This is like, the only remotely valid criticism of OP's post that I've read so far -- although the Keynesian model would suggest that perhaps making you pay to develop infrastructure that everyone can benefit from, including those with low incomes who don't have a high tax liability, is a good investment that will make us all better off as a whole by reducing unemployment and crime while increasing productivity.
Everybody else is whining saying "why do we have to pay for it twice!?"
They seem not to realize that the network can't be maintained for free. Do they want the gov't to start paying the wages of all the telecom's workers as well, or would they like to start paying a bigger monthly cost for their telephone service? That is essentially their choice if they don't want to feel like they're getting "double-billed." Just because the gov't picks up part of the tab for a new project and you pick up the tab for the maintenance if you decide to use the thing, doesn't mean that you're necessarily getting ripped off (of course, you probably are, because this is the gov't we're talking about here, but still).