Talk:Series of tubes/Archive 1

Partial text of Stevens' speech highlighting the idiocy of it is, although funny, the antithesis of NPOV. The article should somewhat attempt to explain Stevens' argument against net neutrality.137.22.233.162 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why people ridicule his metaphor because his statement was true, and he was trying to explain to people who probably know less about the internet than he. If someone can come up with a better metaphor than "a series of tubes" then I'd like to hear it.

Necro-File 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)the internet is more like electricity. But it is obvious that he dosent know what the internet is. He says "I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.139.45 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He did not have a point. He tried to illustrate that the Internet can be plugged because of data when what he was trying to refer to was a bandwidth issue; the analogy was totally wrong. There was a good explanation in this article but someone took it down. What is sad and tragic is that people with inadequate knowledge or downright ignorance are in charge of regulating an increasingly complex future. It's embarrassing that the most technologically advanced country on earth has to rely on lawmakers who don't have a proper understanding of what they are passing into law.

Cheers Everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually thankful to Senator Stevens for igniting this whole controversy.... Because honestly, I always thought that the internet was a big truck. But now I know.

XD

A big truck. Indeed. A garbage truck. A garbage truck overfilled with rotting spam. --66.102.80.239 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any good illustrations of the Internet that are safe to post? I was thinking of, say, a comprehensive screensaver shot or some old bank's pneumatic network...

I found an image that might be appropiate at http://www.chandigarhtrafficpolice.org/prohibitirysigns.php but I don't know if uploading it is legal so I just left it. I tried finding something already uploaded that would work, but the closest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bullock_cart_sign_india.JPG

You can oyu the pic from www.chandigarhtrafficpolice.org by linking back to us.

you could try Image:WorldWideWebAroundWikipedia.png. Bawolff 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a series of tubes to me.

a picture of a router, or preferably a server, would be better. something that actually handles internet traffic. That's an illustration of links, it has nothing to do with the actual network.

I would like to see someone add a bit explaining why his example of email taking 4 days to arrive was not caused by the tubes being full..

When is the last time you clicked on a link to visit a website, and you had to wait four days for the webpage to appear? That's a bit of a colloquial explanation, but no matter how badly the "tubes" are "filled", it doesn't take anywhere near that long unless one of the links is down (the tubes are broken, not filled), or there's a PEBKAC issue.

On the other hand, if you're sending a whole internet... there's a rumor that internets can be really big sometimes... --Interiot 09:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the topology of the network driving the Senate's email system, but I would think that if both Senator Stevens and the unnamed member of his staff have addresses @*.senate.gov (I can only assume as much), then it would be entirely possible that the email never even reached the Internet in the first place. Even if they use some third party email service residing on an external :tually did send the e-mail when they were supposed to, but the holdup was the internet's fault. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we looking for explanations for what was essentially an attempt by someone who thinks the internet works like snail mail to illustrate his idea? The statement obviously does not have roots in fact and is merely an ill-informed attempt by Stevens to add shock value to his otherwise baseless argument. 192.5.41.254 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is really "looking for explanations" here. On my part, anyway, it's merely idle speculation. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this calls for a random tech support anecdote - My old driving instructor tapped me up for some tech support during a lesson the other day, asking why he only seemed to get emails about once a month and then he got loads of them at once. After going through various possible (technically complex) reasons for this, I asked him what email client he was using... Outlook... so does that dial up automatically? Er, you have to dial up to the net to get your email?

I'd put money on the answer to Ted Steven's problem being one of similarly breathtaking technical naïveté, and I would imagine it'd be extremely difficult to diagnose without direct access to him.--82.152.205.122 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I know someone somewhere will try and get this entry deleted soon, I'll pre-emptively start the discussion now. I think this definitely needs its own article. It's gone far beyond Ted Stevens himself and spread to total meme status. It's also a major event in how the Internet is perceived by those in charge as well as how those in charge are perceived on the Internet, and there are tons of verifiable sources for the article out there with more appearing every day thanks to the debates Stevens started.

The current article is way too short and smacks of Ted Stevens-bashing, which may be fun, but isn't encyclopedic by any stretch. It's been less than a month, it's hard to say that this will stick around. It may be worthwhile at some future point, but for now, it's too short to warrant its own article. — Xenoveritas 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think given that it may very well, at some point in the not-too-distant future, be viewed as a significant moment in the debate over public policy and the Internet, if not in the greater debate about the competence of government generally, it would be premature to delete it right now. It seems that the safer course would be to let the article remain, and see if anything becomes of it -- if it really becomes a 'watershed moment,' then keep it; if in retrospect it was just a transient social meme, then roll the information into the main Stevens article. But either way, it is by your own admission too early to tell, so therefore I would argue in the strongest possible terms that the article should not be deleted. Not yet, anyway. --Kadin2048 06:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a bit of work, of course, but it's off to a good beginning so far. Thanks to The lorax and Jersyko for getting things started. Rob T Firefly 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the writeup of the meme in today's New York Times (link), combined with the Daily Show report and other publicity, easily defeat any notability or WP:MEME arguments that there should not be an article. Also, good work so far, The lorax. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but don't you think there needs to be more to this article than a transcript of the speech in question and then "Hey, look! People are actually talking about this!" Thunderbunny

The fact that this guy has no idea what is going on, and has any influence what so ever over the state of the internet, makes this wiki-worthy. This is a perfect example of our government in action today, change and lack of it, driven by the lobbying power of telcos.

-Burny

Everytime some ignorant politician (i.e. Bush) makes a funny comment which a few people latch on to will it become a wikipedia article? In 50 years, will wikipedia be full of "Series of tubes" type idiosyncratic articles? I've proposed a deletion; if a consensus is made to do otherwise I will respect it.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think that this article as a whole is completely necessary. This was not really an official proclamation of some sort; just an answer to a question. If we want to compare it to other articles in Wikipedia, let me point out the following:"Tear down this wall" has an article about half as long as this one."The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" doesn't have its own article"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" doesn't have its own article.I just don't see how anyone serious could say that something like this should have an article.--Jason Catlin

I think you mean "completely unnecessary". As for the other points - people write about what interests them. yes this introduces a systemic bias, but a better solution than deleting articles is to go and add content to the articles for each of the quotes you mention above. Debivort 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain why this analogy has received so much ridicule? He's obviously recalling the era of mail tubes, when you'd wrap up an envelope and dump it into a mail tube. The system of mail tubes really wasn't that different from the Internet's system of wires and routers. Yes, it's slightly oversimplified, but why is it so funny? Do people expect this guy to write a textbook on TCP/IP or something?69.226.232.53 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"slightly oversimplified"? He regulates the thing. He should at least have the same understanding of the internet as my 12 year old cousin, who doesn't even like computers. --mboverload@ 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

heh heh, so what's your 12 year old cousin's description of internet? Anarchopedia 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Government suits making laws about stuff they don't understand is nothing new. Anyway, in this case, the fact that he can analogize the Internet to a tube mail system suggests that he has at least enough understanding to get the idea of a "network", i.e. that the Internet isn't just some magical place, but actually a series of traffic-routing points linked by throughways. In any case, the point is that this is supposed to be about the article, and the article doesn't presently clarify just why this is supposed to be so hilarious. If it really is that funny, the article should explain why.69.226.232.53 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted? That you? · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, wikipedia isn't a place to editorialise. Maybe you think he does know what he is talking about, but that has no bearing on the article - it should just report the fact that people are mocking this man because they perceive he is making laws about something he knows nothing about Damburger 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a video that CNET has featured as one of "Ten tech-related YouTube clips you shouldn't miss"http://news.com.com/2300-1026_3-6095928-2.html?tag=ne.gall.pg Maybe it should be added?

This isn't a joke page. This isn't about whats funny or not funny. This has become a quickly spreading symbol of how our government has built a ladder to heaven and consequently can't see the ground it stands on, then of course forgets know how to climb back down. Government stupidity is nothing new, but blatent, easily ridiculed public idiocy isn't all too common.

And how can you defend the use of "an internet" ?? A series of tubes would be a good analogy if he had the required knowlege to embelish beyond a poorly chosen regurgitation of buzzwords. Fresheneesz 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody give an example of what would be considered a good analogy to be used to describe the Internet?

"A wide area network of servers and microcomputers". —ptk✰fgs 18:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And how to do connect a wide are network? Tubes! Pipes! Optical fibers, coax, microwave, and twisted pairs. I still don't see what's so funny about the tubes. Maybe he should have talked about IP_over_Avian_Carriers

Analogy: "The comparison of two things, which are alike in several respects, for the purpose of explaining or clarifying some unfamiliar or difficult idea or object by showing how the idea or object is similar to some familiar one." What you said would have no meaning to somebody not already familiar with networking. --Son0rouS 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, a "series of tubes" doesn't have any useful meaning to anyone. So.. which is better? Fresheneesz 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant. If you look at the source of the quote you will see that it is from an article about Stevens's speach. Rockwell is arguing that Stevens is an example of the state and its incompetence to regulate and centrally plan an economy. --Kalmia 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote:

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. of the Ludwig von Mises Institute argued "We ought not to regret that someone with talent stays in the productive private sector and out of the Senate. What we ought to regret is that the dregs who are on top presume to have power over us. Government is always and everywhere all thumbs. That's one reason its responsibilities ought to be as few as possible." [1]

The article is about Stevens' incompetence and how it supports a libertarian view of government (quite a stretch in my view, but that's neither here nor there). However, the argument Rockwell is making is only slightly relevant to the internet meme known as "series of tubes," which is the subject of this article. It certainly does not warrant a mention in the text of the article itself. Note that the article is already linked in the "external links" section, which is where it belongs. Finally, please note that "see also" sections in articles are reserved for wikilinks that are not already contained in the article text. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He's incompetent, so you think he and politicans like him should regulate the internet via net neutrality? Anarchopedia 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

an appropriate analogy for the internet might be, oh, I don't know... a spiderweb? Ted Steven's position on net neutrality would be like a spider using a weaker silk on 90% of its web while giving 10% of the web super strong silk. The result? the web buys the farm. 24.148.118.190 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I added "A nontechnical person could assume that a synonym of pipe would be appropriate terminology." Feel free to revert if you find it inappropriate. I just think that it adds an important point, even if I still think he's a dummy =D --mboverload@ 23:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"A series of pipes" sounds like drug paraphernalia ... or some kind of Scottish folk music. —ptk✰fgs 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd it sound more like the human digestion system --in fact there's a commercial on these days for some kind of drug that helps relieve digestive problems featuring humanoid figures made out of pipes --or should I say, made out of a series of tubes? --Bobak 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chindia. —ptk✰fgs 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Series of tubes was a phrase used by United States Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, to describe the Internet in a June 28..."Well it stated as phrase, then was changed to analogy, then was changed to metaphor, and now it's back to phrase again. So what is it? --Son0rouS 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a phrase, as it's composed of a series of words. I think we can give Stevens enough credit to call it a metaphor, as I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to imply that it is actually tubes. I think "metaphor" is the most appropriate word for the lead. The comparison of the internet to tubes is an analogy; "It's a series of tubes" itself is a metaphor. This is essentially the same construction used in the example in metaphor: "All the world's a stage". —ptk✰fgs 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Either "phrase" or "metaphor" works for me, I suppose, as neither requires us to give him too much credit. "Analogy" is a bit much. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

usage of "metaphor" seconded 71.103.90.64 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Metaphor" thirded. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Gravis. So he said "Is a series of tubes" when he should have said "It's like a series of tubes". It is still an analogy. Apparently Sen. Stevens doesn't know his grammar either. Philosopher2king 9/14/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded two audio samples - the 'Series of Tubes' one and the 'I Got it Yesterday' one, but I can't get them to look neat. A little help? VJ Emsi 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, what was the point of deleting them? The speech was a public one in the US Senate, the clip is everywhere and no-one's ever made any money from it or copyrighted it. Why? WHY? VJ Emsi 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Were they deleted? I just moved them to a separate section, Media, near the bottom of the article. I wanted to put them inline using the audio template, but it conflicted with the cquote template currently in use. So I used a listen template and put it in a separate section. If anyone has a better solution, please go for it. Schi 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my man, stupid mistake on my part. Thankyou very much. VJ Emsi 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a recording of a Senate speech, so any claim to copyright would be dubious at best. (This is not automatically true of all government documents in any jurisdiction, but true of US federal gov't docs.) Additionally, it was first published on the Public Knowledge website, which is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. I think the link to the audio file is ample attribution, though I cannot speak for PK. DJ Talk 6:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted in the article that there is no way that the whole "Internet was sent by my staff I got it yesterday" phrase. This is less know than series of tubes, but makes much less sense and is more likely the source of "people doubting Stevens' knowldge of the 'net"

Yeah. Tubes is a flawed analogy, and is incorrect for the point he's trying to make, but it's the closest he gets to making sense in that speech "Ten movies streaming across that, that internet, and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got...an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday." THAT is the section of gold ripe for parody. --Nintendorulez talk 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree "a series of tubes" is WAY closer to reality than "that internet", "personal internet", and IMHO the worst of them all "an internet was sent to me"

Ditto. I don't understand why the "series of tubes" remark, which was obviously just a rubbish analogy, has become so (in)famous when a couple of sentences earlier he claimed someone had tried to send him "an internet".--82.152.205.122 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We do not need links to the knock-off T shirts and other viral marketing, thanks. Guy 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the t-shirt links have been here since the beginning of the article, which would kind of go against your statement that it is "knock off stuff". it's part of what makes it a fun thing. but fads seem to be a big deal with you guys. either have the section on the internet stuff, or just take it out. none of it is more worthy than the other stuff by the criteria you're using. it's all part of the joke in my opinion and i would vote to keep all of it but wikipedia isn't run by my opinion. i think internet fads are fun :) Samantha17 07:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the link to the song and the link to the t-shirts, for instance, is that one is non-commercial while the other is commercial. Guy's point, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that Wikipedia should not engage in marketing t-shirts. This logic does not necessarily apply, however, to a myspace page or music remixes. I disagree with your "all or nothing" approach to the links. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If it'd help, I have a photo of a t-shirt sighted at a hacker convention here. It's a non-commercial photo, and I have no links to where you can buy the shirt. I don't even know who made it. The photo is my property and already distributed under the same Creative Commons License as the rest of my site, and anyone who wants to link to it or upload it has my full permission to do so. Rob T Firefly 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently proposed the article to be deleted, and someone took it down immidiately, claiming that since "Technically, all of our internet memes can be considered unimportant" implying that calling any internet meme "unimportant" has no relevant value in wikipedia. So there are no unimportant internet memes then?

Months from the said "Pipes" comment, is this an important and enduring internet meme that deserves being on wikipedia?--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I contest the prod (though it's already been removed). The article is verifiable and the subject has been discussed in multiple media sources. Weeks after the incident, the Daily Show is still talking about it. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the prod (Me!) Anyways, my rebuttal: We've got a whole lot of things that can also be considered "unimportant". For example, we've got every episode of The Simpsons. Is an episode of The Simpsons less important than say, the Quadratic equation? Of course it is. Put it on WP:AFD and see what everyone else thinks. bCube.talk(contribs); 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: this particular Wikipedia article has been featured in the media. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-17/In the news. · j e r s y k o talk ·

I concur with the three previous commenters. Even today, it's hard to find someone who doesn't know what you're referring to when you mention X being a series of tubes or Y not being a big truck. --SpecOp Macavity 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I concede my point LOL. I guess the possibility of wikipedia ending up as a dumping ground for thousands of internet "memes" in the future is looking ever more likely. Of course, thats not really wikipedia's fault, its everyones fault for making them important. Anyway, the consensus is clear and thats all I wanted.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Weeks after the incident, the Daily Show is still talking about it. Um, okay? I fail to see how a joke news show can be regarded as the litmus test for article relevance in an encyclopedia. If I recall correctly, the Daily Show's colleague Steven Colbert recently had his viewers log in and post all kinds of meaningless crap here. So back to the reason I (most recently) proposed deletion: why does this merit anything more than a paragraph or two in the Stevens article? Dubc0724 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article indicates, the incident was reported in the New York Times and Reuters, as well as Wired's blog, and other notable blogs: DailyKos, BoingBoing, and Slashdot. The fact that the Daily Show has referred to the incident on multiple occasions seems to put it in line with any number of other memes associated with TV shows (see Simpsons, South Park), and in any case, certainly does not weaken the case for including "Series of tubes". The association to Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia pranks is disingenuous and irrelevant. Schi 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that discussion of "series of tubes" on the Daily Show goes to the notability of series of tubes? Months after Stevens' statement, there are still over 50 Google News hits for the phrase, and nearly 450,000 google hits. I'm generally not one for using google tests or even discussing "notability" at all, but I think it's difficult to argue that series of tubes is non-notable, if that's what you're saying. Series of tubes has been discussed by numerous media sources (some of which are discussed in the article), including the New York Times. In my book, it doesn't get much more verifiable in reliable sources than that. Finally, regarding "a paragraph or two in the Stevens article", well, we'd have to cut a large portion of the text of this article to squeeze it into a paragraph, and discussing it fully in that article would create undue weight problems. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure it could! Two paragraphs would be more than plenty. It's overdone as it is. Thanks, Dubc0724 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The above statement that the possibility of wikipedia ending up as a dumping ground for thousands of internet "memes" in the future is looking ever more likely is overlooking the fact that with the www's growing influence "internet memes" increasingly become worthy of inclusion into encyclopedias, as they become an important part of public perception. btw, I think the lenght and number of contributors to this talk page is itself an indicator for the topic's relevance.Malc82 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you refer to the internet as a series of tubes?! That's a terrible metaphor! One shouldn't even need to use a metaphor to dumb down an even simpler idea, which is millions of servers and computers connected together. These servers and computers are private property, stored in offices, homes, and companies! Not only would this idiot believe you can just call these servers and computers "tubes" that belong to the government, but he would intend to internationally censor the internet! It's not ours. It's the WORLD wide web.

You'd refer to the internet as a series of tubes to if you wanted to illustrate the way in which packets move through the internet and the way they sit in queues in the memory of routers. Right now that's often first-in-first-out, with maybe hundrends of packets lined up ready to be sent out of a port. A single FIFO queues in routers are just like tubes. It's a great metaphor, except in the case when people are more interested in ridicule than understanding.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.148.191 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

This is OT but actually I personally don't get why people are concentrating on the 'tubes' part. Yes it's a bit dumb but there are much bigger problems with his apparent understanding. His apparent lack of understanding of e-mail is one thing which we already mention but more importantly he doesn't even appear to understand what the issue is about. No one is 'dumping' info on to the internet and no one is forcing large amounts of info. The issue is that ISPs are charging their customers to provide access but then want to charge other people who are not their customers to enable to connect these other people to their customers at higher priority. No one is forcing or dumping anything. The ISPs customers are requesting access from other people which they are paying their ISP for. But the ISPs also want to be able to charge other people so they connect them to their customers at higher priority. This has nothing to do with large amounts of data being "dumped" or even streaming movies really. Nil Einne 11:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason "a series of tubes" is used is because that is the phrase that took off. Although it is the least of the mistakes he made during his speech, it is the part that has become notable. -- kenb215 talk 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The actual jokes made on the Daily Show have no relevance whatsoever to this article. The Daily Show's take on things is not crucial, or even particularly helpful to understanding the topic. Having them in the article gives them that status. --88.111.41.106 01:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the appearance of series of tubes on The Daily Show goes to the notability of series of tubes? If not, then why do you think it is necessary to remove any context regarding The Daily Show's discussion of it from this article (and, might I add, any references contained therein). I object to the unilateral removal of a large portion of text from this article without first discussing it here. I am reverting the removal of text until consensus on this issue can be reached (if anything posts on this talk page in the past support inclusion of the text, but others should comment on it). · j e r s y k o talk · 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit by 82.3.252.119, which changed the spelling of defense to defence. The former is correct US English spelling, while the latter is UK. Given the subject of the article is an American politician, and most of the notability comes from US media, the US spelling is more appropriate. --Kesh 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Stevens ever actually end up appearing on the Daily Show? If he didn't, then we should probably remove the statement about him "going to make a rebuttal", because its been six months. If he has, that should be mentioned. Sloverlord 02:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he never did. I think it might be worth keeping, as he did state he was going to appear on the show to make a rebuttal, but point out that he has not done so to date. -- Kesh 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did this edit:

http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Series_of_tubes&diff=160275358&oldid=160066128

It was inappropriate to have a section devoted to defending the comment, but not have a section explaining the reason the comment was ridiculed. From a technical perspective, the idea that Steven's email delays are due to bandwidth congestion is ABSURD. No expert of which I am aware has ever defended that.

More to the point, Felton does NOT really give a general technical defense of the comment. In fact he spends the bulk of the article trying "to reconstruct that argument and see if it makes any sense". He concludes:

""His examples...seem pretty weak. First, it’s hard to imagine that NetFlix would really use up so much bandwidth that they or their customers weren’t already paying for....Second, the slow email wouldn’t have been caused by general congestion on the Net....The bottom line? Stevens may have been trying to make a coherent argument. It’s not a great argument, and his examples were poorly chosen, but it’s far from the worst argument ever heard in the Senate."

I wouldn't exactly call that a defense.

I cleaned up the language to be a little less weasely.--Josiah988 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Last nights episode of The Daily Show(Janurary,23,2007) referenced "...the interwebs, a series of tubes..." when talking about the presidential candidates using the Internet as a campaign tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.35.47 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

While this article has some promise, there are some major improvements that need to be made before it qualifies for GA status:

• At the moment the lead doesn't adequately summarize the content of the article. It shouldn't just give the background to the speech, but offer a short summation of the article as a whole.
• The first section of the article proper should offer the background about Stevens' speech.
• The "Daily Show" section is very listy: one-sentence paragraphs are bad prose style. This section needs to be written in a more connected way.
• The "Gears of War" section is unintelligble to anyone who doesn't know the game. What is this achievement, and what does it have in common with the subject of the article besides the name?
• This isn't strictly speaking required, but I'd like to see the blog entries in the citations referenced a little better, with their titles listed rather than just "Slashdot's take" and so on. You might want to look at WP:CITET for an idea of how to cite web sources.

Please feel free to resubmit when these issues have been fixed. MLilburne 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a link for people to find out what this achievement stuff is all about, for people that don't know anything about xbox JayKeaton 10:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The bearded prospector shown on the Daily Show was Gabby Hayes. I hope no one minds that I made that edit. 70.153.96.134 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks. Malc82 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I used to watch westerns starring him all the time as a kid (early 90s) and when I saw the Daily Show clip, it was a perfect use of his image. The really funny part is that he was a famously articulate and educated person. He was from the town I lived near in NY for a while (wellsville).

Ok, enough rambling. Carry on, wikipedia! 70.153.96.134 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see there is a 'in defence' section. However, I'd like to expand upon the opposite. I hope to put in these points:

• I suspect he meant 'an email' when he said 'an internet'. Queueing delays of email have nearly no relation to tcp speeds, and may have more to do with greylisting of spam.
• Transmission_Control_Protocol#Congestion_control explicit handling of congestion means at the very least that all services degrade gracefully. Email does not get queued for hours because of Youtube.
• Even if email in alaska is delivered by IP over Avian Carriers, still only had a latency of about 2 hours.

--Mdwyer 21:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

His analogy was quite reasonable, but what he neglects to add is that the people mailing all that "junk" that gets in his way are the ones who paid for all those shiny new tubes. Did he really think that without porn and torrents and all that, a smaller Internet would be any faster? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The website Neopets has a new game called "Qasalan Expellibox" which is a drop game (a game where you randomly drop a ball (in this case, a scarab) and it bounces off of pegs and lands in a prize box and you get said prize), and if you come back to it too soon before you can play it again (you can only play it once a day), it tells you "What are you doing?! You can't just dump them in there! It's a series of tubes! Bring that scarab back tomorrow and you can deposit it then." Should this be added to the "other citations" section? Shivers _talk 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first time I heard about Tubesnow.com I assumed it was a reference to this quote. It could just be a coincidence. Does anyone think this is worth adding to the "other citations?" Thenumberfor 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been far lesser-known phrases which have been given such recognition. Why does an entire article based on the misinformed phrase of one politician exist?

Merge this article with 'Internet meme.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.221.20 (talk • contribs)

Because it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- simxp (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Does someone not agree that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? I'll untag it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a series of tubes. Ten movies are streaming across the Internet, what happens to your own personal internet? 80.192.32.85 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of replacing the Windows Network and Internet icon with a free icon - Commons has quite a few such icon sets (see Category:Icons themes). One I found that would work is Image:Crystal Clear app network.png. A possible caption could be, "The Network icon of the Crystal Clear icon theme for the KDE desktop environment employs the 'tube' metaphor". Thoughts? --Iamunknown 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the main reason the icon is of interest in the article is that a Very Large and Famous Company has chosen to use Ted Stevens' metaphor in the icons of the OS installed on the vast majority of computers. Whilst I don't doubt we could find many Free icons which use tubes, that wouldn't exactly carry that same impact. (As a side issue, I wouldn't choose the KDE network icon to illustrate this article anyway -- the "tubes" in that icon just look like wires (round and grey), which is the traditional way of depicting networks (that's what pre-Vista Windows used as well, IIRC). The thing about the Vista icon is that it doesn't use wires, it uses clear glass -- almost pneumatic -- tubes, which fits Ted Stevens' metaphor (not to mention John Hodgeman's parody of it!) so well you have to wonder whether the designer had it specifically in mind). -- simxp (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see now how the Crystal Clear network icon could be regarded as wire rather than as tubes, so scratch that idea. I had not until now considered that the interest in the icon was due to Microsoft's use (whether intentionally or inadvertently) of Ted Stevens' metaphor. I'd initially considered that the interest in the icon was due more to the fact that it is Windows Vista and thus is prominent. (Of course, as regards Wikipedia editors, who are probably a different demographic than the general population, Microsoft may not be that prominent - so I'm not sure that makes snense now that I think more about it.)

Regarding free icons and impact... it seems like it would require a lot of reading between the lines to assert that Microsoft specifically chose Ted Stevens' metaphor. Has there been any mention of that in the media? (I see there was mention on Digg - but what more traditional media?) Otherwise the justification for inclusion (to show an instance of a very large technology company parodying the "series of tubes" metaphor), seems tenuous - it could have, for example, been inadvertent.

In general (I suppose I should have mentioned this in my initial post), I was motivated to look for a free icon precisely because it is free. The use of the non-free Vista icon at first seemed like a somewhat incidental use. To me it still seems incidental. But, then again, I am not aware of a free icon that looks like it has tubes ... I'd like to look more, but I'll have to put it off for now. --Iamunknown 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I found some free icons in Commons. I think they look like tubes.

But they are not in great resolution. And the labels don't really have anything to do with this article. And there's not much color. However, if Wikipedia really wants to avoid using non-free media, here are the alternatives. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for looking! I commented on them below. --Iamunknown 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of employing these icons and I do not think either the open source ones or the Microsoft ones are alluding to tubes. To me it makes me think of both an ethernet BUS and a token ring topologies. Furthermore these icons are illustrating a local areas connection to the internet so the bus may be a switch or a hub. Nothing at all like what the senator was alluding to. I think we're giving him too much credit and I would like to see the icon removed. --Kibbled bits (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One additional topology the the icons remind me of is 10BASE2. I don't think I ever used it, but I seem to recall having a few such cables lying around years ago.

I agree with you that we are giving him too much credit. (Though I must qualify that by noting that I am not entirely sure to which "him" you are referring. :-)) In particular, I think we are giving the designers of the icons too much credit and that we are giving Microsoft too much credit. I think that if the main reason that the icon is of interest is because (quoting simxp above) "a Very Large and Famous Company has chosen to use Ted Stevens' metaphor in the icons of the OS installed on the vast majority of computers", then that's a bit of a stretch.

Regarding the free images, they certainly are good alternatives in terms of style, though, as noted, they have little (I guess I'd say "less") to do with the article.

So, I guess the options at this point are: Keep the Microsoft icon, use one of the GNOME icons as an addition or as a replacement, or remove the icons altogether. To me, the third option (removal) seems appropriate. Though I'd be okay with the second option (replacement). --Iamunknown 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the icon from the article, as it is original research. Unless we have a valid reference somewhere of Microsoft being influenced by this meme, it will be nothing more than OR. ←Spidern→ 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This: "both AT&T and Verizon are major financial contributors to Ted Stevens political campaign[2]." isn't entirely correct. When I read that, it seems to imply that the companies themselves are major financial contributors. If you actually go to the source linked and scroll to the bottom you see this is not the case. It should be restated in some way.--DeviantCharles (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the entire section is well-sourced, the stringing together of statements without directly connecting them to the event may be considered original research. The four sources mentioned say nothing of Ted Stevens or his relevant quotes, and are thus not directly connected to the subject. ←Spidern→ 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the connection to the subject is in defense of using the tube metaphor because of the existing pipe metaphor. If this is the case then I suggest the the original research tag be removed and the section cleaned up to make this intent clear. Anyone else care to comment? Stephen Luce (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the justification of the section, but the fact remains that it says nothing of Ted Stevens and is only tangentially related. I do not believe it belongs here. ←Spidern→ 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not by any means original research. Someone who understands networking is explaining for the benifit of everyone why the quote of Ted Steven's under the section of "Partial text of Stevens's comments" is preposterous. I'm sorry if his 'stringing together of statements' in a logical manner to illustrate a valid point seem like OR. The author wants to explain (in simple terms for a generic audience) that when your mail gets delayed by days it is not because your mail was 'delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material'. He is showing the delay enormous amounts of material travelling on the network can cause to other traffic is measure in something less than seconds, not days. It is hard for the author to properly quote Ted Steven's because Ted Stevens has compound errors in his quotes, and the author is just trying to pick on one of them that is less obvious to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.1.7 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

John Hunter (fictional, "conservative-liberal" gubernatorial candidate for Liberty City State) references "series of tubes" on Public Liberty Radio (PLR) during the "Intelligent Agenda" segment. The full quote is:"The Internet is a series of tubes and pedophiles want to put their genitals through those tubes and into your child's bedroom." FordGT90Concept (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm passing on a question posed by a Slashdot reader: Did the late senator's tubes analogy get notable coverage in media outside the United States? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

His recent death has made me wonder...what was the context of the original speech? It's a response to an amendment, but I wonder about the circumstances. I'm sure it wasn't some Mr. Smith like Filibuster, but was it at a committee hearing or what? Some details would be nice. Thanks if you can add it. 83.137.145.19 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why dontcha go look it up? It's all over the googles.PacificBoy 05:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed "Stevens' use of the metaphor has been defended by experts in the field." as the last sentence in the top. If someone can cite an expert and what makes them an expert, maybe add it again. I'm an expert, I'm in the field, I think the metaphor relates a naive understanding about the internet from a Senator with great influence over the future of technology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiah988 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need defending, in this very article there is a sourced and cited technical analysis of how internet routing works that matches perfectly with what ted stevens said, minus the day delayed e-mail of course. Don't need an expert to confirm facts that are already confirmed. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward Felten defended it. (This article used to say so, but this was removed without comment by an anonymous editor.) Edward Felten's Ph.D in computer science, and professorship at Princeton in that field make him an expert. Also, from his page at Princeton:

He was the lead computer science expert witness for the Department of Justice in the Microsoft antitrust case, and he has testified in other important lawsuits. He has testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on digital television technology and regulation, and before the House Administration Committee on electronic voting. In 2004, Scientific American magazine named him to its list of fifty worldwide science and technology leaders.

On the other hand, Josiah988 had a Wikipedia account, which makes him an expert, and John Stewart has a TV show on Comedy Central, which makes him an expert, so it's a toss-up. —Fleminra (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading this article was rather disturbing to me. I think that people may be missing the point of the discussion. Or perhaps it was deliberate?
Keep in mind that he is trying to describe a concept to people who may not yet be knowledgeable enough about the technical details about the internet, and describe what kind of pro-profit models could be established by these internet providers."Tubes" is just one metaphor that can be used to describe dedicated pathways for services, and clearly there are large corporations who realize that some services can be metered and further profited from. I believe that this man was simply trying to communicate this concept to those who may not understand technical details, and now we have this article, probably generated by those who would prefer such a profit model, lambasting the poor man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP98JA78 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP98JA78 (talk • contribs)

While Mr. Stevens is clearly out of touch with how email works, the tube analogy is spot on. In the context of net neutrality a low level view of the infrastructure is in order and a large junk of fiber optic cables grouped together sure looks like a series of tubes. The article could even have a picture to that effect.

Coupling this with the seemingly awkward truck analogy he is actually making the point that the internet backbone is not public infrastructure like the roads that trucks drive on, but a privately owned facility, although it is perceived as such. And this is exactly why net neutrality legislation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.12.1 (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See discussion in over 60 books, about the subject of this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Debivort (from edit 478329839 comment) "I'm not sure this is WP:OR. It's referenced and a fairly simple comparison of the terms he used and actual protocols. Talk page?"

My position is that the analysis is original, not the facts about internet technology. Sources for the section should show that the analysis is valid, not that the technical facts are correct, as all of the current sources do. That the comparison might be "simple" doesn't change that the section puts words in Stevens' mouth. Is this what he meant? The section is an attempt to rationalize his words, rather than represent them accurately. This is what qualifies it as OR. If someone has made this analysis outside of Wikipedia, then the section should stay. --82.9.17.106 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is decidedly original research, and moreover it is long-after-the-fact apologetics. The "fat pipe" talk is accurate, but no non-partisan source would ever agree that what Stevens said was remotely accurate. The mention of router queuing is both extremely inaccurate and disingenuous in this context; it reads like an attempt to justify his comments about the delayed email, but mail queues and tcp queues are not remotely similar.50.137.30.129 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, the context is exactly correct. The internet "fast lanes" that people complain about in the context of net neutrality are implemented at the router level by allowing some packets that might be forced to wait in a congested router's output queue to move to the head of the queue for immediate forwarding. These could be TCP packets as part of an email transfer or they might be UDP for voice over IP or they may be streaming video. Now he was obviously told about these queues and how congestion slows down traffic but probably didn't know how a queue worked, so someone said "it's like a tube", and that's a very good description. Considering packets spend so much time waiting in these queues before being forwarded, calling the internet a "series of tubes" accurately describes the network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.195.175 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I agree. Packets moving through "tubes" is actually an excellent metaphor and "tubes" obviously means FIFO buffers in routers. But it's kind of hard to ask him now if that's what he meant, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.179.60 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this. I don't understand the fuss. The terminology is bad but the analogy is similar to piping and bandwidth. The problem I have with his statements is that the delay in his email is more likely a bad configuration of the mail server he was using (government IT strikes again), and had nothing to do with bandwidth. His email is trivial compared to streaming. And while streaming does take up bandwidth, the structure of the internet is pretty good about time-slicing, and his delay wouldn't have been noticeable. So, again, his problem is a poorly configured server, not a bandwidth problem. That's where his understanding is weak.

So, I think a better parody of his quote would have been to attack his term for email ("an Internet"), because that's where his understanding breaks down. Not at bandwidth, but at email and email servers. Cflare (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough I've often felt the same thing. Not much we can do about it here though since we can only rely on WP:RS. (Although I do think someone who just realised yesterday that the internet is a series of tubes and not a truck has little hope of understanding the complex economics, technical and political issues surruounding net neutrality in the short term.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Stevens bugged me, and I enjoyed seeing him mocked. But haven't any RS pointed out that he probably meant vacuum tubes, not pneumatic tubes, when he called the internet a series of tubes? Would he be mocked as severely if he referred to the internet as a "series of transistors"?

If I were as old as Stevens I'd like to be forgiven if I used V2 to refer to all ballistic missiles, and V1 to refer to all cruise missiles. To bug my neighbour's kid I always call his android cell phone his "gameboy".

Anyway, we should keep our eyes peeled for knowledgeable RS who have recognized that Stevens probably meant vacuum tubes, the precursor to transistors. Geo Swan (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Series_of_Tubes_-_Senator_Ted_Stevens.ogg was deleted from Commons with the reasoning "No evidence of permission. Originally uploaded at EN wiki as Fair Use" (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg). But it is public domain as a work of a US government employee as a part of their official duties, as File:I Got it Yesterday - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg is. I believe it should be re-uploaded. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey everybody,I just edited this page to include Digimon as a 'reference'. However, it is not actually a reference, and I don't have any real sources for it, because there are no sources. I could ask a friend to write an article about this, upload it to a file hosting website, and place a citation to that, but that wouldn't really help wikipedia.Is there anybody who knows what to do in this situation? I think this subject is interesting enough to include it, but I can't think of a way to do that while not breaking any wikipedia rules.145.120.9.64 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The YouTube channel Pyrocynical has an anthology commentary series named after this quote. I think it should be added to the "in Popular Culture" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuyonYouTube (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• I Got it Yesterday - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Steven's description of the internet as a series of tubes sounds a lot like what happens as routers put packets in queues while buffering. There's got to be some reputable source out there that makes this point. It's too obvious to those of use that have actually worked on network hardware. I seem to remember this article making such a reference long ago but I can't find it now. Any help out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.173.100 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I get your point, but to counter that, he calls e-mail "an internet" so it's not at all clear he's speaking of it as an analogy. Interwebs (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

He probably got the analogy from someone trying to explain what happens when packets are stuck in buffers and delayed. Seeing a queue as a tube full of packets (or "internets") helps convey the idea that congested links will delay packets by buffering them in memory. Having prioritization allows some packets to move to the head of the "tube", a small VOIP packet, or a small packet from a player in a multiplayer game, would greatly reduce latency while doing little to affect a streaming movie service that can handle potentially seconds of latency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.173.100 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2019 January 24 (UTC)

(→‎One of the best analogies for how the internet really works)

• Was Stevens old enough to have learned his electronics prior to the invention of the transistor? Prior to the use of first transistors, and then integrated circuits, computers, relays, indeed all electronics, did use tubes. They used vacuum tubes. The Eniac used vacuum tubes, and there are accounts of grad students, on bicycles, riding around replacing tubes that burned out.

• Stevens had a bad reputation, for other reasons, but his comments makes a lot more sense if commentators were generous enough to assume that an old man said "tubes" when he meant "transistors". If there are RS that make this point, we should cite them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's clear given the context, which is packet prioritization, that "tubes" probably refers to queues in routers used to buffer packets when links are congested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.173.100 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2019 January 24 (UTC)

The article states "Edward Felten, Princeton University professor of computer science, pointed out the unfairness of some criticisms of Stevens' wording." But the article stops there. I think it'd be worth expanding on this in the article. As it stands, the article has a strong pop-culture bias to it; it's all about the punchline, but excludes any analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.169.226 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This used to be in the description of the video, but it was later changed:"Wow, 50,000 views. Man, I never expected this video to get so popular. Not complaining though. :D

A music video to the Series of Tubes Dance Mix I threw together in an hour using pictures found on google.

NOTE: To anyone who wants to know the song in this video, it's called "Series of Tubes Net Neutrality Dance Mix". I don't know who made it, I found it online. Credit goes to whoever made the song. Please do not request me to give it to you. Thank you."

An archive of the description from 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20071113183734/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs--  ApChrKey   ^Talk 15:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@DanHoelck: Can you please explain why you reverted my removal of poorly sourced popular culture content? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of those references are culturally significant. Not all, but some. And "poorly sourced" is a very strange reason to remove some of these references - the XKCD comic, for example, links directly to the primary source. Is that really fundamentally different than using Comedy Central as the source for content from the Daily Show?

I reverted the removal because it was overly broad. Surely not everything in there is relevant or significant, but you just threw the baby out with the bathwater. DanHoelck (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanHoelck: Could you show me some independent sources stating that those references are culturally significant? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll have to clarify. You want an independent source stating that XKCD is culturally significant? DanHoelck (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)