We've had three decades of micropayments proposals, none have worked.[1] Traditionally, publishers have strongly trended toward aggregated rather than disaggregated payment models: you pay for a full issue of a publication at the newsstand, you pay for a year-long subscription of a print publication. Or these days of online publications and streaming services, should you choose to do so.
Superbundling (e.g., a single fee providing universal access), a universal content tax, and/or a fee assessed by ISPs (if at all possible indexed to typical household wealth within an area) strike me as far more tractable options.
Among the elements of a tax-based system is that there are in fact multiple taxing jurisdictions, and access might be spread amongst them, and through multiple mechanisms. Public libraries already exhibit some of this, with funding being provided at the local (city/county), state, and federal levels, as well as other aggregations such as regional library coalitions, academic institutions and districts (particularly community and state postsecondary institutions), and others.[2] There's also the option of indirect support, which is what mechanisms such as mandatory legal notices entailed: a jurisdiction could require public posting of various sorts (fictitious names, legal settlements and actions, etc.) which effectively require private parties to pay for the upkeep of a newspaper. Similarly, discount "book rate" postage was a distribution subsidy offered to publishers of not only books but newspapers and magazines within the U.S. That's less an issue given the Internet, but the spirit of that idea might be adopted.
The idea of local papers which can rely on some level of multi-jurisdictional tax funding, perhaps some charitable or foundational support, advertising, subscriptions, obligatory notices, bespoke research, and other funding sources would give multiple independent funding channels which would be difficult to choke off entirely. That seems far healthier than the present system.
________________________________
Notes:
1. My own argument, and numerous citations to both pro and con views, is "Repudiation as the micropayments killer feature (Not)" <https://web.archive.org/web/20230606004820/https://old.reddi...>, based on a six-year-old proposal from David Brin which has gone ... precisely nowhere.
2. Yes, I'm aware of certain issues concerning library texts in recent years within the U.S. I'd suggest that the fact that those debates are ongoing rather than settled either way means that overt control isn't completely straightforward.
There should be an intermediate syndicate that charges me micropayments for every article I choose to read, then charges one lump sum to my credit card at the end of the month. And also remits payment to each newspaper or Website.
Why not simply an all-you-can-eat time-based payment (weekly, monthly, annually), distributed on the basis of the sources you've read, preferably with some true-cost-of-production adjustment (e.g., algorithmic or AI hash doesn't get compensated on the same basis as true shoe-leather / long-distance-travel journalism).
You fill a bucket. It's drained, based on what you read/view/listen. Or otherwise equitably shared based on some global allocation basis if access nothing --- you're still benefiting by the positive externality of the informed polity which journalism creates --- if you read nothing.
This ensures a stable funding basis, you have a predictable cost basis, you can direct the allocation based on your own access patterns, the common weal benefits even if you don't utilise the resource.
Note that much of this is the same as an ad-funded media, excepting that you can't direct spending, the allocations are far less public-benefit oriented, and the costs per household are far higher: roughly $700 per person for advanced countries (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia/NZ), based on a $700 billion spend and roughly 1 billion population. What we have now costs an immense amount and is failing media and journalism badly.
Superbundling (e.g., a single fee providing universal access), a universal content tax, and/or a fee assessed by ISPs (if at all possible indexed to typical household wealth within an area) strike me as far more tractable options.
Among the elements of a tax-based system is that there are in fact multiple taxing jurisdictions, and access might be spread amongst them, and through multiple mechanisms. Public libraries already exhibit some of this, with funding being provided at the local (city/county), state, and federal levels, as well as other aggregations such as regional library coalitions, academic institutions and districts (particularly community and state postsecondary institutions), and others.[2] There's also the option of indirect support, which is what mechanisms such as mandatory legal notices entailed: a jurisdiction could require public posting of various sorts (fictitious names, legal settlements and actions, etc.) which effectively require private parties to pay for the upkeep of a newspaper. Similarly, discount "book rate" postage was a distribution subsidy offered to publishers of not only books but newspapers and magazines within the U.S. That's less an issue given the Internet, but the spirit of that idea might be adopted.
The idea of local papers which can rely on some level of multi-jurisdictional tax funding, perhaps some charitable or foundational support, advertising, subscriptions, obligatory notices, bespoke research, and other funding sources would give multiple independent funding channels which would be difficult to choke off entirely. That seems far healthier than the present system.
________________________________
Notes:
1. My own argument, and numerous citations to both pro and con views, is "Repudiation as the micropayments killer feature (Not)" <https://web.archive.org/web/20230606004820/https://old.reddi...>, based on a six-year-old proposal from David Brin which has gone ... precisely nowhere.
2. Yes, I'm aware of certain issues concerning library texts in recent years within the U.S. I'd suggest that the fact that those debates are ongoing rather than settled either way means that overt control isn't completely straightforward.