Re: A side-effect
"wouldn't satellite be a better option for delivering rural broadband?"
In general, if there's grid power - "no"
However, if there's a monopoly provider able to charge whatever the hell they want, you can expect that the price will change to be slightly better than whatever satellite option is available, with slightly better T&C - and they may not bother if the sat terminals are pricey or they may rely on inertia.
A funny thing back in the days of phone line deregulation in the USA - rural areas (such as West Virginia) which had party lines for decades and the incumbent telcos swearing black and blue they couldn't possibly afford to provide individual service suddenly had multiple telcos rolling out individual service at significantly reduced customer prices in the 1980s.
There's been plenty of evidence that legislated local for-profit monopolies are toxic but US state PUCs across the 1990s kept rolling out "concessions" to telcos and cablecos (local monopolies, mergers they shouldn't have been allowed to have, etc) in exchange for infrastructure investments that never happened or were aborted shortly after projects started - and kept giving more of them despite the previous concession terms not being met. It's referred to by some as the 10 Trillion dollar consumer swindle - but I think that substantially understates the scale of the con job. AT&T has been completely reassembled in a form that passes the Sherman act, doesn't have that pesky "universal service" obligation from the 1930s antitrust settlements and has eliminated all the competing LECs (There are fewer independents now than in 1980)