In defense of Sen. Stevens

Senator Stevens caught some flak and became an unintentional tech celeb after his description of the Internet as a series of tubes. Allow me to offer a belated defense.

Considering that his audience was a bunch of non-technical pols, his description is actually reasonably accurate. Not savvy or buzzword-compliant, and not particularly eloquent, but also not wrong at a high level. He made one gaffe by using the word “Internet” where he should have said “email”. Pretty good for an 82-year-old who probably used telegrams until recently.

In particular, some in the Web community have made fun of his use of the word “tubes”. Yet, we in the Web biz often say “pipes” when describing an Internet connection. Are pipes somehow a worse metaphor than tubes?

I’ll go a step further with a quick science lesson: fiber-optic cables are in fact, physically, tubes (h/t Richard Bennett). And, that black coaxial cable that runs down the street, comes into your house with and carries your TV and 'net traffic? Also a tube. So technically, a majority of the Internet is carried via tubes.

But what strikes me more is the weird clique-ishness of we Web folk. I remember back in 1995 that a lot of people would sneer at those who didn’t “get it”. This was a catchy little phrase that excused us from having to explain ourselves to those outside our clique. I still hear it today, and have flashbacks.

(I suspect the phrase made it into many Powerpoint presentations in the Aeron-encrusted meeting rooms of Pets.com, Kozmo and Webvan.)

What we need to learn is that condescension is a very poor tool when it comes to persuasion. I don’t know if Sen. Stevens persuaded anybody that day. But give him a break, cool kidz.

Comments

[pkaps]

Two comments, Matt: One is, using "Internet" for "email" is just a sign that the person involved probably uses neither since nobody who does would ever confuse the two -- nobody ever says, "just send me an internet." It's not a simple slipup. And if the person in question is 82 years old and prone to such mistakes, should we be saying "well, that's pretty good" or asking whether or not this person should be leading telecom reform if he doesn't even understand the most basic terms? Do you want a networked future that's "pretty good?" Funny, Stevens never seems to make such mistakes when he talks about drilling for oil in the ANWR. Bet he knows the difference between pipes and oil.

Second -- love the irony of hat-tipping Richard Bennett and then being indignant about using condescension as a method of arguing. Or maybe you just never read the froth-filled posts of Richard's where he calls Anna Eshoo "Google's bitch."

Hmm... something about glass houses and stones. Or glass tubes and stones?

[Matt S]

Come on Paul, make an affirmative argument once in a while. Quick test: three sentences on telecom reform without describing how wrong you believe a person (or a group of people) to be. Add to the discussion for once. The above is pure subtraction.

If you think his grasp is poor, you're probably right. Then you have to ask, is his understanding better than his colleagues? Sadly, I would also answer yes.

All roads point against neutrality legislation.

If you think Sen Stevens is right, then you are agreeing that a neutrality mandate is a bad idea. If you think he's out of his depth, then gov't is clearly incompetent and shouldn't be trying to manage networks. See? Win-win for us anti-neutrality folks.

(Just like Bush's incompetence is an excellent case for small gov't.)

[pkaps]

Give me a break. Search my blog (http://paulsblog.pulver.com) for the names Reed Hundt or Bob Kahn and you will find numerous references about positive, new ways to build networks.

I have talked many times in the past about Hundt/Kahn ideas for open COs -- central offices that let anyone compete, with more than generous renumeration for the builders of same.

Pardon me if I try to burst your bubble of defense of Stevens, the logic of which is hard to fathom (other than maybe it hurts to see Karl Rove tactics used against the GOP for a change). Stevens' grasp of technology is not better than his colleagues; John Sununu, for one, is well versed in matters VoIP and would never call email an Internet in public discourse. But rural-state Senators like Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan (in a bipartisan effort!) shot down Sununu's progressive, hands-off VoIP legislation a couple years ago and then Stevens took over the Commerce committee to the detriment of us all.

How's this: I agree we shouldn't pass any of the current legislation on the table, which basically hands the keys to our broadband future to telcos and cable, and hogties innovation. Better to delay the decisions to a more-informed, better-led Congress than the current chairs Stevens and Barton, who show little thinking beyond what the telco lobbyists tell them.

Why not bring more technologists like Kahn (or Richard Bennett!) into the process, as well as local leaders (thinking muni wifi here) instead of letting lawyers battle it out? I'm all for that. Maybe by stalling the current bad bills we can have a more meaningful contemplation of what the future of broadband should look like.