[tomphoolery]

I think there's another motive at play, he's using 3rd-world countries as a proving ground for tiered Internet access. Facebook has already come out against net neutrality, and has billions of dollars to play with. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to test their theories that have been shot down in their own country? Zuckerberg might be ostensibly altruistic about his lofty goal of bringing Internet access to everyone, but that's not the Internet we know and love. It's only the content that Facebook approves, and if you want more knowledge, you're gonna have to pay. That's not the Web I grew up with, and if I were Indian I would be trying my hardest to figure out a better solution that gives just the same amount of people access without them having to give up their freedom.

[fleitz]

Even if there were only one package of internet available globally there would still be tiered internet, you can pay for that one package, or you can not pay for it.

The only way we'd have universal untiered internet is if there was some sort of government fee / tax that you just had to pay to get internet and that was your only option.

Everyone has vastly different (tiered) internet experiences, for example the internet on my phone is faster than the internet on my desktop when uploading.

On my phone I pay for additional data use on my desktop I don't.

[bhashkarsharma]

The difference is that if you choose to go to any URL, you can (not considering device capability and support; flash etc) from any of your devices. And what you pay to go to one website is the same amount that you pay to go to a different website as long as you use the same amount of data. Data rates being different across networks is a different issue.