This article conflates two different points, only one of which makes sense. First, the idea that the government can provide services at a lower cost because it doesn’t need to make a profit is laughable. Even Comcast’s profit margin is only about 10-15%. Eliminating the profit completely wouldn’t, by itself, make broadband affordable to poor people.

The second, implicit, point is that richer people should subsidize (via tax dollars) internet service for poorer people. That is, after all, how we handle other kinds of basic rights: Medicaid, Section 8 housing, SNAP. And that’s a fine idea! But it’s completely orthogonal to the first point.

In telecom, we conflate deployment and access. Under state and local regulations, anyone who wants to become an ISP also has to take on the government's burden of ensuring access to services. If you want to compete with Comcast in New York City, you can't build a "minimal viable ISP" in Chelsea. The government forces you to serve the Bronx too. That not only kills competition, it doesn't work. Just because you force a company to build fiber in the Bronx doesn't mean people can afford $70/month for it.

In other areas of the economy, we've learned to separate the two policies. The government doesn't run old-age homes--it pays private entities through Medicaid. It doesn't run an agricultural business--it provides SNAP payments. Governments are moving away from running public housing, and instead provide Section 8 vouchers.

What we do in telecom, in contrast, is like rent control. Rent control turns every apartment building into a mini-HUD, which is forced to accommodate lower-income people by overcharging other residents. Like rent control, it makes no sense.