If something is a 'right,' it makes it automatically take precedence over anything that is simply good (like faster internet access). This is a problem if you are deciding between connecting a small number of people or improving the service for a large number of people.
I don't think the distinction between positive & negative is useful for anything more then a rule of thumb. It's just that positive rights tend to cost less to grant. If we were comfortable with fewer absolutes, I would favour replacing rights with good, bad, better, worse. *For the sake of predictability & a workable battle cry, it may be useful to grant tentative rights. But I wouldn't call them rights. "The government has decided to grant everyone access by 20XX."
Also, commercial enterprises can do very large scale tasks such as build dams, road systems, and the like. It's not much good at doing military defense, but for making stuff....
The difference between government and an outsourcing organization is that the government will violently shut you in a room for a very long time if you decide not to participate in a mandate.
A right to a trial by jury is the only positive right in the US Bill of Rights. It's a huge pain in the ass to do jury duty, in part because law mandates we take action.
A positive right to health care coverage or internet access are ridiculous, because it is a mandate for someone to provide service to you.
Instead of people operating in good faith through mutually beneficial exchange, the government steps in and makes people do it. That kind of violence or theft is bad.
I'm all for greater access to the internet. Calling it a right is a bad idea.