The internet penetration in the US last year was 88.5%, it's higher now. What is this "large percentage" exactly? What important information can't you get through a cheap smartphone and public Wifi?

Not to mention, it's not hard to find a well-used laptop in the US for virtually nothing, and with things like Chromebooks, you can get something new for around $100. There are charities that furnish computer access either through directly providing a cheap laptop or by offering shared access at centers, etc.

It's absurd to suggest that we need to spend millions building and maintaining traditional public libraries just because some people do not have immediate access to a computer.

If that's the issue, why spend the money building libraries instead of making computers cheaper and more accessible?

Computerized/digital information sources are far more efficient than physical information sources by practically any measure. They are not only easier to use, but they are easier to store, ship, etc. One thick textbook is much heavier than a single Kindle that could store the information equivalent of 100 thick textbooks, and dust mites won't eat the pages of your Kindle. Pretty much the only thing it's missing is a built-in solar power source, but you can probably attach it to USB solar power source, and it seems it'd be easier to get that infrastructure in place v. a whole library.

Seems like we're missing the forest for the trees here.

I concede, I've only ever been in a large campus library in the US.

Also I agree, if a few percent of the population cannot afford to access the internet there is a serious problem.

I just doubt that libraries are an effective way to solve this problem.