No, or at least not whilst there are so many other free sources. I usually buy The Times in hardcopy.

No, I wouldn't. And I was very sorry to hear about the BBC's web site. Overall, it is currently a fantastic resource.

I think the strategy of The Times might not be as suicidal as it seems as first glance. Is it better to have a million viewers who pay nothing, or a hundred thousand paying £1+? Depends on whether the goal is quantity of readers or money, but given the state of the industry it would seem sensible for it to be the latter.

No, I wouldn't. And I was very sorry to hear about the BBC's web site. Overall, it is currently a fantastic resource.

I think the strategy of The Times might not be as suicidal as it seems as first glance. Is it better to have a million viewers who pay nothing, or a hundred thousand paying £1+? Depends on whether the goal is quantity of readers or money, but given the state of the industry it would seem sensible for it to be the latter.

Not for generalist content that can still be found elsewhere for free. I think that might be the problem for The Times, it's not niche enough or important enough, especially not at £1 a day.

It will be interesting to see if they can make a sustainable case for it, in the end there is no such thing as free and it currently loses £1m per week.

I already do. The Denver Post stopped delivery out here about 11 months ago and for $30.00 a year/20.13GBP I get access to the paper online. This is not the free Post website with its limited coverage, it is a digital copy of paper edition. It is actually better than the paper edition since the weather does not affect delivery.

During that big snow storm in Denver earlier this the week the Post offered free access to the online edition since they could not deliver the paper edition to their customers the day after the storm. I found that to be a brilliant idea on the part of someone at the Post.

Hmm - now do I want to give Rupert Murdoch money to read his 'journalism' ? Why 'no' I think I don't.

Notwithstanding the efforts of dinosaur megalomaniacs to control the free flow of information on an essentially uncontrollable medium, truth will out. The internet genie is out of the bottle and she ain't going back; too much has been invested and too many people feel it belongs in their lives for that to happen.

I'm quite glad that Rupert is fencing himself off. I only wish he would butt out of the UK completely; including his sinister manipulation of our 'democracy'.

Yes, provided the articles were well-written, informative and there were not intrusive ads popping up or flashing in the sidebar AND there was no other free alternative. Not sure when I'd find the time to read it though...

no, money is better spent me thinks:)

Interesting.
The Standard goes free in paper form to increase circulation and raise more advertising revenue whilst the on-line Times starts charging.
Mr BW

It seems that The Times is working hard to build itself as a brand (certain kinds of) people will want to pay for...

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/03/26/unfortunate-byline-of-the-fortnigh/

I haven't bought a newspaper in years and avoid most news broadcasts these days. If I go looking for news online, it's normally the local news I'm after anyway.
So no, I doubt I'll be paying for the privilege. :-)

No, I wouldn't. But in fairness, it's pretty rare for me to buy a newspaper either; I suppose my most frequently used source of news is Radio 3, and that's not by choice but simply because it comes on at certain times.

Not under any circumstances.I would pay a license fee for radio 4 though.

As long as the BBC site (or what remains of it) is free then no. That's my first port of call for news anyway.

How long will there be a free BBC news site though? The BBC-haters would love to see it go.....particularly if they're charging for "news".

It's long been a soapbox speech of mine that the superficially "free" model of the Internet is fundamentally wrong.

In my view it dates back to the origin of the Internet, when there was the commercial Compuserve and the nascent Internet in Universities. Compuserve was astonishingly efficient, delivering information and social networking in moderated and unmoderated format. In a time when you were lucky if you could connect at 2400 baud, they reigned supreme and provided the type of service that was worth paying for. On the other hand, you had kids going through university learning that "the Internet is free" and the multi headed hydra grew from there.

But how "free" is it? Someone has to pay for the servers, the infrastructure, the people - why do you think it isn't you? I used to work in the media, around 15 years ago now, at a time when the BBC license was around £100. And of course, ITV is "Free". I worked out that the average family put £360 a year into the coffers of the ITV. Don't forget that you not only have to pay for the TV companies, but the advertising industry and the entire profit making structure. At the same time the BBC funds all its non-profit making activity through the license fee.

And yes, I know the argument that by marketing a can of beans and making us buy lots it makes all cans of beans cheaper, but that doesn't explain the whole difference. And by the way, that £360 was around £700 if you bought a new car.

So now, the free Internet model is funded by advertising and marketing. Google (who I quite like) sit astride the virtual globe peeling money from us and helping keep the whole edifice spinning.

Would I be prepared to pay for something that was worth having? Yes, but it is unlikely to be a general newspaper. There is a place for "free" and a place for "pay". Knowing what things really cost would be a good start.

"Knowing what things really cost would be a good start."

I think that is the beginning and end of why things are in the state they are, Ham.

Most people have no idea of how prices are constructed and the myriad of costs involved in anything.

And no interest in understanding it.

I already buy two daily papers, so I wouldn't want to pay to read one online too. I prefer to read a paper copy as it's easier and quicker to scan articles - I don't have time or inclination to read every word of everything - and I don't always want to read the paper in the room my computer is in. However, I don't object in principle to the notion of paying to read an online newspaper.

I wouldn't pay to access news online, because I already pay for my daily newspaper. That said, I have no objection in principle to newspapers disappearing behind paywalls. As to whether it makes good business sense for them to do so, I honestly don't know.