[ghaff]

I suspect you're right that a lot of the people complaining the loudest about lack of rural broadband are people who have bought a 50 acre place out in the country because they want the space and the quiet. To be fair, they probably pay for a lot of infrastructure like septic but I agree with your basic point.

It's also true that there are some advantages to (near) universal service for many types of utilities, as we did historically with electricity and POTS. That said given existing alternatives to broadband fiber like satellite, I'm not convinced there's a pressing need to provide universal broadband even where it doesn't make financial sense.

[snerbles]

On plots that large, water is usually provided by a well and a local septic tank with leach field handles the sewage - these are typically factored into the cost of constructing a new dwelling.

Bear in mind that many of these residences were built before consumer access to the internet was widespread. You're better off with a terrestrial wireless, as satellite internet has severe latency and bandwidth limitations. Fortunately many rural households in the U.S. otherwise out of economic range of fiber are within rage of local WISPs, line-of-sight allowing.