It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY Times considers two plans to charge for Web content

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

NY Times considers two plans to charge for Web content


www.digitaljournal.com

he New York Times is considering two methods of charging for accessing online content. The final decision will be made at the end of June.
One proposals will include a meter system". This allows the reader to roam freely on the website until hitting a predetermined limit of word-count or pageviews, after which a meter will start running and the reader is charged for movement on the site thereafter.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Hey there viewers, we have all seen what Rupert Murdoch has said just afew days ago, so here you have it.

Its official and its going to hit the net like an avalanche so get ready for more and more sites that will be charging for content use. We are officially in a New Age of Internet era, what will be next or should i say which other sites will be next to follow.

Would you be willing to pay for content browsing ?

www.digitaljournal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
doomed to fail

simply because there are a million competitors who offer the same stuff for nothing



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Completely agree.

This will not work, people will just get their news elsewhere.

This is proven by newspapers shutting down across the country due to no one wanting to buy them.

No one wants to buy the stories on the web either!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
doomed to fail

simply because there are a million competitors who offer the same stuff for nothing


Only doomed in the begining, but it won't take long tp close site after site for one reason or another.
We can't have peoples individual blog sites, they may incite violence or be deemed detremental to human developement.

If you have all the money, you control those who create the laws and will get those laws passed to suit your own agenda.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I'm still not understanding why they think we have all this money....




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
So far, lots of online newspapers have tried to charge for content and almost all have failed miserably.

One exception is the Wall Street Journal. Of course now that Murdoch has bought the WSJ its content is even more problematic.

Any online newspaper I use would have to offer an immense amount of added value for me to even consider becoming a paying subscriber.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Newspapers are a thing of the past. Change with the times or die.
Nuff Said. Second line



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The difference is that these boys are the ones who supply all the media blogs and rss feeds with news. What im trying to tell you is that they hold the main switch and they can do what ever they like and no will can shout anything about freedom of speech. I like how you mentioned there are other media sources out there, that is true, but keep in mind that all these major networks know each other and have dinner with each without breaking a sweat. It has nothing to do if its in America or Spain or Russia, these guys along with afew other party boys are what makes the world go round.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Bandwidth and hosting isn't free, lest we forget there is no and never has been a free lunch.
Having worked at a couple of hosting facilities, I can attest to the expenses involved in running a 24X7 web operation.
I always wondered how long it would take for the ad-revenue supported sites to start directly charging or giving special ad-free access to more valued visitors(like ATS, for example) and letting the freeloaders deal with the rest.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I used pay for access to the Wall street journal's website, don't see what the big deal is. It's free now, they have better add service I guess.. I guess the Time's add revenue must be dropping? Few sites charge for service, simply because of the number of free services out there.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Well, I certainly wouldn't be willing to pay to read the trash, half-truths, lies, and biased reporting of the New York Times. A long time ago, it was a reputable paper. today, it makes the National Inquirer more believable.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
This is crazy... I wouldnt mind paying for a site if I didnt have to pay an ISP to get there first. I dont think this will fail. Newspapers are failing and they need to get money from some where. I just hope other sites dont start to charge there users. It just seems like a rip off to me. Either charge us top have internet or charge us for the site were on not both.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Crazy or not crazy, its happening, like i mentioned in my opening statement, Ruby did openly say that the internet and revenue need to adapt. He only putting to practice what he mentioned in his interview.

"The billionaire CEO of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, is sounding the death knell for free Internet news delivery.

At least for Fox News and the many other online media outlets Murdoch controls.

With traditional print newspapers on the decline as ad sales plunge and readers turn to the Web for news and information, media companies are struggling to find ways to profit.

Murdoch feels that, despite the global economic turndown, charging for access to news is not only the right thing to do, it’s the wave of the future…

…Murdoch is so bullish on the near future that he expects moves to charge readers at the websites of Fox News, The Times, The Sun and others within a year’s time.

“We’re absolutely looking at that,” says the Australian-born media titan.

“The current days of the free Internet will soon be over.”

One year ago, I doubt anyone would have believed a company, business, or corporation could charge users for news. Most news sites use advertising revenue to pay for their operations. But, with newspapers collapsing on a seemingly regular basis, the place to get news is rapidly becoming the Internet."


Will this expand to other site's, i myself, think yes it will.



[edit on 15-5-2009 by tristar]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
it could work, go ahead Rup' you got my approval



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I think you're right aswell... I just hope it wont. Like I said I wouldnt mind at all if I didnt have to pay to get on line first. Either way I dont read the NY Times and probly never will.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Topsy_Cret
I think you're right aswell... I just hope it wont. Like I said I wouldnt mind at all if I didnt have to pay to get on line first. Either way I dont read the NY Times and probly never will.


What about the ad revenue?

Remember the great cable lie.

"Pay a meager monthly fee and will bring you television free of commercials!"


Now you pay through the nose for a bunch of old movies that you already have collecting dust on your shelf and your private DVD collection has movies that are newer then the ones that they charge you for on Pay Per View.

Add to the insult that you are being bombarded with commercials and you trust these people to be fair about allowing you access through their sites to the internet?

The internet did not start with AOL or big corporations.

It started with Universities and individual servers and hubs.

Don't be duped.

You don't have to watch TV with cable and you don't need huge greedy corporations.

You teach people how to treat you.

What are you teaching them?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


Good point, but when those boys smell money its like trying to switch off a pittbull. Perhaps this is why p2p is being hunted,



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
NightSkyeB4Dawn- I think you missread my post.... Could be my fault, I agreed with tristar before the edit on that post when they said that it would most likly spread to other sites. I think the internet should be free. I dont mind paying for the internet if I dont have to pay for the sites I vist. I wouldnt mind if I got free access and was only charged for the sites I was going to. In my option it should be either one or the other, not both.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I believe at one time, about 4-5 years ago, in order to go to The New York Times it required a subscription, then they made it like everyone else, correct me if I am wrong because I use to try and read it and every time I would see this I would just say the heck with it and go to CNN or The Washington Post, I am not sure exactly when they change it but it was a fact.

I pretty much elaborated on the Rupert Murdoch thread where this was headed though, sad but true.

Someone has to have a hustle and put food on the table, when one dries up another materializes.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join