Very in favor of modernizing the definition, very not in favor of subsidizing any network buildout -- if a provider is not offering broadband under the new definition that is not (in my eyes) a problem the government needs to step in to fix, it's simply being honest about our nation's network infra capabilities.

Sure, we can incentivize providers for reaching certain percentage rollouts under the new definition, but history shows us we should not consider schemes to help finance those buildouts.

Internet is not currently a utility, so unless we make it a proper utility with proper regulation before handing over money, the federal government is historically not capable of resisting lobbying pressure aimed at remove the teeth from similar subsidized buildout agreements. In almost all cases the money has disappeared without significant real world improvements.

For example, using the money intended for buildout to instead pay lobbyers to re-change the definition of broadband, thereby actualizing some stated goal of "75% of service area covered by broadband", and then pocketing the difference between the actual buildout costs and the lobbying costs.

If we offer a financing without regulation, we may as well move the money straight into the exec bonus category and totally ignore improving infra