Republicans generally oppose what they consider unnecessary public spending and public control of markets. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of that posture, but where’s the hypocrisy?

Also, I’m not sure that law actually precludes a municipality from setting up an independent public utility that funds itself with subscription fees rather than taxes.

> where’s the hypocrisy?

Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women.

Republicans also claim to revere the Constitution and the intent of the founders. The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791. There is no reason to think that the founders did not intend for that government responsibility to keep up with technological advancements.

> Republicans claim to favor local control over state and federal control. But in fact they are perfectly happy to exercise state control over local government (or federal control over state government) if local control threatens business interests or empowers minorities or women.

You just disqualified yourself from being considered intellectually honest by engaging in bigoteering.

> The Founders clearly intended for the means of communication to be a public good. The government's duty to provide a postal service is written into the Constitution. But the postal service was simply the state of the art in communications technology in 1791

Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your ignorance is shocking. There was this little thing called the (optical) telegraph that was a bit more state of the art than post horses.

Furthermore, Ben Franklin quite clearly states that in order to have freedom of the press you must first have a press. The 1st amendment wasn't construed by any of the founders to imply socialized printing presses.

> (optical) telegraph

I presume you mean this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line

Invented in 1792, four years after the Constitution was ratified.

(You might also want to look up "glass houses" and "throwing stones".)

> socialized printing presses

The Internet is not a printing press. Web sites are printing presses. The Internet is the means by which content is distributed, not the means by which it is produced.

> You might also want to look up "glass houses" and "throwing stones".

You might want to read the link you shared. “Modern design of semaphores was first foreseen by the British polymath Robert Hooke, who gave a vivid and comprehensive outline of visual telegraphy to the Royal Society in a 1684 submission in which he outlined many practical details.” and “One of the first experiments of optical signalling was carried out by the Anglo-Irish landowner and inventor, Sir Richard Lovell Edgeworth in 1767”

>The Internet is not a printing press. Web sites are printing presses. The Internet is the means by which content is distributed, not the means by which it is produced.

You’re not even wrong.