No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
And in doing you are implying that market conditions should dictate the availability of such services in rural areas. However the cost of such services is increased by the fact that they are being provided in rural areas compared with more densely populated areas. In addition the effect of this cost is exacerbated by depressed earnings in rural areas compared with metropolitan earnings. Thus by removing all subsidies you are reducing the ability of people in rural areas to enjoy the same levels of service as people in metropolitan areas. Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. In effect condemning the Have Nots to a sub standard living compared to the Haves. This is not begging the question
And while you can't expect to have everything available in rural areas, increasing access to fundamentals such as power, water, health care, education and now internet service benefits the country as a whole. However you seems to have philosophy that its is OK to stratify society based on location. I disagree and think that the job of a country is to raise up all members of its society regardless of where they live.
Now if you want to talk subsidies for sports stadiums