> but also a new open non-commercial Internet which cannot be censored.

Why does it need to be non-commercial?

Personally I see commercial (with healthy competition) as a good sign that something will stick around for a while.

> Why does it need to be non-commercial?

We already have a commercial Internet, we don't need a second one. Commercial interests would make the second Internet also a target of control.

Could you elaborate on the non-commercial aspects of this proposed solution? I think it's especially important to make it clear where the money will come from.

From the users of course. Remember the modem times when the users had to pay for the phone bills. In the same way users could use their phone lines for the next internet. We could also build a wifi mesh with mobile devices.

Not to be negative, but last mile was a viable part of the internet because the government mandates that that system be reliable. I'm interested in a wifi mesh, but until this moment I haven't thought about whether the government, or the technology itself, focuses on high reliability in that area. I think all the government cares about is if you don't interfere, but they don't care if your bits get through.