The government paying for your internet? Some think that is a good thing, but regardless of your hatred or obsession over "redistribution", there is a massive bear trap awaiting this good intention.
Once the government pays for something, it wants to control it. Utterly. It uses the excuse, not without merit in isolation, that if it pays for it, it should have a say. However, once you begin to have a say you end up with companies vying for the tender, which is a magnet for corruption., You then get poor purchase by the Simple Shopper, who will end up almost certainly with either a cartel or a monopoly. The excuse of control wears threadbare. It is not a good enough excuse for the unintended consequences.
If the above was not bad enough, expect the State to interfere in WHAT is downloaded or accessed via this "free" service. Those who are poor will be limited and restricted in what they will see. There are so many occasions when the poor are labeled "deprived" when all they are are poor or living in a ropey location - the disingenuous use of a word that implies proactive denial is rife and thrown about by "progressive" sorts (another such term used to deceive). However, in this case it will finally make sense. Those who end up with a State restricted yet "free" service - making the escape velocity for those on limited means very hard - will well and truly be deprived for the first time in their lives.
New Labour: Nationalised Feudalism.