Add AT&T to the growing list of broadband access providers who are making noises about charging for access to their broadband networks (and customers).
I have been insisting for some years that video would break the back of the current broadband business model. You simply can't dump video onto a network designed for low bandwidth services like email and the Web and expect things to stay the same. Current network fees are modeled with an assumption that users do mostly email and Web surfing. Watching or downloading TV shows and movies requires every bandwidth provider between the content provider and the content watcher to cough up enough bandwidth to deliver the service--even if they are not getting paid.
Where will all this end? I think it will turn out well, but to get there, we will have to endure some very ugly times. The end goal is to have broadband connections cost nothing at all, but we will pay for services we receive, like telephone service and watching movies. This ties bandwidth directly to the cost of delivering the service, which the current model does not do. Part of the ugliness in the meantime will come from cable and DSL providers who will try to build "walled gardens" around their networks and deny their customers access to certain services and services providers. It's a completely idiotic response, as it will only anger customers and over the long term, diminish revenue. But that's the way they think, having grown up in an analog systems world where the technology itself defines the walled garden.
Part of the solution is for communities to invest in a community-owned and managed infrastructure open to any service provider willing to pay to deliver services. That severs the old, analog relationship between infrastructure and service, which the Internet does not care about.