Lack of access to public services, in this case broadband, is absolutely a political issue.

I'd argue this is because:

1. A big part of the political spectrum believes a free market will lead to the best resulting infrastructure

2. Internet infrastructure is one of these things where the "shape" of the incentive structure can make or break how things develope

Therefore if your goal is getting fast broadband for as many people as possible as soon as possible, political or organisational interventions will get you there quicker than just waiting and hoping. And getting their could be key for the future economic development of whole nations.

Gladly we have many regions and a few decades of network infrastructure building, so seeing which approaches worked and which didn't is just a matter of looking carefully and trying not to lie to oneself about this.

That being said: so far the "free market" approach didn't really keep its promises if we are honest.

There hasn't been a free market approach with regards to internet in the United States in any sense of the word. From municipal to federal government the market has been captured by regulations that results in many places in the United States only having one available ISP that provides broadband internet. This was pretty evident when you see Google's efforts to roll out fiber internet all around the United States being stonewalled left and right.

I will concede that even if the market were free, there'd be plenty of edge cases (a lot of last-mile infrastructure) that'd reduce access, and I think those cases are where the government can excel. But realistically it seems more likely that Starlink is going to be available sooner than any movement from local governments.

Honestly the title tells you everything you need to know here and the article doesn't really provide any additional information anyway.

The carpenter analogy was creative! Market-only economists are like carpenters with a religious fixation on screw fasteners and abhorence of nails.

I think CD claims that the lack of broadband in the US is political.

This is poor writing for sure.

There was not a paywall in my case. The issue may be a selective restriction, which also explains why it was upvoted on HN.