It depends on how rural they're expected to go. It's not exactly cheap to upgrade infrastructure that's probably PTSN or at most ISDN, and service providers have not done so because it will literally cost them more to do the install than they can guarantee they'll make back out of it. There's still a lot of copper backbone out there, with the associated problems that old copper has with corrosion and other line degredation that can be worked around with voice (anyone remember pair gain?) but will play havoc on any sort of high-speed data.
I don't think that those that live in rural areas don't deserve to have Internet access, but everywhere we live we make trade-offs. I have to put up with high property costs (relatively speaking), pollution in several forms, traffic, restrictions on the kinds of things I'm allowed to do on my property and in the surrounding area, and being forced to interact with others. On the other hand I get inexpensive shopping, relatively short travel distances, numerous entertainment options, and access to infrastructure and utilities that require a certain minimum density to have.
Those that live in rural areas generally have more peace and quiet, less traffic, less pollution, fewer rules on property use and other activities, and lower property costs, but have longer drives, more expensive shopping, more expensive or nonexistent utilities or infrastructure, and less in the way of entertainment choices. Them's the breaks. That's also why we have taxes that pay for infrastructure in rural areas, like roads, power distribution (yes, the electrification of rural America was subsidized), telephone, mail, and depending on the area sanitation and water. Even with those subsidies there will still be a dearth of some services though.