Comment by khat
3 days ago
Or maybe, just maybe these news sites shouldn't be shipping 40MB JS bloated, ad infected websites. You're a news station just ship the words, make people pay for the images. This keeps bandwidth down for non payers, and foots the bill for those who do use the bandwidth. You pay for what you use, and reduce the overhead while you're at it.
Bandwidth is not their concerns.
Their concern is profit. Text only pages has little footprint both on the network and on storage. I was trying to be concise.
1. Is the idea that the primary costs for such news sources are hosting costs?
2. And that if news sites offered the text for free but paywalled images they'd be more sustainable than they are now?
1. In the direct relation of the cost of the website, yes. Mainly in news sites like CNN, Fox, MSNBC. The articles are usually already written for TV. 2. As profitable? No. Sustainable? Yes.