I'm afraid you're going to have to clairify this "$7 per sku console fee", as I can't seem to find any information about it through a google search.
And I'm a little confused. I find it hard to fathom that Microsoft would pay Activision to make exclusive DLC and then go and wave this fee that Activision is supposed to pay Microsoft as a reward for Activision making exclusive DLC that Microsoft paid for.
Also, I highly contend with "Part of that extra $1 you pay also covers the 'free' multi-player servers on PS3". If that were the case, then every multiplatform game would be about $1 more on PS3 than it is on Xbox. Instead, only Activision games are routinely available for lower prices on Xbox than on PS3.
He's probably referring to the per unit licensing fee that both MS and Sony (and Nintendo) charge publishers on game software.
In the past, such as with GTA IV, MS did throw down alot of cash for temporary exclusivity of DLC....in that case Rockstar was hard up for cash, Sony's installed base wasn't nearly a large as it is now, and MS made a point by taking a game series that had always had Sony hardware the lead platform and now made the 360 the lead platform (at least in consumers minds, if not Rockstar's) and had fairly serious exclusivity...I think it was good for at least a year.
However, the marketplace has changed....DLC is now a well established business (it may be hard to believe but it has taken quite a while for publishers to figure out what works and doesn't work on DLC (horse armor anyone?) and the PS3 now had sizable installed base as well.
I have no specific knowledge of the agreement that activision and MS made in regards to black ops, but I suspect that it doesn't involve large amounts of cash going from MS to activision, but likely has a ton of extra marketing support for black ops done by MS at low fees. At this stage, MS knows exactly how much value it has to offer activision because it knows exactly how many map packs are sold and also has a platform that is fairly advertiser friendly (the PS3 currently is much less so). Both parties know that they need each other to make more profit (as much as activision thinks it deserves a cut of MS's Xbox live subscriptions, I can't see that line of thought being brought up to forcefully) nor is 30 days exclusivity that much a marketing feature to justify paying a ton of cash for. It is not like PS3 and Xbox players battle on the same network and thus Xbox players would have some sort of advantage over PS3 players if they got the maps 30 days sooner than PS3 players. It is something to brag about at E3 but really isn't big deal in the overall market....It is not like people are going to dump their PS3s and buy a 360 because of something like this.