You normally have government funds that are allocated to reduce the "digital divide" (deploying high speed broadband to places where it does not make any sense to do it financially).

Works well especially when the company receiving such funds is only focusing on building the infrastructure to then rent it back to the ISPs that will leverage it to provide services to the customers...

A similar model is also used here in Italy to provide mobile network coverage in certain areas: the mobile operators "teamed up" and deployed "shared" infrastructure instead of having to deploy and mantain each one its own. This is the way in which they cover remote (less profitable) areas or special areas like the entire subway lines.

and where does that government fund come from providing BB (not mobile) to all of those remote places in Norway and Sweden is not going to be cheap.

From taxes, or EU subsidies (which are still taxes). But it's the same concept as building roads or other basic infrastructure. As a government, you invest in creating infrastructure in your country even if in purely commercial terms is less profitable. You reduce the digital divide, you lay out infrastructure for future growth, you create jobs, and so on. Different models, pros and cons for each one.

You do it like this:

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-rural-community-is-bu...

;)