Imagine connection speeds up to 60 times more than what we have today. That'd be a miracle, since we all know that even if the fastest pipelines are laid, there are still the limitations of electronics to deal with. Luckily, Australian scientists have found a way to drop electronics altogether, and make circuits fully photonic. Yes, photonic. The future awaits at the full story.

It's yet another case of Texas-filed lawsuits being slapped at large companies: Wi-LAN, an Ottawa-based company that provides and licenses patents for telecommunications equipment, has sued about 22 companies including Sony, Apple, Best Buy, Netgear, Belkin, HP, and Intel among many others.

Wi-LAN claims that the 22 companies have infringed on their WiFi and DSL patents, and that they are illegally using Wi-LAN's Wi-Fi and DSL technology in their devices such as wireless routers and modems. The company currently claims ownership on about 280 issued and pending patents.

Will this lawsuit hold water? Do check this space for more updates!

People who are always doing business on the go should check out Verizon's new product, the UM150 wireless USB Modem for Verizon Wireless. Compatible with most computing devices - desktops, notebooks, tablets, etc. - this small, wireless modem lets you get connected to Verizon Wireless high-speed broadband. The UM150 wireless modem is optimized for Verizon Wireless to ensure higher performance compared to the usual DSL connections.

When used with Verizon Wireless' EV-DO network, the UM150 has average download speeds of 600 kbps and average upload speeds of 500-800 kbps. The small wireless modem also features a retractable antenna as well as a Y-shaped extension cable for more flexibility.

The UM150 is priced at US$ 79.99 after a US$ 50 mail-in rebate, and comes with a two-year agreement with Verizon Wireless. It's certainly not free like Sony and T-Mobile's joint offer for the PSP, but still is a great deal.

Two years ago, the U.S. was 10th among nations of the world regarding the number of citizens with access to high-speed Internet.

Today, it's not even number 10.

Is there a problem, here? It depends on who you ask. Everyone agrees that investment in broadband infrastructure is a good thing in terms of economic activity. They also agree that growth is in danger of exceeding capacity. What people disagree on is how the problem should be addressed.

Critics claim that broadband is being held hostage by a "cozy duopoly" of DSL and cable providers, and that consumers suffer as a result. While it is true that small and rural communities lack choices in this regard, larger metro areas often have a choice of three or more providers, plus wireless - which in some large cities, is being offered "free" to residents as a public service, financed with tax revenue.

Companies are indeed making large investments in high-speed Internet. As prices (in some markets, at least) fall,  consumers increasingly abandon their slow "dial-up" connections for cable and DSL. While the U.S. is behind 11 other nations in terms of high-speed access, it's worth noting that when dial-up users are factored in, the number of U.S. users as a percentage is substantially higher than in other nations - and at least 60% of those appear to be occasional, casual users who express little interest in broadband.

Considering the growth of web activity, however, most everyone agrees that universal high-speed Internet access would be a good thing. The question is, what should the U.S. government do to encourage this, if anything?

This is a complex and contentious issue. On one side are those who believe that it should be left completely to the unfettered free-market.  This would involve auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidders to "ensure that it goes to its highest-valued use." Presumably, some of this use would go to universal broadband.  These people believe regulations should be eliminated so providers would not be required to negotiate with local governments to offer video services over broadband lines,.  "Net Neutrality," the idea that all web content should be treated equally, should not be legislated, they say. Because the Internet represents a dynamic and constantly growing marketplace, they claim that any regulation would be counterproductive.

If private corporations' first mandate is to serve the public good, this viewpoint is valid. It should be noted, however, that present corporate charter laws no longer require that they serve the public good at all. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and a return on shareholder investment.

If the large telecom companies can be trusted to serve the best interests of the public without government oversight - even if it means a smaller profit margin -, then by all means they should be left alone to do so.