Sure it is! But they're not giving out Internet connectivity. They're giving out Facebook & Co connectivity.

And no, that isn't altruistic enough.

Besides the fact that Musk's plans are impressive and admirable regardless of altruism. No one is asking or expecting Musk to forego making boatloads of cash. He is and will continue to be wealthy, and that's the entire point: it's possible to do good without doing charity. Likewise, it's possible to do charity without doing good.

If you're honestly confused why a for-profit corporation needs to find a business model before they can provide a service then go back to the basics and start reading again.

Charities are altruistic, and even then it's more theory than practice. For example, when charities altruistically donate food to starving people, they can either send armed guards along with it, or watch the food taken by the local armed militia and sold for profit.

Dumping anything free into a market always distorts it, and that's after you figure out how to afford the cost of providing the free thing in the first place.

Where did I say I was confused? I only said that Free Basics isn't altruism and we shouldn't be giving Zuckerberg et al. the leeway earned by attempting to do altruistic things.

Facebook offered to add an indefinite number of partner sites to the Free Basics program. But the problem is regardless of how many sites are offered in the free data program, it legitimizes the concept of 'zero rating', enabling wireless carriers to split the internet into tiers.

Does enslaving them in a pseudosocial mindcage constitute enfranchisement?

SpaceX is planning on launching a satellite internet constellation with enough satellites to cover most of the globe.