Wi-Fi networks to complete homework assignments.  Great schools in a digital economy require great broadband – both in school and at home
• “Better paying jobs.” Digital economy jobs are always in demand and bring good salaries.  But those with inadequate broadband will find the kind of entrepreneurial experience and independent study required to excel in these fields hampered by satellite fraudband service or dial-up that limits possibilities and leaves North Carolina behind.
• “Let people keep more of the money they earn.” It’s a great idea, and competition for big cable and phone companies guarantees it.  In Wilson, consumers don’t face annual rate hikes for their cable service.  Can your community say that?  When their network is paid off, Wilson’s GreenLight will start paying off for local residents as well, keeping money in the community.
• “And access to quality health care.” As Google intends to prove in Kansas City, Kansas — great health care and excellent broadband go hand-in-hand to deliver better patient outcomes at a cheaper price.  Every health care provider wants faster broadband to increase efficiency and reduce costs and medical care errors.  S.87 delivers the equivalent of just another metal filing cabinet and fax machine to the back office.  Allowing communities to build fiber broadband changes everything.

What has proven so perplexing to consumers across the state is how a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies that does not deliver a single new broadband connection is getting such love and care from a legislature that is supposed to represent the interests of voters, not multi-billion dollar out of state corporations.  It confuses some of America’s high tech companies as well, including Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel.  They’ve all signed a joint letter opposing H.129/S.87.

In fact, one of the reasons Google picked Kansas City, Kansas for its 1Gbps network is the friendly working relationship it has established with local utilities, which are all owned by the community of Kansas City.  It no doubt speaks volumes to Google that the North Carolina legislature would rather be at war with their towns and cities for the benefit of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink, than allowing communities to build their own broadband networks.  At a time when the FCC has ranked North Carolina worst in the nation, members of the Senate are being asked to guarantee that will remain so for years to come.

So What Should I Do?

Get on the phone -and- e-mail your state senator and demand a NO vote on S.87. If you are shy, you can call before or after business hours and leave a message on their voicemail. It takes less than five minutes.  Your calls make a huge difference because so few constituents ever call state legislators.  Here are your talking points:

Apodaca

1.  At a time when we need all the broadband improvements this state can muster, S.87 destroys those efforts for the benefit of a handful of out of state phone and cable companies. It’s classic protectionism — the same companies that helped write this bill are fully exempted from its onerous requirements.  The practical reality for rural North Carolina is either waiting for existing companies to deliver service they were always free to provide (and won’t), or allowing communities to do it themselves where appropriate.  Why should rural North Carolina have to depend on out of state corporations for basic broadband service many still don’t have?

2.  Not a single company has been harmed by community broadband projects in North Carolina.  In fact, it has created incentive to improve products and services while keeping prices stable, a welcome relief for consumers enduring annual rate increases far outpacing inflation.  Why is the state Senate trying to pass legislation that will guarantee higher bills and worse service?

3.  North Carolina’s fiber networks are not economic failures risking taxpayer dollars.  In fact, protections for taxpayers are already a part of the state code.  The General Assembly has already established: (1) rules governing Public Enterprises (NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 16); (2) strict rules in the Budget and Fiscal Control Act governing all municipal budgets and expenditures, including hearing and disclosure requirements (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 3); and (3) strict oversight of municipal borrowing by the Local Government Commission (NCGS Chapter 159).  S.87 attempts to micromanage public projects to the point where they simply cannot function and pay off bondholders and will, for future projects, ensure they never get off the ground.

4.  Now that the FCC ranks North Carolina dead last in broadband, isn’t it be time to allow new entrants to shake up the market and deliver some competition? Since when is legislating for less broadband better for this state?  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury now have the tools to compete with any wired city in America to attract new digital economy business and jobs.  S.87 sends exactly the wrong message — telling business the state wants to wait for the cable or phone company to eventually (if ever), deliver service other states now take for granted.  Businesses cannot wait.  We cannot wait.

5.  Provisions of this bill are unconstitutional.  By placing illegal regulatory burdens on only public providers of communications services (defined broadly) H.129/S.87 will harm municipal convention centers, public safety networks, smart grid systems, tower leasing contracts, and even make seemingly free public Wi-Fi networks vulnerable to lawsuits if the large incumbents want in on those services.

6.  The only real level playing field in broadband is the one that already exists without S.87.  Tell your senator you are tired of seeing these cable company-written bills come up in the Legislature year after year when the state has more important matters to worry about.  Time Warner Cable will do just fine without S.87, just as they do well in every other state where these kinds of bills would never get passed into law (or even proposed).

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

(click on your member’s name for contact information)

In an upstate New York match-up, the Rochester/Finger Lakes region scored dead last in broadband speed and value, according to data from Broadband.com.

Why are broadband speeds so much lower in the Flower City?  Blame Frontier Communications, which continues to pitch its decade-old DSL product, delivering an average speed of 4.45Mbps, while other upstate cities enjoy access and competition from Verizon’s fiber to the home network FiOS.  Frontier DSL actually often costs more, after taxes and fees, than Time Warner Cable’s much-faster cable broadband product, Road Runner, which rates an average download speed of 12.77Mbps in Rochester.  Frontier does manage to pull one win — higher upload speed DSL providers can often achieve in cities where cable operators keep upstream speeds as low as possible.

Time Warner Cable has dragged its feet upgrading broadband service in the area to its DOCSIS 3 platform other upstate cities have had since last year.  DOCSIS 3 should arrive within the next 4-8 weeks, which should boost broadband speeds, but may not deliver lower broadband prices because of Frontier’s uncompetitiveness in the area.

(Source: Broadband.com)

The top city in upstate New York for download speed is the state capital, Albany.  But Buffalo wins the contest for upload speed thanks to aggressive competition for Time Warner from Verizon in the Queen City.  Buffalo also pays the least for service — nearly $5 less per month than residents in Rochester pay on average.  Syracuse scores in the middle — but closer in terms of speed and value to other Verizon-served cities.

Slow and expensive broadband service can hamper economic development and costs consumers more.  Unfortunately, there are no signs Frontier Communications has plans to do anything differently in its largest service area — a classic driver of the accelerating number of customers calling to pull the plug on their landline service.

Time Warner Cable's Road Runner vs. Frontier Communications' DSL (Speeds are downstream/upstream; Source: Broadband.com)

Some Time Warner customers think there is more up the cable company's sleeve than "subscriber convenience."

Time Warner Cable customers across the country have been coping with some dramatic channel realignments over the past year, in some cases finding as many as a half-dozen channels gone missing from their analog basic cable lineup when it’s all said and done.

Communities in South Carolina, Ohio, and Nebraska are the latest to find dozens of channels assuming new positions on the dial, some now requiring a $7-10 digital set top box rental to keep watching.

The reasons for the changes?  To make room for an increasing number of HD channels, upgrade to DOCSIS 3 technology to support faster broadband, and to simplify finding networks on a lineup with hundreds of choices.

In Lincoln, Neb., Time Warner Cable will be aligning all of their analog and digital standard definition channel numbers with their HD counterparts.  So if CNN occupies channel 120 on the standard definition cable lineup, CNN HD will be found on channel 1120.  Customers simply have to add a “1″ in front of the three digit channel number to get the same network, when available, in HD.

Lincoln residents may appreciate the fact some channels will be easier to find, but many analog customers without a cable box are not happy several of those channels will be gone from their lineup altogether.  The “victims” of the analog to digital switcheroo are familiar to those who have already been through channel realignments — C-SPAN 2, ShopNBC, TruTV, Travel Channel, and Oxygen will be available only to those who have a digital cable box or CableCARD.

In the Myrtle Beach, S.C., area, Time Warner Cable also moved the Speed channel to a new digital-only home.  Brett Phillips who lives in Georgetown called that a hidden price increase, telling The Sun News Time Warner was effectively taking away a channel while not reducing his cable bill.

In Nebraska and Ohio, Time Warner is handing out “free” digital boxes for 12 months, but only to those who do not have one now.  Those with existing digital boxes cannot obtain a second one or get their existing box for free.  Some critics, including our Lincoln reader Marta says that is a ripoff.

“As a good customer who already pays for two digital boxes and spends almost $200 a month on my cable service, why am I paying for my digital boxes when those who want the lowest priced analog service get one for free,” Marta asks.  “Clearly this is a way to get those boxes into peoples’ homes so at the end of the year they will reluctantly pay for the $7 a month to keep renting it.”

Marta was turned down when she asked if she could get a free extra box for her kitchen television.

“No, Time Warner only gives these free boxes to people who never had them before,” she said.  “I understand the company needs to make room for new things, but they have got to get these box prices down — they could turn the whole system digital as far as I care -if- the boxes were free, or at least much cheaper.”

Some other subscribers have their own conspiracy theories about the channel realignments.

One Nebraska resident noted Time Warner Cable was moving Fox News Channel to channel 44 — an ominous turn of events for this individual:

“It seems that the liberal unionized TWC is putting Fox News on channel 44. Obama is the 44th President. [George] Soros is behind this I just know it.”

WEWS-TV in Cleveland and KSHB-TV in Kansas City tell their respective viewers about the grand shuffle in their channel lineups.  (3 minutes)

A new report has found the home of America’s worst broadband service can be found in the state of North Carolina.

The Tar Heel State ranks dead last in the number of homes able to access the Internet at speeds the Federal Communications Commission defines as “broadband” — 4/1Mbps.  The report quotes from FCC figures that show only 10 percent of North Carolina households are receiving broadband service at speeds that equal or exceed 3Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream.  States traditionally thought to be bottom-ranked, including Mississippi and Idaho, are now doing better than the home of Research Triangle Park.

The report comes courtesy of the SouthEast Chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA), which is attempting to fight off efforts to stop individual communities from delivering the service big cable and phone companies refuse to provide in large parts of the state.

Where Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink do deliver service, customers pay dearly for it.  Broadband.com found most of America’s worst broadband values in North Carolina.  In fact, outside of prohibitively expensive Anchorage, Alaska, seven of the ten most expensive cities were in North Carolina, when measuring cost per megabit (see below for a better understanding of how this figure was computed):

America's Worst Broadband is in North Carolina (source: Broadband.com)

Comparatively, states in the northeast were meccas.  Sixty percent or more of residents in Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey have broadband at speeds the FCC now considers bare minimum.  In larger states: New York, 43 percent and Pennsylvania, 44 percent, broadband speed still scored higher despite the large rural sections of both states.  Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home network has compelled upgrades among cable company competitors to keep up with the benefits fiber optics bring.

But in North Carolina, only community-owned networks are delivering service comparable to that found in the increasingly-fiber-wired northeast.  Instead of committing to upgrades, large cable and phone companies are spending plenty lobbying to restrict and banish the improved service these networks provide in communities like Wilson and Salisbury.

SEATOA’s conclusion?  The current inadequate level of service coming from North Carolina’s cable and phone companies allows the state to fall further behind in America’s economic recovery.

More about how Broadband.com calculated the results can be found below the jump.

… Continue Reading

New Zealand’s Commerce Commission is planning to study Internet Overcharging schemes from Internet Service Providers as part of a review of the government’s planned investment of $1.35NZD billion to construct a state-subsidized fiber broadband network.

At issue is whether the government’s investment in broadband will not deliver value for money if broadband providers sell heavily usage-capped broadband services over the country’s new network.

The Commerce Commission serves as New Zealand’s antitrust regulator, charged with finding marketplace abuses and correcting them, especially in the absence of competition.  Included in the wide-ranging review:

• Network peering: Allowing broadband traffic to flow freely between Internet Service Providers without interference or punitive expense;
• Data caps: Whether ISPs will continue to limit broadband usage on a network paid for by public funds, pocketing the proceeds;
• Net Neutrality: Ensuring that content over the network is treated fairly and equally.

“Our aim is to promote competition in telecommunications markets for the long-term benefit of end-users of telecommunications services in New Zealand,” Telecommunications Commissioner Ross Patterson said in a statement. “The study will result in a report which will identify any factors which may inhibit the uptake of ultra-fast broadband services.”

Most of the investigation will likely target New Zealand’s dominant phone company – Telecom New Zealand.  The former state-owned monopoly has rebuilt part of its market dominance pitching broadband service across the country over its landline-based DSL network, by which most New Zealanders obtain broadband.  While the company competes with other providers who resell service over Telecom phone lines, many critics charge the phone company position as the owner of the infrastructure gives it a powerful position in the market.

The New Zealand government hopes to retire its aging copper-wire telephone network and replace it with a combination of fiber optics in cities and towns and fixed wireless service in rural areas.  A discussion paper is expected from the commission by June, with a final report due in December.

Phillip Dampier

I could spend all day refuting sloppy ‘accepted as true with no fact-checking’-reporting done by news organizations on the issue of Internet Overcharging.  Facts not in evidence:

• Assumptions that what is “fair” in wireless must be fair on wired networks;
• Everyone is doing it around the world so North America should do the same;
• People are not paying “their fair share” for the growing amount of usage.

It’s all a big bucket of wrong, and the only thing getting rolled over month after month are consumers.

Yesterday, it was GigaOM telling us “Comcast DSL” (?) had no usage caps at all.  (They do — 250GB per month, and they sell cable broadband, not landline DSL.)

Today, it’s ComputerWorld‘s Matt Hamblen, who blows it right in the first paragraph:

Data caps on nearly all wireless and wired networks in the U.S. seem likely to be in place soon, despite the latest unlimited data offers from Verizon Wireless and Sprint.

Impressive crystal ball gazing there.  Nearly all networks will be capped?  Even though Sprint is banking its near-future on selling unlimited use plans and the economics of wireless are considerably different than wired broadband, Hamblen boldly predicts near-universal usage caps, even as most providers have no formal caps at all.

Hamblen’s journey starts with a survey of capped broadband offerings on the wireless side.  Spectrum issues and the nature of wireless technology makes providing unlimited use plans more challenging, especially when users consider their mobile broadband service a home broadband replacement.  Some have even left peer-to-peer software running in the background 24 hours a day.  It was this, according to Clearwire, that did in that provider’s unlimited service, which is now heavily speed-throttled in many areas.

Stop the Cap! has argued repeatedly current generation wireless broadband will never be a suitable replacement for traditional wired broadband, unless your use is confined to web browsing, e-mail, and occasional multimedia.  The capacity isn’t there and the technology is susceptible to serious speed loss in congested areas.  That is not to say future wireless technology might not change this reality.  The political debate over re-purposing unused UHF television channel frequencies for wireless broadband is just getting underway in Washington.

But trying to draw arguments from the wireless world for usage caps across wired broadband networks is where the line ends.

Hamblen predicts because AT&T wants to gouge its wired broadband customers (many who are now cancelling service and heading back to the cable company, when possible), now everyone will be going to the Internet Overcharging party:

Data caps on both wired and wireless customers are widespread, even if they annoy some smartphone early adopters in the U.S. Ars Technica listed the policies of 11 different wired network data caps for several different countries.

Hamblen’s report isn’t simply false — it’s sloppy.  Wired broadband usage limits are not widespread in the United States, and despite Ars Technica‘s sampler, the trend globally is away from usage-capped wired broadband, not towards it.  Evidently Hamblen didn’t bother to read Matthew Lasar’s piece, which includes references to BT in the United Kingdom moving towards unlimited use service in the near future, Canadian consumers’ victories against usage-based billing preserving unlimited use plans from resellers, and Australia’s own ever-increasing usage allowances.

In fact, even Lasar missed the fact several Australian ISPs now sell unlimited use plans themselves — something unheard of just a few years ago.  As in Britain, some users who consume over 300GB in a month may find their speeds reduced at peak usage times, but only until capacity improvements allow the throttles to be removed.  Even South Africa, one of the most challenging places to deliver 21st century broadband, has providers delivering unlimited use service.

Hamblen then moves on to another inaccurate argument — consumers will simply reserve their high bandwidth downloads on smartphones for the office Wi-Fi network, that will also face usage caps.

Except virtually every usage cap that does pop up in the United States applies to residential accounts only.  Commercial accounts are exempt, as are the Wi-Fi networks powered by them, especially for cable broadband-based service that is increasingly popular with small and medium sized companies.

Although Wall Street wants usage caps and regularly says they are inevitable, that does not make them reality.  Consumers certainly do not want them and will cancel service with a provider if an uncapped alternative exists.  While certain providers, their backers on Wall Street, and some dollar-a-holler groups defending them all have a financial interest in pushing memes about Internet Overcharging, members of the media should not.

Roberts - Too much to spend in one place

While your cable bill rose in 2010, so did Comcast CEO Brian Roberts’ compensation package, totaling $31.1 million dollars last year — a 14 percent raise.

Most of Roberts’ increased salary came from a performance-based cash bonus of nearly $11 million, earned partly from bringing home the merger of the nation’s largest cable company with NBC-Universal.  In fact, Roberts humbly declined part of his earned bonus, which was supposed to total $13.4 million, turning back the difference because of appearances.

Indeed, Comcast executives suffered from a salary freeze through much of 2010, which expired this February.  But since bonuses far exceed base salaries on the top floor of Comcast’s executive suites, it’s unlikely any executive had to cut back on their personal spending to compensate.

Besides, the company covers many of the “extras” considered mandatory these days at America’s top companies:

• Enhanced health insurance benefits which often never expire, even after retirement;
• Personal use of the company’s executive aircraft ($200k);
• Three million to his deferred compensation plan;
• A $10,000 special company contribution to his retirement account (petty cash);
• Free cable

Du Quoin, Ill.

Remember when your cable system delivered 60 basic cable channels with a handful of premium services, none in High Definition?  The people of Du Quoin, Ill. do — to this day.

They, along with several other small southern Illinois communities served by Comcast, are living a wired life free from HD programming, cable networks many take for granted, and a quality of service that has diminished as an aging cable system outlives its useful life.

Now the commissioner of Du Quoin has put Comcast’s franchise “on hold” until the cable company updates service for the town’s 6,500 residents.

Commissioner Rex Duncan told the city council last week he’s fed up with Comcast’s lack of interest in delivering even a handful of HD channels to subscribers, even as the company moves channels that used to be part of the basic cable lineup to a new tier that requires the rental of a digital converter box.

Until Comcast decides to invest in upgrades in the area, De Quoin joins the cities of Pinckneyville, Benton and Christopher and the villages of Tamaroa and Buckner in refusing franchise renewal requests from the cable operator.

Reviewing the lineup in Du Quoin shows subscribers confined to receiving the same number of channels most cities had more than 15 years ago.  Not a single HD channel is included.  Broadband customers can choose from two promoted packages, one promising “up to” 15Mbps and the other claiming 20Mbps with the PowerBoost feature.  But few residents actually see those speeds according to one of our readers.

Sid, a lifelong resident of De Quoin, says speeds approaching 7Mbps are more typical, except at night when they drop.

“I don’t think Comcast has changed a thing in southern Illnois in over a decade,” Sid shares.  “The company’s cable TV lineup still thinks it’s 1992 — we are lucky we even have broadband.”

Residents have complained regularly to local officials about Comcast’s performance in the region, especially when they compare the service they receive with what residents in nearby Carbondale, the self-styled “capital of southern Illinois” receive.

“I realize southern Illinois is between nothing and nowhere, with large cities like St. Louis and Evansville whole states away, but considering how many people depend on Comcast to get reasonable reception of local stations pretty far out, they do a good business here,” Sid says.

Sid does not expect many upgrades in the near future, either to his cable or broadband service.

“DOCSIS 3?  What is that?”

Lynch

Verizon’s ambitions to provide 285 million people with the option of ditching their cable or DSL broadband account for its new LTE/4G wireless network is a dream that will never come true with the company’s wireless Internet Overcharging schemes.  With a usage cap of 5-10GB per month and a premium price, only the most casual user is going to give up their landline cable or DSL service for Verizon’s wireless alternative.

Dick Lynch, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Verizon spoke highly of Verizon’s new next generation wireless network as a perfect platform to deliver broadband service to landline customers, including many of those the company sold off to Hawaiian Telcom, FairPoint Communications, or Frontier.

“[LTE] provides a real opportunity for the first time to give a fixed customer in a home, broadband service — wireless — but broadband service,” Lynch said. “In wireless, I see a great opportunity within the LTE plans we have to begin to service the customers who don’t have broadband today … They will be able to have mobile LTE and also to be able to have fixed broadband.”

Unfortunately, Verizon’s LTE network comes with usage limits and a premium price — $50 a month for 5GB or $80 a month for 10GB.  At those prices, rural America will have two bad choices — super slow 1-3Mbps DSL ($30-60) with allowances ranging from 100GB-unlimited or LTE’s 5-12Mbps (assuming the local cell tower is not overloaded with users) with a usage cap that guarantees online video will come at a per-view cost rivaling a matinee movie ticket.

Still, Verizon is likely to test market the service as a home broadband replacement, particularly in territories they no longer serve.  Verizon has done much the same thing pitching a home phone replacement product that works with their wireless network to residents of Rochester, N.Y., and the state of Connecticut, neither currently served with landlines from Verizon.

Despite the pricing and cap challenges, Deutsche Bank — one of the Wall Street players that follows Verizon — thinks the company’s DSL-replacement has merit, if:

1. If you are a regular traveler that needs a wireless broadband service anyway;
2. You use broadband exclusively for web browsing, e-mail, and very occasional multimedia access;
3. You are wealthy enough not to care about the overlimit penalty.

For everyone else, sticking with traditional DSL service will continue to be the most affordable option, assuming usage caps are kept at bay.  Where available, cable broadband service from companies that serve smaller communities, including Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable, and Cablevision, among others, will probably continue to deliver the most bang for the buck in rural America.