And sure, you can pay and get a better experience, but not sure that's a fair comparison, this is free after all. If you can't afford to pay anything (sometimes people end up in shitty situations), then maybe watching a video for free internet isn't that big of a deal, when the alternative is no internet at all.
Also, if you are such a bad situation that you can not afford to pay for phone service, what is the point of having this offered as a global solution?
Seriously, what is the audience here?
There are plenty of places where there are no "free wifi hotspots", like many places that fulfill the extreme "not a city" criteria. Maybe it looks differently where you live, but if I go with my car one hour inland I'll end up in places where I'm sure I wouldn't be able to just find free wifi hotspots everywhere.
> Also, if you are such a bad situation that you can not afford to pay for phone service, what is the point of having this offered as a global solution?
I don't know, ask the company if they're planning to offer a global solution and if they say yes, ask them why? Not sure how that's an argument against the service in the first place...
What is the intersection of people who "have a car and are able to drive one hour inland" and "are so cash strapped that will subject themselves to a 'free' phone service that makes them watch ads every hour"?
Also important: who would be interested in advertising to these people?
I'm talking about the people who live in those places already... The part about "if I go with my car" part is just to help you visualize that there are places outside of cities.
What I am trying to say is that, while I am certain that you can fund this useful for a segment of the population, how big this segment needs to be in order to become valuable for (a) advertisers and (b) investors willing to sink money into it?