It’s fairly well understood that if you can get DSL or cable, do it. Either will be a better bang-for-the-buck than these other alternatives we are discussing.

For broadband wireless (Verizon, Sprint, etc.), now that EVDO and other high-speed wireless connections are becoming more available, this should probably be your next choice after DSL or cable. Note that some locations on the edge of wireless coverage may be able to increase signal strength (and thus connection reliability and speed) through the use of appropriate antennas. The site http://www.evdoforums.com has a lot of helpful information on this technique. I don’t think that is what the author means by “long range wifi” but I could be wrong.

The WiMax version of broadband wireless (Clearwire, etc.) is attractive if you have it available in your area, but despite early promise, the growth of coverage has been disappointingly slow.

For fixed wireless (mostly from local ISPs), if it is available in your area, prices will vary widely. In addition, in many areas only line-of-sight is supported, which means in areas with forests and hills, etc., your chances of getting a signal depend entirely on your local geography. (There are places where you can get non-line-of-sight fixed wireless but this is less common.) Otherwise, as my local fixed wireless guy suggested, you may have to build a 90′ tower to get it. I believe this is what the author is referring to by “long range wifi” — in any event, it is completely different from the WiFi routers, etc., that you see at Best Buy.

For satellite (WildBlue, Hughes, etc.): there is an inherent high latency to satellite communications that cannot be fixed. This will cause the advertised theoretical speed to disappoint users when it comes to real-life experiences. The effect is most evident on gaming, but can also negatively affect the apparent speed of loading complex web pages such as many web-shopping sites.

Despite Tucker’s suggestion, BPL doesn’t seem to be getting any traction in the market, and you are not likely to have it in your area. (Sorry! The idea does have its attractions!)

Two other alternatives not even touched upon in the article:

ISDN is available in many places that don’t have DSL or cable. It’s an older technology, and limited to 128k/128k, but the signal quality tends to be rock-solid, latency is not a problem, and it can be provided at distances far exceeding DSL. It uses 2 regular copper phone lines just like your old-fashioned landlines.

And finally, for the rich and desperate, don’t forget you can always swing for the fences and get a T1 line. A whole T1 is expensive ($400-500-and up/monthly) and has so much bandwidth that it probably exceeds your needs by a ridiculous amount. HOWEVER, you may be able to sign up for a fractional T1 for less money and still get a lot of bandwidth and excellent speed and latency. Plus, T1 lines come with a quality/service commitment and so downtimes are taken seriously and fixed soonest.

I have actually used nearly all of the access methods mentioned above (not fixed wireless or BPL). In terms of overall desirability (ignoring cost) I would rate them, from best to worse, in this order:

1. T3/FrameRelay/etc
So expensive and so much bandwidth even the rich don’t order it for their houses, just for businesses.

2. T1 (whole/fractional)
Expensive. Fast. Reliable. As much bandwidth as you want — and you can pay for.

3. DSL (tied)
3. Cable (tied)
More-or-less equal but in any given area, one may have a better price/performance than another. This should be the default choice for most residential users if either are available to you.

5. Fixed wireless (tied)
5. Broadband wireless (tied)
Regular broadband wireless is much more broadly available.

7. ISDN (tied, sort of)
7. Satellite
ISDN much better for gamers and possibly for general web browsing. Satellite better at big massive downloads.

9. Dialup
Need I say more?

Hope that helps somebody!

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