I think "means to pay" is relative - Cambodian tuk-tuk drivers get cheaper, better internet access than Berliners. And they watch YouTube on it. If they didn't have access to YouTube for free there would be a huge market in producing Cambodian content for them to watch, priced appropriately for that market.
relatively speaking, no
>irrelevant and annoying in the internet age
disagree strongly
while i have not owned a tv for the last two decades i still sometimes consume their content via internet or car-radio and would probably miss it if it wasnt available.
Triple-J (their "youth" music radio station) is an Australian cultural mainstay (or was; its relevance is fading), and I don't think anyone actually minds that some of their tax goes to support it. Except the usual right-wing conspiracy dicks who are mad that the ABC doesn't publish their shite.
Alternative potential consequence: it allows indie news publishers to become more competitive and visible against billionaire-backed business with huge advertising powers.
> [can't] connect with friends and family online
same - if Facebook goes under, that's a positive network effect to smaller competitors. (there are plenty of free ways to connect that don't depend on advertising)
Email is dirt cheap to provide. We probably all still get a free email account with our ISP, except none of us bother because gmail.