Glad I’ve got you to tell me what my position is. I thought it was an ordinary common-sense observation about tradeoffs. But it turns out it actually “boils down to” a cartoonish straw man that you can dismiss with a smug handwave. You can imagine my chagrin. (eyeroll)

Companies don’t like wasting money, so why are they building three times the necessary capacity in urban areas? The answer is… they aren’t. They’ve already figured this out. You’re just ignorant of how they do it. We’re not running a seminar on telecom industry economics here, so I’m not going to get into the weeds explaining it to you. But the fact that you don’t know or understand how this works doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work, still less that the government would do it better.

People in rural areas with lower population density generally have less access to goods and services, or pay more for them (in economic terms it’s the same thing). This is just physics. Stuff has to move farther in rural areas, and that doesn’t happen by magic. Someone has to pay for it somehow. So yeah, if you don’t like that, then move to the city – where you get to deal with a whole different set of downside costs. As a great man said, in real life there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. (And since people value things differently, there's no one right tradeoff for everybody.)

What your position boils down to (ahem) is that people in rural areas shouldn’t have to make tradeoffs, and everyone else should subsidize their choices by covering their downside costs. This is an intelligible position, I suppose. You haven’t begun to make an argument for it, but that's the argument you have to make. Or you can stick with childish emotionalism and barely-disguised special pleading. Readers, in the unlikely event we have any, can judge for themselves.