I feel that I am kinda ignorant on this subject, because I hear so much back and forth about people's perceptions concerning what the Pauls are saying in this. Some people seem really up in arms over it, and feel that the Pauls are benefiting the corporations (we know Ron Paul isn't like that, but many others fall prey to the spin).
Knowing Ron Paul's character, I would first question my own ignorance before questioning Paul's motives, so could anyone enlighten me on this issue? This paragraph (from this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/06/how-the-new-...) is what I'm curious about as this person thinks that the Pauls are misunderstanding the issue:
'Masnick points out that the document defends the telecommunication companies, which it describes as “privately owned,” from “coercive state action.”
“This makes me curious if the Pauls spoke out against the billions and billions in subsidies and rights of way grants that the government provided the telcos and cable providers to build their networks,” Masnick writes. “Once again, I am against regulating net neutrality — because it’s obvious that the telcos will control that process and the regulations will favor them against the public — but pretending that broadband infrastructure is really “privately owned” when so much of it involved tax-payer-funded subsidies and rights of way is being in denial.”
Any thoughts on this?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of th