Opinions? Yes, everybody's got one. But not all are free.

The New York Times is rolling out its Times Select package, which will charge an annual fee ($39.95 if you join by Sept. 18 and $49.95 thereafter) to those who want to read online columns by sage commentators like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd. Trying to sweeten the deal, the ability to read up to 100 archived articles per month (normally costing $3.95 each) is included with purchasing access to the op-ed pieces. They're also promising exclusive online discussions with certain columnists, videos and access to anticipated Sunday articles before they're posted to the Web site. A last selling point is perhaps most disturbing:

Reader Interaction Reach out to the columnists with your opinions and questions.

This might mean Times Select subscribers receive special interactive privileges with the writers. But, by charging to read its opinion pages (either through a traditional and very price-y subscription to NYT in print or through Times Select), the Times is eliminating even the possibility of its non-paying Web readers from commenting at all.

I do love the Times, but I think $40 and up per year is pushing it. How many people will end up paying the subscription fee just to be able to read one or two columns a week? How many people will likely never use the other features promised? I understand that paid online content is likely to be key to traditional newspapers' future survival, but I think the Times could have planned its new program with a more fair eye toward its less-flush-with-funds-and/or-time reader base. (Namely, me.)

I mean, how about:

- $15 a year allows you to pick two of your favorite columnists (Krugman might get axed by me in favor of Rich and Dowd) and grants you access to 10 archived pieces per month?
- $20 a year gets you three columnists, 30 archived pieces a month and access to some of the multimedia features?

And so on.

Newspapers -- and their Web sites -- have a right and a need to want to be profitable. But part of what has always purported to keep newspapers at a nominal cost (thereby allowing greater numbers to become readers) are the ads. Salon.com has figured out a way to sponsor free access to content: You have to watch an ad to get to the piece you desire; if you find that too inconvenient, you pay. The NYT model seems to be lacking in value, elitist and possibly destined to fail.

Just thank your lucky stars that in an age where you have to pay for some people's opinions, I will never ever charge you for mine. (Though donations are happily accepted.)