Linked by David Adams on Sun 11th Jul 2010 18:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 433191
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-02
Most certainly people/businesses can charge for their content. Most newspapers already do that, only showing basic stuff for free. For the real news you need to subscribe. Most often it is more expensive than getting the actual paper and reading it for the same content.
The problem truly lies in the fact that we are heading towards a second depression here in the US. With wages decreasing and more and more people out of work, there are less people that even have any money to begin with. As more people have less money then they have ever had, the new sites that charge really will not stand too much of a chance. As costs go up to access sites, the readership of those sites will go down. Take that into consideration, and it is easy to realize that if people can't afford to access some sites, which might be the only reason they have internet to begin with, they will also cancel their internet service. Less people on the net really means less information of value available, and less people that can access said information. The math is pretty straight forward.
Edit: Typo in Subject
Edited 2010-07-12 02:28 UTC