Hah, oh, jeez

You're killing me here Jeff!

This is a repeat from 1996.

No, it won't.

And I'll continue to laugh at all the unemployed morons who went to college for Journalism in the last decade because they couldn't see this coming.

I would just like to note for the record that I detest the word 'synergy'.

Keep on farking that chicken, Jeffy.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: No, it won't.

And I'll continue to laugh at all the unemployed morons who went to college for Journalism in the last decade because they couldn't see this coming.

Wait, what?

Newspapers =/= journalists.

I highly doubt that that's his real last name.

That's funny.

Newsflash folks (looking at you too Hulu), if you don't put it out there free, people will gravitate towards the sites that do.

Be happy with the ad revenue you generate, because content related revenue isn't going to work.

You know as insane as he sounds, just watch Net Neutrality get killed and he soon will be right.

It all comes down to net neutrality.

Currently, you have a choice. But if it's up to Ruprecht Murdoch, you'll be force fed their take on 'news'.

/You don't need to know the unemployment is 10.2%, citizen.
//You'll get plenty of 'news' about Jennifer Aniston's latest pair of shoes, though.

AOL

In order to make this work they will first have to lobby very hard to do something against net-neutrality. Then they will have to insure that ISPs start bundeling Internet sites the same way they do cable channels and crack down on anybody who tries to circumvent this stupidity. Once they have managed to create some sort of monopoly where customers have the choice between no online news and their online news they can start charging for them.

Alternatively they can try to get people to pay them to tell them lies they want to hear. You would have to jetison the whole truth angle of the news but it could work.

As a last resort there is always mixing in vast amounts of porn.

Hey Jeff, could you pull my other leg for awhile... I'd like to keep them the same length.

Isn't this the same company that committed financial suicide by merging with AOhell which proceeded to promptly rape it?

/or something like that?

People will not pay for news online.

However, if there was a site that offered stuff that was not news, I'm sure they could find some suckers willing to shell out each month for extra content.

You won that race imgod2u.

Actually I would pay for some really good online news. I highly doubt Time Warner will be offering it though.

He's right.

The revenue streams are dangerously low; expect a cascade of required paid-for logins to plague Fark within two years. Fark will slowly die.

Packages will be the norm, much like cable is now.

imgod2u: I'd like to point out the irony of the TF'ers in this thread laughing at the guy.

There's a difference between paying for news and paying for snark. :)

make me some tea: The second time I've done this today:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*wheeze*

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I came here to do this, but instead I'll just try to help you breathe. Think of something unfunny - like, say, Marge Simpson biting your dick.

How about you let me peacemeal pay for only the cable channels I want. And then give me an internet portal where I can watch any shows from those channels any time I want on demand?

Our news channels suck, they're slanted, partisan hype fests.

The very-small-payment (micropayments or bundled payments) model should be able to work - if the service providers put out good content in an efficient and timely manner.

Unfortunately, most of the media companies want to get higher payments per user, and seeing only a buck per user per month seems like a bad idea. Until you're getting a couple of million users, PLUS ad sales, for an operation that you can literally run out of a closet. Note that for most of the history of newspapers, the actual printing and distribution costs were barely breaking even with what people paid per copy. The rest of the costs (rent, staff, etc) were paid for by advertising... at pennies per user per day.

Yeah I'm paying for internet already. This will probably happen and a ton of organizations are gonna fail, massively.

The only somewhat maybe not even viable version I see of this working would include the government taxing internet service to socialize struggling news outlets, which is stupid too.

I won't mind paying for every click of content I view on the internet, just as soon as the telecoms give me internet access for free.

I don't pay my satellite TV bill and then pay again for every episode of the Daily Show.

I do pay for every individual thing I take home from the grocery store, but they don't charge me a $30 cover at the door for walking in.

Farking pick one.

cirby: The very-small-payment (micropayments or bundled payments) model should be able to work - if the service providers put out good content in an efficient and timely manner.

That and, I have no idea if this has been tried or not... but if my ISP (which is also the cable company) had some option for (just saying) an extra $2.00 per month but that got me behind the scenes access to a series of sites, I would probably go for that. Kind of like those cable premium channel packages?

I would pay for news that was not advertiser supported. It would be nice to get the cold hard truth instead of news thats filtered by editorial boards who are too squeamish to piss of their advertisers.

Clarence Potter: cirby: The very-small-payment (micropayments or bundled payments) model should be able to work - if the service providers put out good content in an efficient and timely manner.

That and, I have no idea if this has been tried or not... but if my ISP (which is also the cable company) had some option for (just saying) an extra $2.00 per month but that got me behind the scenes access to a series of sites, I would probably go for that. Kind of like those cable premium channel packages?

Unless I misunderstand - you must be a shill. Are you advocating the elimination of net neutrality, so you can PAY your ISP for "behind the scenes access"? You do realize all those websites you take for granted would instantly be blocked, and you'd have to pay the $2... no scratch that, $20/month to get access to the content you already can access, free of charge.

Besides, please explain how you can't already pay to get extra access to certain websites, ie Fark or Somethingawful. Please explain why paying extra to the ISP creates an advantage in any possible way (with the exception that the ISP are the ones administering the content you get extra).

ParadigmLeftShift: Unless I misunderstand - you must be a shill. Are you advocating the elimination of net neutrality, so you can PAY your ISP for "behind the scenes access"? You do realize all those websites you take for granted would instantly be blocked, and you'd have to pay the $2... no scratch that, $20/month to get access to the content you already can access, free of charge.

First, no I am not a shill. Second, no my post has zero to do with net neutrality. Third, if a series of sites (NYTimes, WSJ, Conde Nast) had some sort of aggregate pass, and my ISP had that as something I could tack on to my monthly bill, would I go for that? I'd think that easier than maintaining yet another account on yet another site.

Oh and lighten up, Francis. Yes, you did misunderstand.

I'm already paying for Not News, so this doesn't seem far fetched to me. I'd happily pay a few bucks a month for access to a news aggregate that provided solid, unbiased news.

As others have said, the reality of this will come down to net neutrality. If we lose that, we're all farked.

GraysonAC: As others have said, the reality of this will come down to net neutrality. If we lose that, we're all farked.

Net neutrality in a legal sense is really a separate issue. This packaging is a business issue, and will happen regardless of how the Internet is structured.

I'm personally not against the stratification of access. It's been the Wild West for a long time. We're spoiled to it. Neutrality has been nice, but it really can't sustain itself in the near future. It's too clogged already. A neutral net will become too shiatty to use without barriers of access.


No, we won't be farked. We'll pay, and we'll get over it.

Hey, my daughter wants to major in Journalism!
we still need good writers don't we?

Britney Spear's Speculum: Yeah I'm paying for internet already.

You're paying for service, not content.

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Hey, my daughter wants to major in Journalism!
we still need good writers don't we?

you don't need to study journalism to be a good writer. you can study other subjects and become a good writer through practice writing papers.

plus, of course, many good writers never went to college

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Hey, my daughter wants to major in Journalism!
we still need good writers don't we?

Newspapers are dying, not journalism. There will continue to be a culling, and the survivors will thrive online under a paid system. This whole argument that journalism is in its death throes is overstated. It's going through a painful change right now and thinks look bad, to be sure, but a new way of doing things will emerge and settle in this digital age.

I work in newspapers, and it's downright funny watching the oldsters clinging to their newsprint like the last blanket in the cave.

Silly.

Magnetar

I'm personally not against the stratification of access. It's been the Wild West for a long time. We're spoiled to it. Neutrality has been nice, but it really can't sustain itself in the near future. It's too clogged already. A neutral net will become too shiatty to use without barriers of access.

I always ask how it's "Too clogged" but I never get an answer. Seems to work fine for me and everyone else I know. Perhaps if it does get "Too clogged" some upgrades are in order. You know, like those other businesses that invest in this thing called infrastructure.

Snake Vargas: Magnetar

I'm personally not against the stratification of access. It's been the Wild West for a long time. We're spoiled to it. Neutrality has been nice, but it really can't sustain itself in the near future. It's too clogged already. A neutral net will become too shiatty to use without barriers of access.

I always ask how it's "Too clogged" but I never get an answer. Seems to work fine for me and everyone else I know. Perhaps if it does get "Too clogged" some upgrades are in order. You know, like those other businesses that invest in this thing called infrastructure.

Apparently you don't have periods of slow Internets.

Magnetar: It's too clogged already.

WTF does this even mean?

Do you really think net neutrality, in terms of ISP implementation, will be anything but a big, giant net filter, that bans access to sites not in your payment profile?

So please explain how the web will be "unclogged" by the elimination of net neutrality.

ParadigmLeftShift: Magnetar: It's too clogged already.

WTF does this even mean?

Do you really think net neutrality, in terms of ISP implementation, will be anything but a big, giant net filter, that bans access to sites not in your payment profile?

So please explain how the web will be "unclogged" by the elimination of net neutrality.

All the torrents will be in their own, more-expensive tube, while paid subscriber services, like legitimately downloaded media, will be in a cheaper, less- clogged tube.

This isn't a revalation. Look it up.

Spoiled Internet kids are spoiled.

Magnetar:

All the torrents will be in their own, more-expensive tube, while paid subscriber services, like legitimately downloaded media, will be in a cheaper, less- clogged tube.

This isn't a revalation. Look it up.

Except what will really happen is your average user will continue to use more and more "legitimate" bandwidth (heh, do you know anything about the internet at all?) and your connection will still suck for whatever reason it sucks now.

Having been successfully excused from needing to upgrade their infrastructure thanks to you buying that "EBIL PIRATES!!11" line like a good masturbatory prole, you'll be lucky to surf the internet as you do now for under $200/mo.

Huge profits will be made, people will have to listen to you whine about your bill on the phone because you were too stupid to grasp the issue when it was relevant, and customer service will laugh in glee at your inability to choose another provider because the ink is dry on your services contract that depends on you being a customer with them.

Want to cancel your VOIP service? "Oh, I'm sorry sir, that's a $99 cancellation fee, and it doesn't work with AT&T broadband, so we'll tack another $99 internet service termination fee onto that."

Yeah, that's...that's a great farken plan chief.

Ironic tag was robbed
/for posting this on fark

jennies1897: No it will not. People like the internet because of the variety of news sites you can visit without shelling out a bajillion freakin' dollars. It helps in keeping the masses fair & balanced. Or, at least it would if you'd use it right. People are stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So, newspaper and magazine subscription prices should have been regulated by the government to all be the same price all this time? And DVD prices? And cable packages, too? Why should the Internet get special privileges?

Why stop there? The government should make all iPods cost the same, regardless of capability. After all, you want it, and you only have so much money.

I'd keep going, but you get the point.

People treat Internet access like it's access to water. Stupid.