We've thought about canceling our subscription to The New York Times. Not often, mind you, just whenever the bill comes or we get a rate hike notice or the paper winds up single-bagged and tossed at the foot of a waterspout during a driving rain.

Most of all, though, it comes up whenever we think about the edition of the Times we're reading on Sunday, the one that's printed on Saturday and occasionally delivered then, too. The one the Times says we should supplement by going online after we pay $4.75 for the privilege of getting the early edition in print. After all, nobody buys the Sunday Times for news.

Some gaps in the early edition are obvious but we've never quite been able to figure out everything we're missing. Which is why the notion of the NewsStand Electronic Edition was instantly appealing when it was announced in the fall . But we were crushed to discover that high-speed access was not only preferred, it was required. Our resources were capable only of 128 dual-channel ISDN at best, we crossed it off the list of possible solutions. Is the E edition worth it? As a once-in-a-while substitute or add-on, yes. Every day? Not for us.

	Is the E edition worth it? As a once-in-a-while substitute or add-on, yes. Every day? Not for us.

Somewhere along the line, though, someone decided to allow masochists willing to wait an hour or more for downloads the chance to guide their own online destiny. Not only is ISDN doable, you can even try it with 14.4 bps as the max. (You?ll have to do that experiment on your own.)

Is the E edition worth it? As a once-in-a-while substitute or add-on, yes. Every day? Not for us and -- my educated guess -- not for most inveterate Times readers with easy access to the print edition.

That might account for the numbers Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company, shared at the Seybold Seminars NY 2002 conference just last week: 3,000 paying subscribers and a projected 20,000 by year?s end.

But that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile experiment or it's not a viable option for folks who can?t get the Times easily and have Internet access at 128 bps or higher. It's both. But the Times is going have to get serious about discounting the price in comparison to the print edition for me to even consider it. Most important, it is going to have to relax its copyright policy enough to allow household members that share a print edition the right to share the online edition. Heck, I can?t even share between my own laptop and desktop, forcing me to choose between the computer with the 19-inch screen that offers the best view and the chance to catch up with my reading on a paperless plane ride.

I wouldn?t buy a CD that can only be played on one machine or subscribe to a content Web site that can only be viewed from one computer.

		I wouldn?t buy a CD that can only be played on one machine or subscribe to a content Web site that can only be viewed from one computer.

Yes, I can take the print edition of the Times magazine or the Book Review with me but that?s not the point. I can also print out the E edition. That?s not the point either. I paid for it and I should be able to read it on either of my personal computers at the very least. I wouldn?t buy a CD that can only be played on one machine or subscribe to a content Web site that can only be viewed from one computer. Why behave any differently when it comes to something I?m already used to as shareable and portable?

Then there's the expiration date. Really. I paid for it, but it's not mine to keep. After a set time determined by the publication -- three weeks in the case of the Times -- my use of the newspapers I?ve downloaded expires. For comparison?s sake, pretend the soundtrack is "Mission Impossible" and that pile of print editions of the Times by your chair being saved for whatever reason spontaneously combusts. (I know clutterbusters who would pay for that service.) Or imagine Mr. Sulzberger on a plane reading a book that expires just as he gets to the last chapter. Pick your own soundtrack for that one.

We?re unlikely to see substantial discounts for current print subscribers a la the Wall Street Journal Online because the Times has arranged for the numbers to be included in the Audit Bureau of Circulation's count. It's just possible that the Times would be better served -- and get a better return -- by offering a discount for those of us doomed to the early edition so that we can read the New York edition and leave our E edition subscription out of the count.

The Times' own decisions aren't the only ones that will determine this product's success. The execution is up to NewsStand, Inc., the Austin-based company in which the Times holds a minority equity position.

The process starts with a detailed registration and the relatively simple installation of the NewsReader program. Both have glitches and I wasn't too thrilled to learn that for my "security" I would only be able to use Internet Explorer 5 and above as the browser. It also uses a version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The combination sucks up resources, a warning for anyone who has the temerity to use more than one or two programs at once. You will have to get used to rebooting.

Then the fun begins. To download single editions, you have to bank a minimum of $10 in your eWallet by authorizing a charge to your credit card. Each download draws against that amount. It automatically defaults to charging for a second download; if you?re not careful about how you manage your downloads you could end up using it by accident.

Aside from the reader itself, the NewsStand software is clunky. It takes multiple windows and myriad steps to make purchases, download papers, change settings. The help system is well-meaning but not easy to use. These areas need to be addressed before NewsStand can move to the next stage.

The 62-page Saturday edition of the Times (the Midwest home-delivered version was 54 pages) took about 15 minutes to download. The massive Sunday paper took about 2 hours. Subscribers can schedule their downloads to occur during off times.

But how does it read? The navigation is incredibly simple with a few improvements on the traditional newspaper experience. Click on the page number in the jump and you're there in an instant, handy for those days when a page one story jumps to C22. Ditto for the News Summary, although if you?re going to use the news summary as a guide don't get into the habit. The Sunday summary is close to useless. You can switch between one-page display and two, pump up the view or reduce it, right click and open a table of contents navigation menu. Odds are most people will want to enlarge the text for actual reading. There's also a full-page option for those who want to see the layout.

I usually have daily access to the hard-copy Times, so seeing it in "print" isn?t a novelty even though the added color was fun. That?s not true of the other papers in the NewsStand. What I really enjoyed during my trial run was the chance to download The Globe and Mail on the Sunday of the Gold Medal hockey game (it was the weekend edition) and again the next day after Canada?s historic win.

The difference between visiting the Web site and seeing the virtual print was like getting an e-mail bulletin that war has been declared and seeing it in 72-point type. The visual clues a newspaper sends were missing from the Web site. You could read the same words in both places but the impact differed dramatically. One distributed information on a flat plane; the other triggered emotion and provided a sharper sense of sharing the experience.

Just the chance to read that post-victory edition was worth the fuss. Too bad I can?t keep it.