The testy CSR known only as "John" was fired for his antics -- behavior that many former AOL customers say is the company's standard operating procedure.

"If John's behavior had been that of a person in the grip of genuine pathological madness," writes Randall Stross in the Times, "the recording of the call would not have drawn the attention of so many people, nor would it have been replayed on national television and radio programs. What one hears in John is an actor performing clumsily, to be sure, but working with a script provided by his employer that confuses 'customer service' with 'sales.'"

That confusion, writes Stross, got AOL in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission in 2004 and the New York attorney general's office last year: "In both cases, investigations had revealed that AOL practiced a strange form of customer service, continuing to bill subscribers who had called to cancel, and had thought that they had done so, but who were marked down as 'saved.'"

It turns out AOL paid a $1.25 million fine over the New York case. What comes next is confusing. AOL also agreed to start a "third party verification" system "in which any caller who starts off expressing a wish to cancel and ends up being persuaded to remain a member must declare this intention to a company hired to act as a disinterested witness." What?

But as Stross points out, any public relations progress the company made after dealing with the two big lawsuits about their "subscriber's requests for cancellation" policies is gone. AOL apparently couldn't help itself.

And now, the Times reports, AOL may be radically changing its business model to a free, ad-based online system akin to Yahoo and Google.