Libertarians are often assailed for advocating a drastic reduction in government. Typically, the idea of roads comes up immediately. People want to know what we will do about roads. Only the most ardent libertarian will defend a private system. Once you acquiesce to a user fee or gas tax you are immediately stuck in the realm of expanding the idea of the 'public' good. It simply becomes a matter of degree at that point.
When one of the Democratic candidates for NYS governor throws words out like the 'digital divide', hold onto your wallet. In a simpler time it might have proven popular to promote ideas like burying the phone and electric lines. No other policy could achieve the public good of safe reliable communications and power. The perception of ' suburban sprawl' as it is labeled, would have no greater gift then government mandated aesthetics of a buried system. All those new houses and businesses usually bury all their new development.
Like most lawyers, I doubt Mr. Spitzer truly understands technology and economies. His profession is a monopoly the likes of a Lincoln could not nowadays penetrate by simply studying it tenets and practices. They are man made and generated by human thought alone. Technology is not only subject to the human component, but the physical Universe and market forces.
The greatest restriction to broadband access to poor people are local monopolies. Out here in 'Appalachia' it is local providers who have had no competition until only recently. That competition drives prices down through innovation and market pricing mechanisms. Cable and satellite technologies have opened up what is typically called the 'last mile'.
Having local or state government provide broadband to 'poor' people is insane. They have access at public libraries. Forcing companies and localities to provide services would mute competition and raise the cost to everyone else. So while Mr. Spitzer's disciples might feel better, the rest of us will pay. Feed, clothe and house the poor, if other people won't.