IMHO, the "connectivity for everyone" thing is a thin cover of "controlled distribution channels for anyone who can't afford better". > people won't care about

IMHO, the "connectivity for everyone" thing is a thin cover of "controlled distribution channels for anyone who can't afford better". > people won't care about the few MBs/month it costs them. This initiative is targeted at the very broad population who can barely afford an Internet connection and computers of any kind. The cost of a few MB/month is something they do worry about. Besides: > The traffic from a particular website is not significant anyway so I don't think they will go to/prefer websites with free access only. The traffic from accessing a particular website once, in a "typical" browsing session, seems insignificant to you. I don't think the traffic from today's ad-ridden news websites is so insignificant for someone who doesn't surf the web all day. In typical Facebook fashion, they describe this as something meant to "bring connectivity for everyone", when what it really aims to "bring a certain kind of connectivity, to a few certain websites, for everyone". If you have a look at the list of websites included there, this is more than "but they'll only use Facebook for social networking, which they're already doing". They'll also only use BBC, Reuters and Times of India to read news and political opinions, TimesJobs and Babajob to look for jobs and so on. I.e. there will be only a few select information sources and sources of employment in this "connectivity for everyone" thing. This has considerable consequences, e.g. no (cheap!) way to check sources on science-related news or blacklisting "unwanted" companies from the only two widely-available job-seeking websites.