The Sun and The Telegraph go behind Paywalls

**Damien** · 27-03-2013, 09:06

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21946916

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...01ae5a11a8.181

They had this already for users from outside the UK, I got caught up in whilst behind an American proxy, but now it's being extended to users within the UK. You will get 20 free articles a month and then you need to pay £2 a month for unlimited access or £20 a year. £10 a month also grants you access to their digital applications. It's the same price as The Times for the equivalent digital pack but The Times doesn't offer the website online option.

Good I say. The current situation of free news is unsustainable and damaging. Instead of news and journalism we are increasingly getting link-bait opinion pieces. Who needs to learn and know about a news situation when you can hear but a columnist has to say about it instead? Who needs analysis when you can hear what readers reckon?

Although at this point I am beginning to wish there was a one single place I could subscribe too. It would be weird to have news sources you can't access after growing up with the Internet as it is.

Gary L · 27-03-2013, 09:28

LOL @ The Sun.

27-03-2013, 09:50

I will never pay to get news online

**Damien** · 27-03-2013, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I will never pay to get news online

News costs to produce. It's not free to make, if nobody pays then it can't survive.

denphone · 27-03-2013, 09:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I will never pay to get news online

For once tiz l agree with you.

and there are still many excellent free news sources out there for many of us still to browse at.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

News costs to produce. It's not free to make, if nobody pays then it can't survive.

Trouble is Damien where will it all end as there's only a finite amount of readers who can afford these monthly subscriptions.

**Damien** · 27-03-2013, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Trouble is Damien where will it all end as there's only a finite amount of readers who can afford these monthly subscriptions.

People had to pay to get news before. It's not new. Also if they can't afford it then they can't have it. People don't have a right to free quality news. Who pays for it otherwise? It will just go away because no one will be getting paid to produce it...

27-03-2013, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

News costs to produce. It's not free to make, if nobody pays then it can't survive.

Sky manage through advertising they do not have a paper to sell. BBC manage quite well without advertising. To much news is bad for your health anyway lol

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

People had to pay to get news before. It's not new. Also if they can't afford it then they can't have it. People don't have a right to free quality news. Who pays for it otherwise? It will just go away because no one will be getting paid to produce it...

Quality news ?? now there is an oxymoron if ever I seen one lol

**Damien** · 27-03-2013, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Sky manage through advertising they do not have a paper to sell. BBC manage quite well without advertising. To much news is bad for your health anyway lol

Sky have subscription and their TV channel drives the whole thing. Their website isn't great or in much depth. BBC have the licence fee.

**Chris** · 27-03-2013, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Trouble is Damien where will it all end as there's only a finite amount of readers who can afford these monthly subscriptions.

The Telegraph's web-only option is £2 a month. That's less than 7p per day. I know the recession's bad, but honestly, the number of people for whom that is a major problem really is not enormous.

As Damien has said, the problem here is that the internet was founded on the open sharing of information. The error our major publishers made was in not charging for their online content from the outset. They have helped to embed the something-for-nothing culture that is now screwing them.

27-03-2013, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Sky have subscription and their TV channel drives the whole thing. Their website isn't great or in much depth. BBC have the licence fee.

so we have news provided with what we pay or in the case of Sky what others pay that is good enough for me

Osem · 27-03-2013, 10:18

We'll all be reduced to posting links from the BBC.

**Chris** · 27-03-2013, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

so we have news provided with what we pay or in the case of Sky what others pay that is good enough for me

I must admit, I have taken to reading the Telegraph a lot over the past few months and having done so, I find the BBC's coverage, while far greater in breadth, is lacking somewhat in depth. Their comment and analysis in particular is a bit bland, especially on political issues, presumably because they are at pains not to be seen to be supporting one side or the other. At least when someone's being brazenly partisan you can engage with it and decide whether you agree with them or think they're spouting guff.

danielf · 27-03-2013, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

You will get 20 free articles a month

This is the only problem I have with it. This means you will still have idiots reading the rag and posting links to 'articles' here. It's far better to charge for all articles.

Osem · 27-03-2013, 10:36

Charging for all articles would be a bit like charging to enter a shop wouldn't it? At least by offering free access to some of their output they have a chance to persuade new readers it's worth subscribing to.

danielf · 27-03-2013, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Charging for all articles would be a bit like charging to enter a shop wouldn't it? At least by offering free access to some of their output they have a chance to persuade new readers it's worth subscribing to.

I wasn't serious. Well, not entirely anyway. I honestly wonder if the Sun even prints 20 articles a month that are worth reading.