High-Speed Internet Needed Nationwide

Americans living in many rural areas nationwide may not be able to read this blog very easily. For many communities, they simply do not have access to a high-speed connection. For others with low incomes, they cannot afford the steep costs of a fast connection.

In fact, this New York Times article reports that 33 percent of Americans with access to a broadband connection elect not to subscribe. Finances are definitely a reason, which warrants further federal investigation as to how costs could be reduced without driving ISPs out of business. According to the article, age is another factor as just 30 percent of Americans 65 or older use broadband Internet.

Still, despite many people electing not to use their service, there is still 4 percent of Americans who do not have any access to high-speed Internet in their homes. For me, this is incredibly troubling. In today's world, access to information on this information is vital. There are many topics that mainstream news sources will not dare to cover, which is one reason that independent media on the Internet is so important. Without access to this vital information, one cannot be as informed.

Many countries, like Finland, have made access to high-speed Internet a legal right of all of its citizens. In October, Finland declared that starting next July every citizen will be guaranteed access to a one-megabit broadband connection. By the end of 2015, each citizen will be able to access a 100-megabit connection.

Americans need access to high-speed Internet. As reported here, a task force report released Friday in Minnesota is making universal broadband access a goal for that state. Minnesota is currently 24th in broadband access, but hopes to jump into the top five. The report examined the existing WiFi coverage and the state's rural areas, and made recommendations on how to achieve greater coverage by 2015. Let's hope that the federal government can come up with a similar plan of action soon and implement it to make universal broadband access a reality for the United States.

For more information on this issue, check out this blog post or InternetForEveryone.org.

NY Times Cuts 100 Jobs

In more depressing news for a journalism major, it was reported yesterday that the New York Times will be cutting 100 positions before the end of the year. That represents about 8 percent of the newsroom. The Times had already slashed a similar amount of jobs in 2008, and issued a 5 percent pay cut for the beginning of this year. Additionally, its budget for freelancers was trimmed considerably as well.

This all contributes to the general sense that newspapers are dying and journalism is shifting onto the Net, where independent sites can provide similar (or even superior) coverage for a fraction of the cost of a major operation like the Times. Layoffs like these are disheartening for someone like me, who likes having the physical print product to take with me and read over lunch, on the bus or elsewhere without being tied down by a computer. Newspapers need to find a way to turn around this terrible trend.

FTC to Change Advertising Rules for Bloggers

A New York Times article that appeared earlier tonight reported that the Federal Trade Commission announced it would be revising rules about endorsements and testimonials that have been on the books since 1980. Beginning December 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with the product their reviewing, including free giveaways or payment from an advertiser, which occurs more frequently. Celebrities must also disclose their ties to companies if they promote a product on a talk show or Web site.

The new rules are no surprise - they've been under consideration since November. This change means that the previously uninhibited flow of free stuff to bloggers may come to an end. Furthermore, as reporter Tim Arango suggests, this move hints that the government might attempt to regulate the Internet in the same way it regulates other forms of media, like television or newspapers.

In my opinion, I view this move as a good thing. Bloggers need to be held accountable for their potential conflicts of interest in the same way as television or print reporters. Hopefully it doesn't mean that more regulations are on the way for the Net, but this change, as its stands, is a positive one and will help readers to get the facts, rather than misinformation bloggers could have been paid to provide from advertisers.

Newspapers Should be Endowed?!

The theory expressed in the op-ed piece "News You Can Endow," written by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, is one I've never heard before. In the piece, they argue that in order for newspapers to survive their current economic situation, newspapers should become endowed just like colleges and universities. They reason that endowments would increase newspapers' independence and allow for greater financial stability. Furthermore, Swensen and Schmidt agree that there would be less pressure on newspapers from stockholders or advertisers, thereby making news organizations more honest and better run. In theory, I think this idea is very sound; in fact, by their logic, the only negative aspect would be that newspapers could no longer endorse a political candidate due to legal constraints on endowments. Additionally, I -- as well as most others -- agree that newspapers' current business model must be amended or updated in order for newspapers to remain viable in today's digital age where most people get their news from the Internet. However, the amount of money needed to finance a single newspaper, much less all of the newspapers in the nation, is extraordinary. Who will finance these papers? In the article, they mention that The New York Times would require an endowment of $5 billion -- certainly no small amount of money. Additionally, while papers would no longer have to answer to shareholders, would those putting their money into the paper want something in return? In the end, newspapers may find themselves answering to a whole new group of people. While Stensen and Schmidt make a strong argument for endowments, I'm not 100 percent sold on the idea. Fundamentally, however, their argument has resonance: Newspapers must change their business models to survive.