> money to be put to use and not to line the pockets ... How about this example: https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/ot-it/53/873693/cpuc

> money to be put to use and not to line the pockets ... How about this example: https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/ot-it/53/873693/cpuc-invests-more-than-20-million-in-broadband-infrastructure-and-access-for-unserved-california-households.html https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/ot-... > $11 million in grant funding ... 740 unserved households First project on the list: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K247/355247969.PDF https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K... > up to $7,603,656.30 ... 1,000 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1,000Mbps upload to 588 unserved households. So, gigabit Ethernet, at a cost of only $12,931 per household. >According to the California Interactive Broadband Map, the area only has access to dial-up service. According to my search of that very same site just now, three competing cellular providers serve data to Williams, with T-Mobile claiming minimums of 9/4 Mbps. https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/ https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/ > residential and low-income broadband pricing plans ... for two years starting from the beginning date of service. ... 25 Downstream(Mbps)/25 Upstream(Mbps) - $25/month Wondering how many of those 588 households are behind on their monthly bills just now? How many would, if given the choice, prefer to have the CPUC pre-pay for them a couple of years of cellular hotspot service, and simply refund the remainder of "their" $12,931 in cash, so they can all be assured of making their rent or mortgage payments for a while? About 588 households, I would guess. My theory: It's a subsidy program for the broadband landline industry. Regulatory capture, as usual.