I figured it and I'm sure many others did... When the RCN's online presence became so accessible and readable, when one could read the entire paper online... It felt like a hook was about to be sunk in our cheeks, and it was. We got used to seeing it all. Now we'll have to pay for it. But I have a question...

I thoroughly understand the need for RCN Link... [1] to be able to actually SELL product in order to stay in business. I get that. No problems at all. And I understand and appreciate the flexibility of being able to subscribe to BOTH he print and electronic version, OR to ONLY the electronic version. Still I have no problems.

There are a number of publications I subscribe to where I have the choice, and the pattern is pretty well established: You pay more for print version or print AND e-version, but you pay less for e-version alone.

But what I do have a problem with is the cost being the same to receive either both forms of the publication or only the electronic form of the publication. I see making the option available as something that could be described progressive (am I wrong, WC?). It is a green, sustainable thing to do. Saves trees. Also saves the newspaper the cost of printing more copies even while broadening their subscriber base. That's why I'm of the opinion the e-version should cost us less.

Since layout is done electronically on computers anyway, it's very little more than an additional cut-and-paste operation to put the article into the web version and click the "publish" button to make the online version available. SO I don't understand why a decreased cost to produce should not result in a decreased cost to buy.

But then that's just me. This may be one more instance of "RB, you just don't get it..."

RB