&gt; People first need to see the value in having any internet at all.<p>Wow, this is horridly ignorant of the level of awareness in countries where Internet.org is trying to operate.<p>Let&#x27;s take India.<p>People: homeless people, poor people, people in villages; all know what the Internet is. To some level. Not everyone uses it (esp. older people); not everyone is sure what it is -- but it&#x27;s used in almost every social bubble by <i>some</i> people so people are <i>aware</i> of it and know its value. A lot of low-income families use Whatsapp, for example.<p>Internet.org isn&#x27;t targeted towards the people who don&#x27;t use the Internet at all. It&#x27;s targeted towards the people who <i>do</i> use the Internet, but not much. Free stuff is nice, so more and more people will move on to the free Internet.org. There&#x27;s no altruism here. It&#x27;s a plain and simple business tactic.<p>&gt; Building out a cell network for the whole world isn&#x27;t easy.<p>Nobody&#x27;s saying they should. But for the same amount of investment they could provide services like free Internet with a data cap. Make a landing page with a prominent link to Facebook or something. Meh.<p>&gt; The rampant use of VPNs in China is a good example.<p>No it&#x27;s not. That has nothing to do with this whatsoever. That&#x27;s censorship.<p>&gt; But we need to crawl before we can walk. Once people are online a bit, they quickly want to see it all.<p>At any point do you see Facebook committing to bringing the <i>whole</i> Internet to these people? I wouldn&#x27;t really mind if it said that internet.org would be replaced with a full internet in 5 years or so.