Ted Stevens had a more accurate view of how the internet works than 95% of the people I talk to. What's the correction? It's not a "series of tubes" it's acshully a "series of pipes"? It's a bunch of mailboxes and parcels being delivered to them?

The attacks on Stephens for this were entirely political and unfair. He certainly was awful, but the ante-twitter mob that converged on him led by late night comedians were computer illiterates parroting what they heard.

The reason he said it that way is because he was an old corrupt coot who had net neutrality explained to him in very simple terms by lobbyists and PR flacks trying (successfully) to stop it. The reason he was taunted over it was because of a strategy come up with by the opposing PR flacks, probably gathered around the same brand of whiteboard.

> The attacks on Stephens for this were entirely political and unfair. ... [He] had net neutrality explained to him in very simple terms by lobbyists

Were the "attacks" really unfair? He wasn't doing his job properly if he was just accepting the position of one group of lobbyists without understanding the technology he was regulating or the consequences of that legislation.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "entirely political", since surely criticism of politicians should be political (as opposed to personal), but assuming you mean "entirely partisan" (i.e. based solely on his party, rather than the policy itself) I disagree. Perhaps you can find some example of a Democrat using an embarrassingly bad analogy to explain something technical, but I suspect it would be met with ridicule too, especially if the analogy were being put forward to justify a bad policy.

> He certainly was awful

Indeed, it wasn't really entirely political and unfair.

It wasn't just the "series of tubes" phrase itself; it was the whole nonsensical story that followed that. Wikipedia has the full quote and a recording, but to summarize: Stevens opposed network neutrality on the grounds that it could lead to network congestion, which he illustrated with an example of an email (in his words, "an Internet") sent to him which took some time to arrive. As an argument, it was barely coherent, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the technology he was trying to make an argument about.

Because "series of tubes" and "series of pipes" are both a dumbed-down inaccuracy.

The Internet is a mesh of millions of computers that happen to be connected by wire or fiber optics or some other transmission medium. Fiber optic cables are the closest to "tubes" one could analogize, since it has a thing (light) being pushed through a cylindrical device, but it does a complete disservice to the technological advancements to dumb the whole of the Internet down to "series of tubes".

The attacks on Stephens were very justified in that as a leader of the committee, he should have been much more well-versed in the actual technologies used. He should have wanted to be more well-versed. And if lobbyists had that much pull and sway over him and what he "knows" and how he presents it, then the ridicule was even more justified.

You can try to sugar coat his ineptitude all you like with a plethora of excuses, but, in my opinion, he got what he deserved with the ridicule.

Aren't TCP and IP a series of tubes ? Asking for a friend.

It's a series of small trucks.

IP would be the first step in the OSI model where things go from physical to logical.

>> What's the correction?

OK, I'll bite: tubes/pipes/flow is a bad analogy for packet-based network transmission.

Overall though, it doesn't make sense to argue the required corrections of this statement unless you also think a good analogy for a simple circuit is "wires are straws through which electricity pours".

There isn't really a good replacement metaphor. As far as I can think of, there's just bad metaphors.

But an important part of demonstrating you're worthy of legislating the internet is talking the talk - demonstrating you know how what the industry is and how the industry operates. A suitable replacement statement which demonstrates a command of the basic ideas would be:

"If we exceed the capacity of our internet backbones, critical services -- as well as consumer services -- will be impacted."

For me, "tubes" was less of a gaffe than referring to an email as an "Internet". The former was a bad metaphor, the latter was a failure of basic layman terminology. It means either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're a bad communicator, and either of those should be disqualifying of your post as the head of a senate committee on internet legislation.

Physical pipes can't do multicast (one atom in, one atom out). Data networks can, at least in principle.

Wires and electric field?

Yeah it's a depressing reality that a lot of government is uninformed people making uninformed decisions that affect the entire country.

Let's just cut the bullshit and use sortition for governance.

It works pretty well in practice, so well, that citizens assemblies are often better informed than the politicians in government. Yet politicians routinely ignore their non-binding decisions/conclusions, as if there is a group of people that deserves more attention.

I encourage folks from the HN community to run! We have no (?) technologists in the senate and probably not the house either? Yet plenty from medicine and other professions…

The problem with positions of power is that the most qualified are least likely to want the job.

Largely because we’ve lost social cohesion and pride, so that few are motivated towards civic good. The solution is purely cultural and doesn’t cost any money. But it requires shifting belief structures, which requires leadership and shared experiences… and that’s hard and rare to achieve.

Not really, its because you will be outspent and stomped in an election by the establishment that profits from the status quo. Being good at winning elections and being a good politician do not always go hand in hand.

That indeed is the ultimate puzzle. Maybe the solution is to pay what they cost and gigify the jobs.

Does the job pay high six figures? If not, will pass

the official salary is $174k, but everyone knows the real money is in the kickbacks from your position of power

Pretty ironic comment from a username that is the_common_man

That thinking is pretty common here :-)

They all come out millionaires if they survive a few terms.

The house has Thomas Massie, Darrell Issa, and Bill Foster, at least.

Issa lost in 2018, IIRC.

He ran and won in another district in 2020.

Not to blow the "our government is broken" trumpet too hard, but this is exactly the way the FCC works as well. They instead bring on consultants; the FTEs are lawyers and policy makers.

Likely, one would need to follow the "donations" to see who's really in charge.