Consider two schemes for payment of content.

A: You must decide, for each piece of data or information you consume,
whether and how much it is worth to you. I'll note that in this discussion, not only did you not pay to read a work, but you couldn't even be bothered to click a link to examine it. Which, actually, I applaud as a rational behavior: the odds of being rewarded with quality content by following an arbitrary link posted on an Internet discussion site by someone who's preferred description is "space alien cat" is fairly low.

But it also rather handily demonstrates the specific failure mode of micropayments.

B: Information is paid out of a general cultural tax, apportioned by
wealth or income. You may access as much (or as little) of the availed information as you choose. Creators are paid according to the access and performance of their works, tracked by one or more monitoring services.

Under the first scheme, there are numerous issues: the rich and poor have vastly different information access, as do children. Researchers who might reference many works (though often only in brief fragments) would have tremendous data charges, as might musicians or authors or photographsers, who typically have large reference libraries of relevant works. Those who don't directly consume information but benefit by its effects on society as a whole pay nothing. Remixes of works would be difficult to arrange given complex rights negotiations.

Under the second scheme, there's no concern at the time of access whether or not the work is worth paying for (though in circumstances where you're accessing physical resources or premeses: a book, a recording, a performance venue) you would still typically pay. Children and the poor would have as much access as any other. Researchers and artists could reference works as needed without concern as to cost. Remixes of works would be straightforward. Payment would be made regularly throughout the year.

At first blush, scheme A describes what we have today, and scheme B is a utopian broadband tax / content syndication scheme. Actually, this is entirely backwards: scheme B is largely the system we have in place today, except that instead of a government-imposed tax, it's one based on advertisers and paid through higher prices for goods purchased regularly throughout the year. Total advertising spending in the United States is $181 billion per year -- $567 per person in 2014.[1] Artists are paid through either ratings-based metrics for music, or according to negotiated television contracts for actors, screenwriters, and such. There's one key difference though: under an advertising-based system, it's ultimately the advertiser who calls the shots on content, and content is geared to maximise advertising-based appeal. This shapes both the types of works produced and the topics covered.

A broadband tax approach changes one element of this: how revenues are collected. It's either through an access provider (your ISP, cable, or broadband service), or through a public tax imposed independently. Allocate some or all of the $567 per-person advertising cost presently collected, and it would be transferred directly to authors, composers, musicians, actors, reporters, researchers, etc. Without the advertising middleman.

Your micropayments scheme requires a middleman and payment processor, trusted by both crators and consumers, some way of providing for refunds, and the somewhat problematic issue that there are limited capabilities to suck out any information you might have acquired but decided after the fact that you weren't interested in actually paying for. At least, without inflicting possible brain damage. How do I keep you from copying my book, or music, or photos, or movie?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Notes:

1. US Advertising!spend!statisics:
http://galbithink.org/ad-spending.htm

http://carisesuatu.loomhost.com/cari/Annual_Advertising_Spen...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-united-states-to...