I mention this for a reason. Thoreau said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Before we start hacking, we need to be clear on which are the branches and which are the roots.
If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.
Because you get tempted by alluring advertising, or by false promises. Ultimately there is no good reason to switch if they're all the same -- but that's the way quasi-monopolies like it. They aren't interested in competition. They're interested in sucking more money out of their existing customers -- much easier!
Don't mistake Adam Smith's concept of hundreds of competitive small businesses with two or three corporations dominating an entire industry. The rules of capitalism -- real capitalism -- no longer apply. It's corporatism. Their way or the highway.
The good news is that it will probably hurt T more than help in the long run. A lot of people who have held on to land lines may begin to think about whether the cost is worth it when the price goes up by 10%, or so. There are an awful lot of superior alternatives to land lines these days, except in the most rural of areas. Even my parents now use their cell phones more than their land line...they might even turn off the land line with this change, since they use their cell phones for long distance calls.
It's not a customer friendly policy, as it just serves to squeeze $2 from customers who aren't using more services. But it's not criminal to add a service fee(as much as I hate it as well).
It's a cost that can't be quantified to the customer. Why not just jack the monthly cost instead of tacking on a ghost charge?
To be fair to T, those rural lines are the most expensive they maintain, and they no longer have as many sheep in major metropolitan areas to subsidize the rural phone users (who get those lines for the same price as the densely packed city folk who are super cheap to provide service to). So, I can imagine a valid argument for this additional fee.
But, given the level of evil of AT&T, and their historic abuse of monopoly powers (independent ISPs were destroyed by T a decade ago, for instance), and their apparent ability to get away with it right under the noses of regulators...well, I suspect this is not at all a response to any real cost change at T. I reckon it's just T being the same old T. Abuse of their monopoly, as far as the law allows (and then a little bit extra), is built right into their character.