Anyone pick up on this little doozy at the end? "The new law may not be all good for all consumers; it is possible that non-roamers will end up subsidising the

Anyone pick up on this little doozy at the end? "The new law may not be all good for all consumers; it is possible that non-roamers will end up subsidising the more expensive needs of roamers, as the networks respond to the lost roaming revenue." The argument feels a bit naive to me, and smacks of the oversimplified scenarios taught in economics-101. I'd agree with them if the increased roaming charges reflected the extra cost imposed on the network, but in reality the networks were just price-gouging a captive market. They may be technically correct in that the networks could try to make up the lost revenue by raising prices, but the reasoning feels specious. It's not a question of one group being forced by law to subsidise another, it's a question of an unsavoury business practice being forced by law to end.