Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe's [Scholarly Kitchen post]( is ostensibly on the absurd idea of regional geofencing. But the [post](, weirdly, turns to doubt-casting on the viability of open access itself:

> Even if there is enough money in the system to transform subscriptions for reading to payments for publishing, it is ever more obvious that those monies are not held currently by the institutions that would need to make the publishing payments that are intended to replace the reading payments.

The whole premise is wrong—that an article-fee model (paid by institutions, in this version) is the only way to redirect existing subscription outlays to a sustainable OA ecosystem. Consortial models and the Latin American tradition of direct subsidy [detach payment from per-unit charges]( Hinchliffe [mentions the Latin American model](, though only to throw more shade on Plan S and--by obvious proxy in this case--open access itself.