From the first link in the article.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-2...
You think you have some sort of gotcha argument against this but you keep missing it (largely from being uninformed on the subject). Private companies aren't investing to build the infra to remote areas due to recovery cost timelines. The Govt is providing funding to build the infra alongside private partnerships to fund the maintenance and operation of the system.
There is very little downside here, if anything it avoids monopolistic control due to infrastructure investments required to service areas by providing the infra companies can then leverage in their business model.
Very similar to roads, powerlines and other things we take for granted daily that are fundamental to the operation and success of private companies.
There is no attempt at a "gotcha" argument, just dispensing with the Panglossian notion that this will definitely work long term. It might!
So the idea that it needs to be self-sustainable or profitable to be considered working is myopic. The completion/connection of the people is the achievement, the sustainability and integration with private companies hopefully reduces the government burden and enables innovation and competition without the need for vast capital expenditures.
Like, this isn't an exciting new idea; similar things have been widely used all over the world for rural broadband for years. The US is maybe a bit unusual in that the local monopolies were in some cases never really broken, so this is going maybe a bit less rural than would be typical. In many countries the local monopolies (Charter and Verizon, from the article) would be required to allow other ISPs to use their infra at a controlled price.