[Houshalter]

Is that necessarily a bad thing in all cases? I think it would be great if a company offered, say, really cheap or free access to wikipedia and other basic websites, but charged for actual service. Letting poor people access it or making it available to host cheaper free wifi. I think what people are afraid of is them throttling competitors, or charging more for normal service, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[jarjoura]

Why would Wikipedia be given cheaper than say, dictionary.com or nytimes.com? Or what about this website and all of the links it provides access to? "Poor people" need access to high quality content too ya know :-P.

Unless you want to create a scholarship foundation to provide free unlimited access to everything for these folk? Then a nice lottery can make it so the lucky few get that scholarship.

[bandushrew]

why do that instead of just making it so that really poor people got internet access, and then allowing them to decide how they use it?

as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.

[Houshalter]

If they want normal internet access they can pay for it. The point is to allow for a cheaper option if people want or need it.

[jarjoura]

Well right now people can buy super cheap $9 a month DSL service that provides very basic speeds. The difference right now is that the user of that service can decide where and how they use that bandwidth (assuming it's all legal).

So if all they need is IRC, Email, and Github, then that's perfect for them. Why would I let them (ISPs) decide how to bill me for the places I want to go on the internet?

[Houshalter]

I believe some places have much larger prices for businesses, and those that want to offer free wifi. Getting internet through phones is also very expensive. And not everyone has access to DSL.

So cheaper albeit restricted internet would be very welcomed by many. And if you don't want it, then don't buy it. It's just another choice.