With the first concerted federal program to subsidize high-speed Internet services in rural areas, the new economic stimulus package will create some jobs and could get hundreds of thousands of households online.

Yet, there's some question whether the economy would be more energized by spending that money on other things.

Because Internet access is widespread and still expanding even in a shrinking economy, injecting more money for broadband could equate to giving more coffee to someone who's already downed three cups.

The stimulus bill provides $7.2 billion for grants, loans and loan guarantees, primarily for areas that lack broadband or are "underserved," though the term is not defined. Some of that money is set aside to expand Internet access at public centers like community colleges and libraries.

One reason the money won't likely have much impact is its small size: less than 1 percent of the overall stimulus package.

The Obama administration is looking at creating a more comprehensive plan to get the whole country covered by broadband, technology adviser Alec Ross told The Washington Post last week, but it's not clear if that would mean more subsidies.

About 95 percent of households can get broadband, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

But the industry hasn't been very forthcoming in saying exactly where it's available, and that's part of what the stimulus package wants to address - it has allocated $350 million to mapping U.S. broadband access.

There are signs the money will do some good in rural areas. Home broadband users were more likely to start businesses or take classes online, and less likely to move away, Michigan State University researchers found.

Raul Katz, a Columbia Business School professor, says that the broadband plan will create 128,000 jobs over four years, because it will put installers and equipment makers to work, and those people will then spend the money they make. He's much less certain how many jobs the Internet access itself will create. It could be as many as 273,000 or closer to zero.

Spending the money on traditional infrastructure projects would create slightly more direct jobs: 152,000, according to Katz.