it's not broadband you get it's wasteband, fred goldstein wrote 2005:

combination of greed and politics is leading to a situation where the Internet is being replaced by a different vision of "broadband", one in which a service provider -- the owner of the physical wire -- makes the decisions about what kind of content one can see, and what applications one is allowed to run. It's a bit more like cable TV, but on your computer. There are channels to choose from, but users are merely consumers of content, which is metered out for a price. ... video downloads use so much bandwidth that the price per bit must be extremely low, probably below cost, or they won't happen. Therefore the price of video bandwidth needs to be lowered to generate business. The fact that the carrier would lose money on each video sale is irrelevant; they could make it up by charging monopoly rents on every "message" sent, be it SMS, MMS, or for that matter a page hit on MSN Hotmail or Gmail. Monitor and cross subsidize everything, yeah, that's the ticket. | when broadband offers less not more

some try to get the message across: email is dead. it's still the most used feature, as i am concerned. goldstine gives a little hint for the why as for carriers email "competes with carrier-provided services such as SMS." sms means less characteres and more money.

The most common such message is "OK". Most wireless carriers sell a text message like that for two to ten cents. SMS is capped at a few dozen characters, so that dime can't send too much. Now contrast that with the price per bit of a 2 1/2-G wireless data service like 1xRTT. An awful lot of bytes can get sent for the same price as one SMS. By focusing on lost potential revenues rather than profit margins, this lower-cost service is perceived as costing the carrier money! And 3G's relatively cheap broadband is thus seen as a profit killer, if treated as an ISP.

on one side there are new studies, (new and old) acronyms and testbeds popping up, on the other the providers don't really seem to be interested to bring it to the market as long as they don't have their "right" business models in place. therefore some things have to chance, and as it's hard to change the consumer, even he already excepts much more in the wireless world as in the internet world, they try it with politics.

there you have two species with anything put users in mind but where laws are written. however laws need to be accepted by the public to be effective. countries which are used not to follow their authorities blindly have an advantage here.

• get rid of net neutrality.
• watch how the intellectual property discussion develops. taken from the originator, given to the companies,thanks to social networking terms and conditions. -and not to forget to watch the fight over standards. which one will survive in the wireless world?

and between all this you have the governments playing by just another auction over frequency band that one could start to wonder if one day i would have to pay for using my full voice spectrum.