Re: This is a small cost for saving the world
"I think almost any non-dystopian future requires that [...] have the Internet in their toolkits."
Let's look at who you think needs it, and whether they're going to get it.
"kids in Botswana": The primary issue here is cost. Both the cost to get the hardware in to access it and the cost of providing sufficient bandwidth. So I take it the transceivers and service plans you need for this will be next to free, then? And somehow, this incredibly low cost won't simply be taken advantage of by people in developed countries who can afford a large amount of that and used to consume all the bandwidth?
"Aleutian Islanders": Here we're talking about inaccessibility. Somehow, we can't provide fiber, and we need satellite to work for these people. It's a better example, but not a great one. In this area, a couple cables would provide sufficient bandwidth for the sparse population. In addition, it's worth keeping in mind that the northern Pacific Ocean is a very cloudy and stormy place. That will make it very easy for clouds and precipitation to occlude dishes and cause disruption in line-of-sight transmission, not to mention the kind of damage strong arctic winds could do to the dishes themselves and the chaos that inevitably happens when the concepts "aurora borealis" and "radio communication" come too close to one another.
"HK cyberpunks": Is this a cute way of saying "protesters"? If so, you should know that they have already planned for compliance with local regulations, which is the cute way of saying censorship. Not to mention that, if they or someone else didn't, China could simply ban them from having any frequency bands. In that case, the ones citizens would have to use could be detected by radio surveillance and actually lead to easier oppression.