But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.

And if you’re time-pressed (it’s 64 degrees in New York City this morning–perhaps you’d like to get outside), there’s no reason to tackle the entire feature story. Because reporter Tim Arango has done a nice job of summarizing his 2,427-word piece in two sentences:

But Sirius XM does have a serious flaw in its capital structure. Its costs, which include servicing its pile of debt, appear to be too high to make the business viable.”

A final deal between the Digital Media Association, which is representing the Web sites, and SoundExchange, which collects royalties on behalf of the music labels and other copyright owners, isn’t expected until later this year. But “the hard stuff has been done,” says Pandora founder Tim Westergren, who has become the public face of Webcasters during negotiations.

In September, Congress agreed to let the two groups hash out new terms that would replace the ones that the government-appointed Copyright Royalty Board signed off on last year. Since then, Web radio sites, led by Pandora, have bitterly complained that rates would force them out of business.

The existing deal calls for Webcasters to pay an escalating fee to copyright owners every time they play a song for a listener. This year, for instance, Web radio stations are supposed to pay 14 hundredths of a penny ($.0014) per song streamed, per listener; site operators figure that will cost them about 2.1 cents per user, per hour.

That doesn’t seem like much, but in order to cover those fees alone (before bandwidth and other costs), operators would need pull down many more advertising dollars then they’re getting now.

Site advocates figure they’d need to be able to generate a so-called CPM rate of about $21 for every thousand visitors (over the course of an hour) under the current fee structure. That’s a hard rate for big professional Web sites to achieve. And since users generally turn on a Web radio station, then look at other sites while it runs in the background, the format is a tough sell for ad buyers.

So what’s the new rate going to be? Westergren wouldn’t comment, except to argue that the compromise still calls for “tremendously unfair” payments when compared to the fees paid by satellite radio operator Sirius XM (SIRI). That company is supposed to pay between six percent and eight percent of revenue between now and 2012.

What about conventional radio? Those stations don’t pay a penny for so-called “performance” royalties, though the cash-starved music labels have asked Congress to change that. Good luck!

The big question: Will the new rates allow Pandora, and the many smaller Webcasters, to surive? Westergren says Pandora is on track to generate $20 million in revenue this year, but he wouldn’t say whether that would allow him to break even with the new proposed rates.

But Web advertising in general is under pressure, and ad buyers say that their clients are increasingly skeptical about trying out “experimental” mediums like Web video. So unless the rates get very, very low, or Westergren’s company has hired some very, very persuasive sales people, it’s going to remain a struggle.