Can anyone explain why it is so? To my luddite understanding of communication/computer technology, wireless connections are akin to multiple cable/electrical outlets, or for that matter, water faucets - they give access to multiple users at the same time, but they must be connected to the mains. And somebody has to pay for that connection. That someone can be either the users of the service (e.g as you pay for water or electricity used by your household) or a third party that uses the purchased access as a leverage to obtain something from the user (e.g. as advertisers pay for TV programming beamed to your living room). Of the two, I'd prefer the former, because it reduces the volume of commercial pollution.
Stated differently, I'd rather have a connection on the subscription basis, than one paid for by a third party and delivered to me "free" of charge, because the former allows a much greater end-user control. There is also a possibility that the third party in question is the government that represents bona fide public interest and uses taxes to finance it - which makes the latter a very attractive proposition due to the economies of scale - but unfortunately this country does not have such a government and is unlikely to have one in the foreseeable future. Ergo, subscription services are better than nominally "public" ones, at least in the US.
Wojtek