Should free speech be free?

After much talk and speculation, the times has replaced the times online website with a subscription only service for both  The Times and Sunday Times.

Clearly The Times, or to be more specific, Rupert Murdoch certainly feel that free speech and the freedom of the press should not be free to their consumers.

The subscription based news service, referred to by Rupert Murdoch, as a "defining moment in journalism", costs £1 for a day's access or £2 for a week and the heads at The Times are confident that there will be enough subscribers willing to pay to make the service a profitable venture.

I just don't think that The Times has a full understanding of people's expectations of the Internet and I'm pretty sure the service is prone to failure.


Here's just a few of my reasons.

1. News is seen as a free commodity on the Internet.
2. Users of the internet are reluctant to pay for any service online that is freely available elsewhere.
3. The Times is expecting to retain customers who want quality journalism or wish to follow particular journalists, but brand loyalty is not as strong online, Times readers could and are likely to switch to the Telegraph, Guardian, Observer and BBC to name but a few alternatives for their news.
4. Lack of added value. Subscribers are not offered anything that makes subscription a "must have" necessity over alternative services.
5. Usability issues. The process of logging into a website is a hurdle that most would avoid. Put aside the cost implications of subscribing for a moment, if you were faced with two similar services and one required you to login and the other not, which would you choose?
6. In our own way through blogs, twitter, facebook etc, we all contribute to news as much as anyone else and the act of paying to receive news online is alien.

I would like to assume that extensive research was conducted before deciding to take the paid subscription route, I certainly hope the decision wasn't based just on Rupert Murdochs' judgement, who is reported as an infrequent user of the Internet who needs assistance whenever he does. I can't help thinking of how a paid subscription so badly damaged Friends Reunited popularity.
The Times thinks it has a successful formula but I doubt it very much and it would seem that I am not alone. I searched for positive feedback and hard as I looked it was virtually non existent. I did find one person that said they would subscribe, but only because they thought that other news providers would follow suit in the near future. I for one would be very surprised if they did.

So what do you get that is different?
At first glance, not a lot. The layout of The Times reflects the style of the print version, which makes the site look a bit dated by todays design standards, the Sunday Times design is more up to date in style but not ground breakingly different from anyone else.
There is less advertising but not a complete ban which is a shame as this might of helped swing some into subscribing.
I am a great believer in not inventing the wheel, but  I couldn't find anything that seemed revolutionary or got me excited which you would expect when paying a premium. All in all there was nothing to write home about (pun intended).
Perhaps I am missing the point, The Times are banking on loyalty to their journalism, or more I suspect, to their journalists. But will the loyalty to a style of journalism or the wish to follow a particular journalist be enough?  I doubt it.

 Only time will tell - or should I say, only The Times will tell, but at £1 per day or £2 per week!