Funding content on the Internet

I've been listening recently to Guardian Media Talk podcasts and one of the recent topics of discussion is how certain newspapers (such as the Sunday Times in the UK or New York Times in the USA) are planning on trying to charge for content online... seeing as their revenues for print newspapers are falling at an increasing rate.

And yet I've not heard anyone apply some logic to the situation and point out that content is content. It doesn't matter about the medium of delivery.

So... since way back when, musicians produced content, i.e. songs. Originally the songwriters were paid (well...in theory...depending on their contract) for the sheetmusic sales of that song. Then of the vinyl records (and tapes, and CDs and so on... you get the idea).

However, those sales would often pale into insignificance over time compared to the revenues musicians could earn by either playing live (concerts used to be used to promote record sales, now, with £100 tickets the norm., it's the other way around); or by having their music played on a radio station, TV, film or even in a nightclub or pub.

Those plays, in pubs and clubs around the world, were (and are) tallied by the local Performing Rights Society, and nominal sums are charged that, worldwide, accumulate and find their way back to the original musicians in the shape of Royalty cheques.

So, now consider this. Print newspapers (though I love them) won't last forever. That is clear. More and more local papers are closing every week.

However, if you consider the Internet for newspapers to be akin to the pubs and clubs for music, then it is obvious. You don't charge the customer per page-view (in the same way that you don't charge every individual in a pub for each individual song they hear). You charge the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for delivering the content. It is easy to calculate exactly how many pages of which websites have been visited for how long and how often.

The ISPs then factor this extra cost in to what they charge users to access the Internet.

Exactly the same idea as Nokia's recent 'Comes with Music' range of mobile phones, that are have 4,000 tracks (is it 4,000?) pre-paid, so the user can download and listen to whatever they like, with no extra charges. All included in the cost of the phone.

In the same way that not all pubs and clubs are charged the same amount, not all ISPs would be charged the same. Different bands could be established, as already exist, although at present it only depends on the amount of downloading that occurs in a particular period.

That way, just as we pay one BBC license fee (very very gladly) and get hundreds of hours of high quality TV, radio and internet; we could pay one fee to access the Internet... and that would cover everything. Content producers would be compensated for their hard efforts... and we don't have to resort to micro-payments or excessive ads on the content websites.

In fact, as we move closer to getting TV and Internet joined up, so that you can watch the iPlayer on your TV, why not increase the Licence fee and include everything there? One fee to cover all content... TV, Internet, radio...

...it's just a thought....