What if Yahoo! began charging users five cents a page? Even if you are among the minority of Internet users who never visit Yahoo! websites, this is an important question. If you are an Internet publisher, it may be a question of life or death.
Yahoo!'s profit warning last week pulled the rug out from under the notion that Internet content would be free forever. The company's announcement that it is searching for a new chief executive merely underlined the sense of crisis.
The problem is that advertising, which has been the primary underpinning of Internet publishing, is falling off. Moreover, if Yahoo! is not immune to the effects of the economic slowdown in the US, few others can remain unaffected.
Now the question is whether Yahoo! will impose fees on users of its website services to make up for slower advertising sales. Unless it can do this successfully, many Internet content publishers may be doomed.
Mr Michael Tchong, editor and publisher of Internet newsletter Iconocast, forecast last month - well ahead of the profit warning - that, were Yahoo! to introduce fees, "users wouldn't be too unhappy because they would probably end up spending $3 to $5 per month on Yahoo!'s service [about what NTT DoCoMo charges for content]. And all publishers would breathe a huge sigh of relief because suddenly there would be tens of millions of Internet users equipped with digital wallets and conditioned to spend money on content."
Indeed, many in the industry are looking to Yahoo! to lead the charge in persuading millions of users that the days of "free" content are over. There are, of course, some websites that already charge subscription fees. But these are rare and most have sacrificed reach for revenues. Until recently the trade-off was not attractive. But the business model for Internet publishing has been turned on its head.
Apart from Yahoo!, only AOL or Microsoft's MSN could bring about a rapid sea change. But if one of these were to introduce content subscription fees, the rest of the industry would surely follow in its footsteps, leading to escalating costs for users.
It may never happen. Although Yahoo! is suffering, it has deep pockets and may be reluctant to brave the icy waters of "for-fee content". The chances seem even slimmer that AOL or MSN, both of which have bigger audiences than Yahoo!, will lead the charge.
Even if one of the "big three" introduces content fees, the rest of the Internet publishing industry may still not be saved. After all, how many websites are Internet users willing to pay for?
If the "pay-per-page" model that Mr Tchong envisages was to prevail, Internet users might spend a few cents on dozens of websites rather than subscribing to a few using a third-party account. This would be more convenient from a user's perspective and more in keeping with the open ethos of the Web.
However, "pay-per-page" could radically shift the balance of power on the Internet from publishers to access providers, or any other third-party billing company, or content aggregator. The Internet could become a new range of digital "channels". Only the most popular "channels" would be listed by your Internet service provider.
Alternatively, the "micro-payment" schemes that were promoted heavily in the early days of the Web may make a comeback. However it is organised, it is unlikely that you will remain an unaffiliated Internet user.
Amid this uncertainty, Internet publishers and users face some difficult choices. Publishers must now reassess the value of website users versus real-life customers. And as users, we must decide whether we are willing to pay for services that we are accustomed to receiving without charge.
