Of course they're charging for it (in this case via a subsidy from Microsoft). But they'd charge for it in either architecture. The argument is that they can get away with
discounting it to their customers (i.e. dropping the bandwidth cap) because it's "cheaper".
And I don't entirely buy that, nor have you managed to sell me. You're simply asserting the same stuff without evidence: you think the cost of user-driven bandwidth (to pull content from Microsoft) is higher than managing the infrastructure to host it locally. And I don't see why that's true without numbers to back it up.
