[manigandham]

Right for who though? The important thing is to have choice as a consumer, both ads and paid or ideally a spectrum between both extremes.

Advertising is the most egalitarian method because everyone regardless of money can access the same things. This is an important issue in a world full of great wealth and power disparity.

Also what you're asking for is basically a cable bundle for the internet. It's in the works by a few companies, we'll see if it goes anywhere.

[sgdread]

First of all it's not like cable bundle - you pay flat fee to access EVERYTHING like utility (probably % of your ISP bill). Call it content tax, if you will (BBC in UK is funded this way). Internet is NOT free anyway. Then whatever you paid goes to authors in a share proportional to content value consumed (I don't want to go into weeds on how to evaluate fair price for the content, but it's possible).

It is right for content consumer: no annoying ads, no interruptions, no more punishment for using "free" content by being blasted with non-relevant junk.

It is right for the content creator: you rewarded for high quality content, not for ads shows (natural flow of interests) -> no need to beg visitors to disable adblockers (this is what some youtubers do). BTW, IMHO, this is also a very good and organic way to "embrace" piracy - just redirect torrents income share to copyright holders - nobody will ever fight torrents after that point.

Ad companies is unnecessary middle-man in this relationship. And this middle-man will be eventually eliminated for good. I understand that you represent one, but there's still market for ad companies in other areas - where ads are relevant to context (like when I'm searching to get a new car or fix my fridge). Ads should help users, not annoy them.