Facebook has been paying to have new undersea cables laid. This is done as part of a consortium, but those cables only have 6-12 strands in them (the repeaters are bulky) so owning even just one whole strand of fiber in an undersea cable is still an obscene amount of bandwidth for a single company that isn't in the business of reselling bandwidth.
The cellphone duopoly sells "YouTube passes", that entitle you to get unthrottled YouTube for brief periods of time.
You'd still need an uplink but the upload bandwidth usage is a fraction of the download one for typical Internet usage.
Perhaps the chat/comments (once again with heavy stego/encryption) would work?
Related and older idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArVid
Comcast was suddenly able to provide 1gbps for the same price as an 80mbps package when a fiber competitor entered the market.
Even with net neutrality, there is no incentive to make the internet better as an operator if you’re operating in a government granted monopoly/duopoly market.
This is rarely the case. It's usually monopoly providers and/or people speaking historically when it was expensive because it was rarer.
India and the Philippines both have more than adequate international bandwidth.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/8/10913398/free-basics-india...