Tom Tauke, fellow policyblogger and, oh yeah my boss, discussed a concept at a Free State Foundation event last Friday. The term he used (“Internet Ecosystem”) while not new, struck me as giving robust and honest context for the ongoing debate about “net neutrality.”
“Internet Ecosystem.” It pays full respect to all players and all points of view, don’t you think?
To me, Internet ecosystem says several things:
It says:
All players, big and small, play vital roles.
It says:
All parts are interrelated in ways not always obvious, but always important.
It says:
Attempting to treat some parts different than others is a recipe for disaster for the whole.
It says:
Value the trees, but see the forest.
It says:
This system is very robust and self preserving which deserves appropriate safeguards to ensure that its fundamental dynamic nature is maintained.
There are well-intentioned but somewhat naive voices clamoring to “save” or “preserve” the internet. As if this ever-changing system can be or should ever be frozen in a place or time.
No one would argue that we should have preserved the internet of the year 2000 in perpetuity. “Protecting” Geo-cities, Prodigy, Pets.com, and 56kbps dial-up connections would have made Facebook, YouTube, and 50mbs FiOS connections unlikely, or worse, unrealized.
Why would we encase what we like about today’s internet within government constructs written a decade or more ago and possibly shut out the untold innovations a thriving Internet Ecosystem could unleash?
Tom argued that transparency needs to be upheld, malfeasance be addressed, and statutory changes be considered to establish the appropriate policy so that this ecosystem is protected and can continue to flourish to the benefit of all. I’m sure we’ll have more on that on these pages (and on yours) in the coming weeks and months.
For now, what do you think? Does “Internet Ecosystem” capture the context for you?