Because of the realized disadvantage of Boost's growth - thereby outpacing Sprint - Sprint has announced that the carrier would have to take steps to halt the growth of its MVNO Boost, which primarily targets the youth market.

COO Len Lauer explained that this spurt in Boost's growth will essentially put a strain on Sprint's iDEN network. As it is, the network is already under pressure because Sprint had to give up a portion of its iDEN spectrum to the FCC in order to create clear public safety bands. And with the continuing growth of Boost's users, it is further straining the already near-exhausted network. In truth, the carrier actually prefer that Nextel subscribers be served with the limited capacity that they have.

While no definite plans as to how exactly they intend to stunt Boost's growth, Sprint has announced  the plan to launch dual mode handsets that use CDMA for voice and data calls, and only relies on iDEN for Push To Talk, to thin out Nextel's crowded 800 MHz spectrum.

It seems that Brits favor WiFi more than WiMax. So as not to leave you in the dark, these two are very different from each other -- WiMax stands for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access by the WiMAX Forum, formed in April 2001 to promote conformance and interoperability of the standard IEEE 802.16, also known as WirelessMAN. The Forum describes WiMAX as "a standards-based technology enabling the delivery of last mile wireless broadband access as an alternative to cable and DSL."

On the other hand, WiFi is a brand originally licensed by the Wi-Fi Alliance to describe the underlying technology of wireless local area networks (WLAN) based on the IEEE 802.11 specifications. A person with a WiFi device, be it a computer, telephone, or PDA, can connect to the Internet when in proximity of an access point. The region covered by one or several access points is called a hotspot. Hotspots can range from a single room to many square miles of overlapping hotspots. Wi-Fi can also be used to create a Wireless mesh network.

The usual problems of Wi-Fi won't be seen in WiMax. In WiMax, networks can grow but users could still maintain usable bandwidth, and interference just doesn't occur. So from that alone, you'd think that WiMax is better than WiFi. But according to some educated opinions, WiMax just won't work in the UK. The reason? Issues in spectrum allocations. There is no uniform global licensed spectrum for WiMAX which equates to the fact that WiMAX has no in-built interference protection. It will assume any other network it comes across is part of the same network and, if it isn't, the network is likely to die, resulting in horrendous data loss.

That isn't the case for WiFi since WiFi networks are friendly towards each other, in the sense that if there is interference from another WiFi network, each will try and ignore the other or at least minimize the interference they cause each other. With that, even if British WiMax players such as PCCW and Pipex have spectrum that could power WiMax, it is most likely that when the two companies will launch services, they'll be delivering "private" networks and WiMAX for the masses is unlikely to happen, unless more spectrum is released.

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.

Talk about being an overachiever. The C1 Ultra Mobile PC attempts to set a new standard in the PC, Telecom and Consumer Electronics Industries by combining various portable mobile devices but with integrated multimedia functions. It is designed to provide mobile entertainment, communication and computing needs in one sleek (231mmx192mmx42mm), lightweight (1.19kg with battery), easy-to -carry package that looks like filofax organiser.The C1 Ultra Mobile PC and fully functions as a PC, e-book, MP3 player, wireless device, e-dictionary, PDA and more.

Powered by Microsoft Windows XP OS, it has a 8.4” touchscreen, pen-writing recognition, virtual keyboard, video/audio features, USB ports, PCMCIA slots for GPRS/GPS/3G connectivity, built-in WiFi and Bluetooth, and 80GB HDD. The C1 Ultra Mobile PC ($2,495.00) ships with the following standard and optional accessories (click on the thumbnails to view the accessory):