Agreed. The entire article rests upon the assumption that once the cap is reached, and the government may not spend anymore money on subsidizing broadband, all

Agreed. The entire article rests upon the assumption that once the cap is reached, and the government may not spend anymore money on subsidizing broadband, all those reliant on those subsidies are now in peril. It shows a narrow way of thinking, and also assumes quite a few things about the US Govt / FCC. After just glossing over the fact of fiscal responsibility, it assumes budget constraints in this regard are bad, as if a single penny of government money (taxpayer's money) is never wasted or poorly allocated. Second, the article's attitude seems to take the position (and certainly the comments do) that the government is one of the few (if any?) entities capable of improving access to broadband in these affected areas. I doubt this. I would also be interested to know if wireless telcos do a better job serving these apparently under-served communities versus their broadband providers. For example, what is the ratio of people who have slow broadband but smartphones with LTE service? A distant third is that somehow the issue of a budget cap cannot be readjusted at a later date. Or that there are no programs outside of Universal Service that can also augment and support rolling out broadband. Or that you cannot create a new program targeting specific needs, etc... This is a false dilemma. It also makes the assumption that broadband equals improved economic development. I don't discount the idea, but I question just how much of an impact it has, in order to use this as leverage against the idea of the budget cap. Ultimately, we're seeing a lack of imagination to problem solving unless it includes a blank check from Uncle Sam. Oh, and we can slam Ajit Pai while we're at it -- let's not pass on that.