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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Topsy_Cret
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.


Indeed that would be the optimal, pay for what your surf and not pay for something your not using. I guess this year is going to be very interesting in more way's than one. So many new ideas "yes we can change" lol , are being presented to everyone, but without the hype, slowly but surely there making it known. Then one day we wake up and were paying and extra ten dollars a for internet content reading per month.




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 



Indeed that would be the optimal, pay for what your surf and not pay for something your not using. I guess this year is going to be very interesting in more way's than one. So many new ideas "yes we can change" lol , are being presented to everyone, but without the hype, slowly but surely there making it known. Then one day we wake up and were paying and extra ten dollars a for internet content reading per month.


This is exactly what is going to happen.

They will start out with something that you will be annoyed with but will agree is reasonable and before you know it you are paying close to the amount of a car payment for the service.

They start with a toe and before you know it they are up to your neck.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 



I sure hope it is doomed to fail. Does the web not work effeciently now, why fix something that isn;t broken? I say just leave things alone. We pay for internet service and a few sites extra and foe any advertising, that is good enogh for me. I would be very upset if I had to pay per word to view the content on the internet. I hope this does not go over...



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by tristar
 



Indeed that would be the optimal, pay for what your surf and not pay for something your not using. I guess this year is going to be very interesting in more way's than one. So many new ideas "yes we can change" lol , are being presented to everyone, but without the hype, slowly but surely there making it known. Then one day we wake up and were paying and extra ten dollars a for internet content reading per month.


This is exactly what is going to happen.

They will start out with something that you will be annoyed with but will agree is reasonable and before you know it you are paying close to the amount of a car payment for the service.

They start with a toe and before you know it they are up to your neck.




This is my fear as well. Give em an inch they will take w whole da*m% mile. Like everything else give em time and they will get there gready little hands in on it somehow.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melissa101
reply to post by warrenb
 



I sure hope it is doomed to fail. Does the web not work effeciently now, why fix something that isn;t broken? I say just leave things alone. We pay for internet service and a few sites extra and foe any advertising, that is good enogh for me. I would be very upset if I had to pay per word to view the content on the internet. I hope this does not go over...


Wrong answer.

The only way to stop this is to say "I will "not" pay additional money to view content on the internet!"

Money speaks louder than words and "not" spending you money sends the loudest message.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well one obvious way would be to pay for content that free surfers would not have access to plus a wider variety of services across other sectors of the IT world.

It would something like taking a child to a candy store but you will need to pay an entrance fee for tasting it.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
They're not going to charge you for content you read throughout the entire Internet. They'll charge just for their own site.

You don't wanna pay? Then you won't be able to access their premium services.

There are plenty of members only sites out there...this really isn't something new. I know of pay for content sites that have been around for nearly ten years.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorian Guard
 


That is true, but what is being suggested is the New's Media content sites. If you regulate and limit the amount of media which is free flowing throughout the net then you can regulate the way people's mind's respond to particular events. look at recent events and notice people's reaction to a particular topic based on his or her system of beliefs.

Never underestimate the power of the news and it is becoming more evident that people tend to use the internet to cross reference articles in order to validate or dismiss anything put forward as an opinion or fact.
By restricting the access to a mechanism which was systematically put into place you have effectively created a new market within the Internet which will bring you a profit given that the its taken ten years for people to adapt to your brilliant methods or marketing through the internet.

This is what Rupert Murdoch has openly said in his own words and he and the other boys just informed everyone that this is why we are going to charge you. Effective methods or enforcing this new ear would be with mass law suits if their content is reproduced or altered in any manner.

I ask you, if you were a blogger, would you use their content altered or reproduced in any way and risk being sued by a conglomerate who burns cash so he can keep warm in winter ?

I present to you a 58min video of an interview with himself and his future views. Take the time to listen with rational thinking. This is over three years ago so you can more or less feel what was said has become.


Google Video Link


[edit on 16-5-2009 by tristar]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join