They can't have it boh ways.
Either offer smartphnes without the monthly fee and alow people to only use WiFi.
Or prorate the servce based on QOS.
But we as consumers would need legal based (think new law) QOS metrics to keep them honest.
The question comes down to who wants control.
Operators want to maximize their profit while consumers want to maximize their bandwidth and to reduce their cost. Security is one big push from consumers that operators are leveraging to convince consumers to pay. Google WiFi in mountain view is free for open access. If you look into better bandwidth and security, you will have to pay.
Regulatory division of most governments requires operators to be able to monitor telephone conversation for homeland security reason. I am sure similar regulation applies to ISP. In addition, the world has changed drastically. A lot of new generation are volunteering information. Do we really have security concerns here? Of course there is. The best option to us will be using tunneling protocol and encryption to protect our conversation. What would you do?
: And maybe thatís the basic human right we are talking about here.
Customer right perhaps, but certainly not a human right. One of the things that seems to have precipitated the assault on human rights in our times is the trivialization of that concept to mean everything and thus depriving it of meaning. The concept of human rights has changed from being intrinsic and something to be safeguarded by governments (see the Declaration of Independence) to privileges dispensed by the government to certain segments of the population for political purposes.
But perhaps what's needed for the Wi-Fi offload question is a GPS type user choice of whether to select the "road with the least traffic" or not as desired. The user paying the bill should have the choice; it should not be dictated by the carrier.