How so? The cost would be primarily borne by people who choose to live in the sparsely populated areas. Often because they want to get away from others so it's not even really a cost.

When it comes to just mere connectivity (for emergency communication and the like), satellite coverage is more than enough and cheaper to provide in unpopulated regions. Plus, Motorola already sunk a ton of money (in Iridium). Now you want to do it again?

Also, a perspective where the government owns the network(?), and maximizes its value is pretty bizarre to begin with. Maybe it would make sense under some sort of hereditary monarchy. Otherwise, all the incentives are completely out of whack. The government will just go with whatever is beneficial to the backers of the coalition currently in power, like the fed and fcc already seem to be doing.

So the telco has to evalute, what the investment cost and how many subscriptions they can sell. If they set it to high, not enought people will buy it. So the market is esentially against how high people value your product.

Also how is the cost cost covered by the state? It is not generally true that the internet is better with more people, specially people who dont value internet highly.

Also your argument can be made for anything, for example, if everybody loved product X then marginal cost of production goes down and that is bettwr for everybody. So would you want the state to enlarge the market for product X, just because it would be better for everybody?

Also its a question of cost, for example, i prefer if there are more people in the internet, however if you ask me how much im willing to pay for otber people getting internet then my answer is pretty much 0.

You are completly ignoring the cost aspect of the cost benefit calculation.