Because the access to information is extremely constrained. The Internet is much bigger than just wikipedia. There have been studies which showed that people in such situations who used these so called "Free services" didn't even realize they were actually a part of the much bigger Internet, and just considered them standalone. I guess a similar situation would be people in the old days thinking AOL was synonymous with the Internet.

Do you want to live in a world where your access to information is constrained to one site only?

The difficulty in analogies like this (and other arguments against net neutrality, such as saying partnerships between Facebook and network companies are the equivalent of promotional marketing or bundling) is that controlling the availability of specific sites or apps on a network inherently introduces bias in the network. So this is like an organization that gives away food creating roads that only they and their partners can use, given a government license to build roads (the same way network companies have a government license to build on the wireless spectrum and other channels.)

> If a company wanted to provide aid and give away food, we don't claim that it is creating an unfair market for the local food industry.

Actually some do claim that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food....

edit: In case you are hit by the paywall,

> Charity finds that U.S. food aid for Africa hurts instead of helps, Celia W. Dugger, 2007-08-14

The company owns the food. Wikipedia doesn't own the Internet or the information.

Yes, many people are arguing the same. But I don't think the conclusion is foregone. Wikimedia has been criticized as well: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and...

> Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program

Except for the high likelihood of having a pop over of Jimmy Wales asking for money show up on all your content.