It is never the case that they can compete without making a loss, as that would effectively make them a private company. The Post Office, for example, is suppos

It is never the case that they can compete without making a loss, as that would effectively make them a private company. The Post Office, for example, is supposed to have its own P&L, yet we keep giving them billions every time they run out of money. So you get the worst of all worlds, the lack of accountability of a private company but the taxpayers are on the hook. Almost all these pseudo-government projects are funded out of the general budget, and some are off-books but still off-balance sheet liabilities of the government. E.g. a port authority that floats its own bonds, but those bonds are guaranteed by the local government, so if the port authority becomes insolvent the government is on the hook. If you think entity X can make its own profit and loss, then ask yourself: who is on the hook when the bonds sold by X default? It is always going to be a taxpayer for a government project. A clean separation between things that are supposed to turn a profit and things that should be funded socially is a good separation, and trying to blur those lines is usually a bad idea, as you create these unaccountable subsidized bureaucracies that end up being poorly run sources of graft after a few generations. Now whether internet access itself should be subsidized or turn a profit is a different matter. It's critical infrastructure, like roads, so you can make a case for subsidies.