The real question is: why does he have to get larger than the 600 homes in his nearby rural area, ever? Why does his goal have to be to defeat and replace Comcast rather than to supply internet service to his neighbors?
I think the idea that companies go under because they aren't ambitious enough says more about modern attitudes towards growth than it does about the reality of business.
A larger profitable company has more chance of survival by shrinking into a smaller profitable company. It's a buffer. But an already small profitable company doesn't have that option, there's more risk.
If your goal is to fight a monopoly, then the mere existence of competition means that you've accomplished your goal.
I would say that to attempt to have zero growth/shrinkage is difficult in business. The market is always changing, people's preferences change, etc. If you try to stagnate you will likely find yourself shrinking, either because demand changes, or there are mixups in supply (competitors).
If shrinking is the only non-goal, then growth is likely the only prevention since stagnation is hard to ensure.
Maybe the person that lives in that house in the next generation is the next great scientist that discovers how fusion can work reliably for us. If that is the case, then it was worth 30k to link that house to the Internet.
To hell with your paperwork. The wire is getting hung. You don't have to connect it, but if you want to, it's there.