If free is the default business model for mobile content, then the prognosis for the channel is not good. Just see what's happening on the wired Internet.

For those following the news, it is obvious that the promise of advertising supporting content -- particularly media-generated news and opinion -- is not living up to its expectations on the Internet.

While advertisers and readers are fleeing print products, the money is not following them online -- and this was even before the recession struck.

In essence, mainstream and business news publications who give their content for free on the Internet hoping that advertising will make up for the loss of subscription revenue are finding out that that's not the case.

Not surprisingly, the online revenues generated can't support the costs of running a professional content-producing operation.

Mobile has a lesson to learn from this experience.

In their chase for eyeballs viewing online advertising, publishers sacrificed subscription revenue. Sooner or later, this model was bound to be tested.

In the 15 years since the Web gained mass-market acceptance, it is clear that free content online supported solely by advertising is not the right model. Not only did it cannibalize print, but it also diminished the value of the product offered. Why would anyone buy a print newspaper or magazine if the same content is available for free online?

Now there are people who argue that content should be free -- readers who don't want to pay and search engines such as Google and Yahoo, for example. Their search engines would be worthless were it not for the free content available over the Internet. Put journalistic content behind walled gardens and see what happens to the search efficacy.

So yes, Google and its ilk will clamor and justify the benefits of free content online.

But they are not the content producers. They don't face the costs of generating that content -- editors and reporters, sales people, travel, rent for offices and bureaus, IT and healthcare. Content costs money to produce, in print, on air, online. And on mobile.

If publishers can't generate enough ad revenue from the Internet after having wired Web sites for more than a decade, the chances of doing that on mobile are slim. Mobile content is heavily subsidized by -- and borrowed from -- other channels.

As newspapers and magazines are realizing, the only way to survive is to charge for the unique, quality content they produce. Sell advertising against readers who are willing to pay for the privilege of reading that content.

The Wall Street Journal's WSJ.com site follows this model, while giving some content away for free but placing the rest behind walls for only paying subscribers. That way, the advertising has more value because readers have shown the final commitment to a news product -- a willingness to pay for it.

In no other industry is the product given away for free. Let's take mobile. Are the mobile site developers giving away their services for free? The mobile ad networks? The wireless carriers? The SMS aggregators? The mobile ad agencies? The PR agencies? The retailers?

Then why should publishers -- of music, news, books or videos -- offer their content for free? Those costs have to come out from some budget, after all.

Producers of mobile content must seriously consider this paid subscription model, bolstered by targeted advertising. It's the only model that makes economic sense and will ensure the survival of unbiased, well-edited news and content on all platforms -- print, broadcast, online and mobile.

Yes, the immediate effect of charging for content on mobile or the wired Internet is a steep drop-off in readership. But the key is to produce content that's unique and not available elsewhere. In other words, it should not be a commodity. Moreover, advertisers will pay for a quality audience that has raised their hands.

Content owners and publishers, particularly mainstream general-interest and business media, are at their moment of reckoning this year on the Internet.

The choice is to drastically prune their operations and expenses, re-evaluate business models for access to content and make hard choices of actually imposing subscription fees regardless of the channel. To not do this is to tip the many storied news brands nationwide into bankruptcy, much to the embarrassment of the world's most intellectual nation.

Put simply, mobile's value should not be judged by its association with free content.

The wired Internet has, to some extent, lost its potential as a viable medium for certain categories. It would be a shame if mobile was to replicate a flawed model, especially where free content is mistakenly accepted as a public good without regard to the private costs.