Paid magazines often still sell advertising space, same is true for paid cable channels, so it's not unheard of to charge both the "broadcaster" and the "receiver".

But that is a model in which the advertises is "subsidizing" the effective cost to the end user. (Whether or not it's an actual subsidy or just a nice bit of profit for the cable network/provider is anyone's guess.)

Obviously, without legislation, the internet will end up being no different, with Comcast, AT&T, and ultimately high-traffic sites like espn.com nickel-and-diming each other and end users. Sticking to the principles on which the web was (allegedly?) founded doesn't hold much water in a shareholders meeting.

I hate to sound so cynical and resigned to this fate, but left to their own devices this seems like exactly what the big ISP's and sites will do.

I agree that it is very easy for this to lead to a bad situation for customers. But that subsidizing model still applies. You know how much it costs to connect a cable line to a house? That wiring costs 100s-1000s of dollars per house (why FioS went to apartment buildings first). Of course the end users are getting subsidies.