The problem is this, in the US:   If the government decides anything under 100Mb/s second isn't broadband, what happens is that any location that doesn't have 100Mb/s on a given date (usually shortly after the definition changes) is eligible for subsidies which are only given to a single provider for them to build out 100Mb/s within a given amount of time, such as 5 years.   Even if they do have 100Mb/s the ability to state that they have covered an area is often tied to providing "facilities based" phone service. So if a WISP doesn't have 100Mb/s right now, or isn't providing phone service (which few people want anymore), the government gives away money for a competitor to come in and overbuild the WISP.  There are often various strings attached that prevent the average WISP from either applying for or obtaining these funds.

Note the above is a general description, and each iteration of broadband subsidies have had different rules, but the general description of the problem is consistent across iterations.  For example, the first batch of subsidies were only available to incumbent telephone companies.

The sad thing is that this results in less broadband deployment.   These subsidies rob WISPs of capital they could and would use to expand into areas where there is very little to no service at all today.   This is because the subsidies usually end up going to overbuild the WISP's "cash cow" locations where they provide what you would consider good quality internet at a reasonable price.   This overbuild (with a subsidised competitor) reduces the ability for the WISP to obtain capital to expand since many WISPs are financed using cash flow, and not by other sources of revenue.