Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 8 months ago

    Yeah, this is a problem. A big one.

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 8 months ago

    The Internet’s raison d’etre was to allow the US military to communicate after a nuclear attack when most of the network was destroyed. Old networks had a single, fixed path between any two points. The Internet was designed so messages would search for any path that was left after a nuclear attack.

    The Chinese Great Firewall tries to block every site not reviewed and approved by the Chinese government. In 2002, I had no trouble getting around it, though the New York Times assured me that was impossible.

    Since the Internet was passed from the US government to private companies in 1993, those private companies have been trying to figure out how to maximise their profits, forcing everyone to pay (as with cable) on a channel-by-channel basis for every site one wishes to view. They haven’t had much luck, yet.

  3. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, 8 months ago

    Let’s save and GROW some of the country’s assets for the people who actually invested, namely the general taxpaying public.

  4. Ted Lind

    Ted Lind GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    The real problem is the last mile. Content companies should be separate from companies who provide cable, wire line distribution. Then you would have some real competition and real net neutrality. If you understand network peering, the Netflix decision was probably reasonable. Letting companies like Comcast charge rent for 15 year old Motorola boxes and cheap converters is not.

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago

    @Michael wme

    What we get in cable are plenty of channels we don’t want and some like HBO are set too high to afford.

  6. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago


    We don’t count when we pay the way for private enterprise to profit from it. We don’t get to.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 8 months ago


    Yes you are correct. Our Founders didn’t have that in mind unfortunately.

  8. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, 8 months ago

    LOL! Very good one, Tom!

  9. neatslob

    neatslob said, 8 months ago

    Actually the federal government is taking its nose OUT, which the private companies are using to rake in more profits.

  10. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, 8 months ago

    Imagine turning the highway system over to private enterprise, who require transponders in your car if you want to use their road, setting different speed limits for different lanes, and charging more per mile for the faster lanes. Perhaps even charge different rates for different kinds of cars: for example they could make a deal with the automakers to charge more for older cars using the roads, making it more expensive to drive an older car, thus encouraging you to buy a new car.

  11. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, 8 months ago

    A hundred years ago the state stepped in to save the college in this town, that was floundering, and might have gone under. With public money provided in exchange for low tuition rates for in-state students and a requirement that most of the students be in-state, the college flourished and grew into one of the finest public college in the nation. In recent years the state has supported the college less and less, until that support is now negligible: but the state still demands low tuition rates for in-state students, though the college could easily finance itself with full-tuition students. The college could go private, if the state would let it, but for beginners they would first have to buy their own campus from the state. The quality of the education provided there is now at risk, as the best faculty prefer to go someplace that pays better (as most places do). So the state has essentially reneged on the deal that served both the state and the college so well for a century.

    When I described this situation to a conservative colleague the other day, he said, “That’s what you get for allowing the government to stick its nose into your affairs.” So swapping bankruptcy for a century of growth, prestige and success was a bad idea back in 1906?

    I thought of that when I read Tigger’s comment about the Federal Government sticking its nose in. Why did he add “Federal” to that sentence? I have yet to see any evidence that state and local governments handle anything any better than the Federal government does, and plenty to suggest they handle it worse. In general, I find state and local government more likely to be corrupt or in the pockets of powerful interests.

    In libertarian utopia the state withers away, or shrinks to impotence. Very much like the dreams of communism. Neither is to be found in the read world.

  12. todyoung

    todyoung GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago


    and BIG contributors.

  13. neatslob

    neatslob said, 8 months ago

    It wouldn’t be so much what kind of car you drive, but where you are going. Imagine Jumbo-mart paying a premium so if you are going there, you can use the fast lane, but if you’re going to Ma’s Groceries, who can’t afford a premium, you have to stay in the slow lane.

  14. Refresh Comments.