Possible cracks in the new media model

A couple of Internet technical decisions recently have demonstrated the volitality of the new media home. Like with much of what's happening elsewhere in the media world, no one seems to know exactly what these moves will mean in the long term, but it's clear that there are possibilities both positive and negative for the media world.

For example, the decision by Comcast, a major Internet provider, to put a ceiling on Internet usage along with trial balloons from others about usage caps or charges. Time-Warner, for example, is experimenting with charging more for more usage, as is AT&T (no surprise there; the monoply is back as anyone with AT&T service knows). PC World magazine has a story explaining some of the concerns raised about the Comcast decision. One thing is clear: There is no way anyone can predict Internet usage demands for the future.

Another was reported by John Markoff in the New York Times. His report says that Internet traffic is beginning to flow around the U.S. due to both technology and concern with our government snooping.

Does it all mean that the new media model commonly accepted -- the one where print media is replaced by digital -- is wrong? Who knows? I believe it means everything is still in flux, which is why student journalists should continue to be trained first as good journalists, versed in the practices of reporting and writing, but that digital forms of communication skills be taught as necessary tools of the trade.