By Rodney H. Brown

AT&T has not only given up complaining about T-Mobile’s claims that its HSPA+ broadband cell network is “real 4G,” it has jumped right into the pit with T-Mobile, announcing a slew of new HSPA+ based “4G” phones today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Not to be outdone, AT&T is touting that its “100 percent” coverage throughout its entire cell network for this HSPA+ technology. What it doesn’t say in the releases is that only three markets – Chicago, Houston and Charlotte, N.C. – have the fiber or Ethernet connection off the cell tower to allow for 4G-like speeds of up to 6 Mbps. Boston, not so fast.

At this rate, pretty soon we will be calling my old pre-paid Virgin Mobile phone’s web browsing speeds as “4G.” Seriously, just one year ago, both AT&T and T-Mobile were touting the rollout of HSPA+ that would be happening throughout 2010 as a faster 3G.  Now it is somehow right up there with the WiMax 4G offering from Sprint, Clearwire and partners like Comcast? Or the LTE flavor of 4G offered right here in Boston by Verizon and MetroPCS?

To be fair, the speeds achieved over HSPA+, even without the faster backhaul, blow away 3G cell data speeds. But none of the 4G flavors out there right now are even close to what the International Telecommunications Union defined in October as a true 4G broadband speed – 100 Mbps up to 1 Gbps.

None of that is slowing done AT&T in its race to be seen as part of the 4G “in” crowd. While announcing its interpretation of a 4G network today, it also revealed some pretty amazing devices, including the powerful dual-core Motorola Atrix 4G, which will be available in the first half of this year, and the gorgeous Samsung Infuse 4G, available in the second half.

AT&T is also working on a rollout of an LTE 4G network to compete with Verizon’s, which will start by the middle of this year and is slated for completion by the end of 2013. But that will give it two supposed 4G networks, and it will have to carry separate devices for each. Customers may drown in 4G confusion by the end of the year.

Two questions remain. When will Boston get the faster HSPA+ speeds? And just how low can a broadband connection over the air get and still be called 4G by some carrier’s marketing department? Somebody cue the carrier pigeons.

By Rodney Brown

Irony is usually born of coincidence. Take for example the fact that the cult classic movie “Hackers” is getting a special screening Monday, Oct. 11, at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline. The main plot of the movie involves a corporate security hacker who designs a worm that allows him to manipulate the command and control systems of the oil tankers his company owns, and he blackmails the company with the threat that he will capsize them if they don’t pay.

Enter the irony in the form of the Stuxnet worm. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the Stuxnet worm is a malicious bit of code that is currently trying to wreak havoc on the command and control systems in nuclear power plants in Iran. It is the first reported case of an actual targeted cyber attack. And while the comparison to the plot of “Hackers” is ironic, the reality is that a bunch of hyper-nerdy meets mega-hipster kids led by Angelina Jolie isn’t going to stop this worm.

So what’s the big deal, you may ask. This means the Israelis don’t have to bomb the plants, as they did in 1981 with a nuclear plant in Baghdad, Iraq.  And while there is as of yet no proof, the general consensus is that this Stuxnet worm is likely an Israeli creation.

Too bad the Stuxnet creators have now released into the wild the exact weapon our enemies need to recreate another hacker movie, “Live Free or Die Hard.” If you don’t recall, that was the fourth Bruce Willis “Die Hard” movie, in which a former government coder initiated what is called the “Fire Sale,” from the idea that everything must go – in this case, every control system for all utilities and infrastructure in the United States.

Sure, right now the Stuxnet is designed only to destroy the specific Siemens industrial control systems used in those Iranian plants, but guess what – that system is used in nuclear plants all around the world. In fact, it is used in all sorts of power systems. From Siemens’ own website: “We are the leading service partner for an installed fleet of power plants representing approximately one-fifth of all large-scale and industrial power plants worldwide.” According to an NPR report, that Siemens system runs most of the hydroelectric dams in the world. Imagine what would happen to Los Angeles and Las Vegas if just the Hoover and Grand Cooley dams were shut down because of a Stuxnet-derived attack.

Perhaps I am indulging a bit too much in a Chicken Little scenario, but I believe we will look back on this event as the time when warfare really changed, and the realm of cyberthrillers and cyberaction movies became reality. I guarantee a copy of Stuxnet is already in the hands of Al Quaeda. And I guarantee that the officers and enlisted men in the newly established Air Force Cyber Command, which got the green light to become operational at Lackland Air Force base in January, are working around the clock right now to make sure the country has a defense for Stuxnet.

Yippie kai-yay, as Officer John McClane would say.

By Julie Donnelly

Attention parents: If you hoped to pry that gadget out of the text-hungry monkey fingers of your adolescent by warning her of the risk of cancer from too much cell-phone exposure, don’t look to the FDA for any help.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says, with the caveat that “research is still ongoing,” that there is no evidence of an apparent link between exposure to cell phones and brain tumors. The FDA has a stake in this because it jointly, with the FCC, has oversight of cell phones.

The FDA cites a study by the World Health Organization, released May 17, that shows there is no increased health risk due to radio-frequency energy, a form of radiation emitted by cell phones. The WHO study involved participants from 13 different countries — not including the U.S. — some of whom had at least 10 years of cell phone exposure.

The study found that increased exposure in recent years has been partly offset by lower emissions from newer phones.

But investigators did say that study participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40 percent higher risk for a type of brain tumor called a glioma. But they said no conclusions could be drawn from the data because of “errors and biases.”

It does make one wonder if the whole study, then, was plagued with “errors and biases.”

While it would be nice to put this debate to rest, this report doesn’t do it. More neurosurgeons will probably go on Larry King, as they have done already, to tell people not to hold the cellphone up to their ear, and to use an earpiece.

The FDA has another suggestion for those concerned about exposure: Put the phone on speaker.

Unfortunately this practice is unlikely to catch on among the most “at-risk” group of cell phone users. Putting the phone on speaker, in the presence of one’s parents, might be considered a fate worse than death for many teenagers.

Actually, just scratch this whole thing. A text from my sister, 20, reads “Duh, no one talks on the phone anymore anyway.”

No news, yet, of any Facebook cancer risks.