The debates over the future of the internet should begin (although they hardly ever do) by answering the question What Is The Internet?

It turns out that how you answer that question correlates strongly with your view of the future.  And it also turns out that using the "layers analysis" may play into a telco/cableco view of the future.

If you talk to a carrier (or a former carrier -- now calling himself a "network provider"), he'll probably say that "the Internet" is made up of three chunks:  the backbone, the last mile between a carrier and an enduser, and the connection between content providers and the backbone.

If you talk to one of the founding fathers of the internet, he'll probably say that "the Internet" is a collection of standards that allow the networking of computers.

If you talk to a current user/producer of internet "content," he or she will probably say that "the Internet" is the collection of interactions and relationships that happen online.  (I remember the first time I used the term "online content" in a lunchroom in 1993 and someone I was talking to laughed hugely -- "Content?" he said.  "What on earth are you talking about?".  Now we use "content" without shame, and maybe we shouldn't.) 

Who's right, and what do these frames lead to?  Well, it appears that if you're a carrier, and the internet is those three chunks of wires, and you invested in rolling out a lot of fiber, then -- therefore -- you have property rights in some part of "the Internet" and you need to be paid for their use.  And if you're not paid for their use broadband penetration will remain low.  For you, "transport" and "the Internet" are the same thing.

If you're a founding father, and the internet is the standards, and you're looking to be a founding father once again, you may suggest that "the Internet" is irretrievably broken and needs to be rearchitected.  (Bob Kahn and David Clark may fit in this category.)  For you, "protocols" and "the Internet" are the same thing.

If you're someone who goes online and is neither a carrier or a founding father, you may have expectations that "the Internet" will continue to be a free and ordered place whose value comes from interactions -- not from the access valves used to get there.  You're probably aware of internet "standards," as well. So maybe you're worried about the effect on "the Internet" of the carriers' depredations.  For you, "communication" and "the Internet" are the same thing.

It all depends what you think "the Internet" is.  I think "the Internet" is a combination of standards and interactions/relationships.  I'm with the founding fathers on this one, but I think their view can sometimes be a little narrow.  These online interactions/relationships are persistent in a way no other network (and no mere "language") has made possible.  It's a new informational construct that can be separated from the substrate used to store/forward its elements.  And so, because I'm neither a carrier nor a founding father, I'm worried about the future of "the Internet."  Our internet. 

Thanks to Michael Froomkin for talking to me about a recent paper and suggesting that "standards and relationships" are what make up the internet.