Now that Net Neutrality is a done deal the corps are studying how to charge users

[DJ13]

Pew study hints at what Web users will pay for

Thursday December 30, 2010, 12:33 pm EST

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Web may seem like the land of something for nothing. Free video. Free news. Even free tools such as word processing and spreadsheets.

But almost two-thirds of adult Internet users in the U.S. have paid for access to at least one of these intangible items online, according to a new survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Whether people will pay for different types of material on the Web is among the most pressing questions facing media companies in the 21st century.

As people shift their attention to the Internet from more traditional ways of enjoying media, the companies that provide everything from movies to mystery novels want to make sure they can still get paid for what they do. The big TV networks want viewers to pay for full access to episodes of their favorite shows. Newspaper companies want readers to pay for news. Book publishers want higher prices for digital editions of new releases.

The new figures from Pew suggest paying for content online is at least not a completely foreign idea for most people.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pew-study-hints-at-what-Web-apf-880392345.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=


:banghead:

[louis-t]

1. I will absolutely NOT pay to read news online.

I cancelled my hometown newspaper because they wanted to deliver it to me only 3 days a week and have me pay to go online and read it the other 4 days. I've done very well without it, thanks. I hope this backfires in a big way on Comcast, et al.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Ironically, CURRENT news they charge for.

day old news, usually not.
Plus, there are the good guys like alternet, TPM, etc. who aggregate the news anyhow.
Not to mention, most of the papers who want to charge do not carry real news...they did not report on the Veteran's march, they are usually mouthpieces of TPTB,etc.

still, it is kinda fun watching themselves shoot their feet.

[BzaDem]

8. TPM can aggregate the news for free because they get the news for free.

If that changes, and they have to pay royalties for using other peoples' news, how long do you think it will be before they will be forced to charge YOU to read the aggregations of news?

[louis-t]

9. "Dance, DANCE like Michael Jackson"

"Whole lotta talented people in the desert."
Eddie Murphy

[Atypical Liberal]

10. News will be free.

What we are seeing in this age of instant global audio/video communication is that anyone can report a news event, and they are doing so.

If every pay news site locked up behind a paywall tomorrow the people would carry on, uploading their news to free web sites like YouTube, etc.

The irony is, we'd probably have better news.

[formercia]

3. I get my News on DU

Perhaps a little biased sometimes, but at least, it's biased to my liking.

[Posteritatis]

12. You get your news from news links posted on DU. (nt)

[Kaleko]

4. What do you mean Net Neutrality is a done deal?

Did I miss something?

[OhioChick]

13. Yes, you did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4668540

[Kaleko]

14. Um... no.

As was pointed out by many here, what passed is not Net Neutrality but a "Partial Net Neutrality" -- a trojan horse which protects land-line access to the net for the time being but not wireless access, which happens to be the future of the www.

[BzaDem]

15. Content available on wireless is also available on wired.

So I fail to see how what passed is a "trojan horse." You will still have a medium with full access to all content. While the proposal could have been better, the form in which it passed is still a good thing.

[Kaleko]

24. Let me put it this way: Partial Net Neutrality is like

being a little bit pregnant...

with an unwanted child after a gang rape.

[BzaDem]

25. I understand what you are saying even before the analogy

I just do not understand why you are saying that. (I'm questioning the veracity, not the clarity.)

If there is X and Y, and everything available on Y is available on X, I don't see how a proposal to regulate X is a bad thing that shouldn't be enacted.

[Kaleko]

26. This might help...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/videos

starting with the first video on the right titled

Net Neutrality Sellout

After years of promises, the FCC Chairman delivers a proposal for fake Net Neutrality.
Take action.

[OhioChick]

23. My apologies n/t

[abelenkpe]

5. Yeah good luck charging consumers

already struggling to pay the bills. Stupid idea in this economy.

[onenote]

6. what does this have to do with net neutrality

Providers of content delivered via the Internet could and some did charge before the new rules. Heck, while DU doesn't charge for access to its content, it solicits contributions and couldn't exist without them, I suspect. If it changed to a subscription service, how would that have anything to do with net neutrality. And DU discriminates between those who pay (who don't have to see ads) and those who don't. Again, that was before net neutrality regs were adopted and it will be the case afterwards.

[BzaDem]

7. How is this a bad thing? This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Net neutrality was about preventing service providers (like Comcast) from blocking or manipulating traffic speeds for certain sites at the expense of others.

Not about preventing content providers from charging for their own content. Content is not made for free. The New York Times won't actually exist in 5 years if it can't figure out a way to successfully charge for its content online.

[DCKit]

11. There's a difference between paying for content and paying for access to that content.

I will gladly pay Netflix ~$7/month for content, but I'm already paying for the connection that allows me to access that content and shouldn't have to pay a penny more to my Internet provider.

If net neutrality is a done-deal, then this is not an issue.

[Rex]

16. FREE!? Um, NO we all pay for something called an ISP!!!

Well most do, WHAT the fuck is the govt smoking these days!!?! I want some!

[BzaDem]

17. The ISP is for access to the Internet. It does not pay one penny to people who create content.

Similarly, you don't get a free ticket to Disney world just because you already paid for the gas to drive there.

[Rex]

18. And because of that many sites are free and many are pay for site

you miss my point. My ISP should not get to decide if I have to pay a fee to visit DU and if DU wants to become a 'pay for site' they certainly don't need an extra body out there making a profit, because it needs funding to exist.

[BzaDem]

19. Oh of course. No one should have to pay their ISP extra to access some content over other content.

But that's not what this article is about. This article is about actual content creators charging for access to their content, completely independent from the ISP.

[Rex]

20. But content creators are charging for access to their content

What is this something new that just started happening? I'll have to back and read it again.

[BzaDem]

21. It's not new, it's just that more content creators are starting to do this that weren't before.

Some have been doing it the whole time -- it is just becoming more common.

[Rex]

22. Okay i c now, it means more revenue to content creators

wonder if it will help the economy in any way.