The problem with this analogy is that the government don't give out the only available land to Burger King restaurants for free while at the same time make it practically impossible for any other restaurants to get access to land and compete. Government created monopolies on food access are indeed a major issue in nations which has had that (east Germany, war time rationing) and it would be more important than high speed internet.
Thankfully this doesn't happen with Burger King. Burger joints are common simply because the ease of starting one up and access to customers. No requirement to go and dig cables on government land, no last mile issues, just make a safe building and edible food and off you go.
In many places, the government's barriers to entry are worse for a fast food restaurant [1] than for, e.g., creating a WISP. So, I don't think your argument breaks the analogy.
Thankfully this doesn't happen with Burger King. Burger joints are common simply because the ease of starting one up and access to customers. No requirement to go and dig cables on government land, no last mile issues, just make a safe building and edible food and off you go.