Where does T and AOL get off automatically assigning the additional costs "directly" to the end users?
Frank, when I read that piece, I did not conclude that it was T, AOL, or whomever that was trying to assign the additional costs to the end users. Although I'm sure that the county administrators and the other ISPs would use this argument as a case for opening up the service, the fact remains that they have a built-in incentive to remain competitive by charging however much or little they would need to -- at least until the pricing structures got worked out. I suspect there is a lot of posturing going on, and in the end there will be some compromise reached between open access and the funding needed to provide/improve infrastructure. If ATHM won the battle for the default ISP, for example, I could see AOL offering loss-leader free service to new subs for a 6 months, a year, or however long it took for them to get "hooked" into the service. Perhaps with bargain pricing for current subs as well, so as not to lose them. In the end, I think the marketplace will decide how this works out, but I am skeptical about any of the parties getting all they would like. |
