I'm on wireless. Works well about 95% of the time. I wonder if cable connections are as reliable. Where I live there's no real alternative to wireless. I pay about $40 month.
You could always go wireless on a PDA and use a cellular network like CDMA or GPRS of just go Wi-Fi! In all seriousness, WISPs have made great strides to avoid major problems when the weather is poor. My brother lives in far east Texas and trades a bit on his wireless connection. Works great for him.
My wireless connection is "guaranteed" at 256K, however, my connection is currently "unthrottled". For instance, a few minutes ago I did a speed test. I was hitting 735K. What I have is called "Point To Multi-Point Wireless". Different from "microwave" wireless. Point To Multi-Point wireless is less effected by weather. Microwave wireless is often used for greater distances.
hmm. i have had point to point microwave wireless for 5 years now and have never noticed a weather problem. we have it all here. from heavy snow to heavy rain to fog and everything in between.
In which circumstances would wireless broadband be the only alternative? In a rural area? In a country that wants to get broadband quickly and does not want to lay cable in its cities?
In the case of my area, the correct answer is: a. A rural area. b. A rural area where the CEO of the wireless internet company is on the city council (so he can block competitors). c. A rural area such that the cable provider doesn't yet feel compelled to supply cable internet connections. (They do in many of their other cities.) Therefore, a., b. and c. all SUCK (where internet connections are concerned), but it's a quiet and relatively safe place to live and/or raise a family. Or, to put it another way, the city ain't all bad and competition is usually a good thing, unless you own the only game in town. Small towns are incredibly and notoriously controlled and manipulated.