It seems that this is well established in other media. We have to pay a television license in order to recieve BBC so we are, in effect, paying for an ad free service (if you discount the ads for the other BBC channels and BBCi website, etc.).
I remember a test case where a man proved that his TV couldn't recieve BBC and only ITV and Channel 4 and was let off with the license fee.
As for paying for websites with no advertising, I for one don't mind banner ads as you can just choose to ignore them. I sometimes, like Powerless, click on some ads to see what is on offer. It is the annoying pop-up ads that I don't like, but with free software to stop it, why should you pay to see a website.
I would pay, a reasonable price, for additional content if it was of use. I used a newspaper site (can't remember the one) which allowed you to search their archives but charged for the full article. I found this useful while at university and regularly paid the money for the information I needed.
Some people are dead against any kind of charging and say that the internet should be free. However, creating, updating, hosting and maintaining websites costs money and that money needs to come from somewhere. As long as it is not to prohibitive and is worth paying for, why not charge for extra content? I'm not sure the ad-free charging will catch on though.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.