Tech/Myth Project Snapshot – October 2020

I gave a snapshot summary of the Tech/Myth project back in July. Here’s an update; it outlines the current assumptions and activities of the project, and provides some background to the current effort of analyzing tech in terms of character.

Tech/Myth Project Snapshot: July 2020

In common parlance, to call something a myth is to damn it as a pernicious false belief. A few dusty scholars might take myth to mean a traditional, transcendental story that made sense of the world to a specific group of people. I am interested in myth not because I care about debunking illusions, or studying cultural history, but because we live in a mythical world. This post outlines my current thinking about the Tech & Myth project. 

The T Prize

Someone in Washington DC asked me how the government's R&D agenda could re-invigorate the US wireless manufacturing sector.

Spectro-Loki: The trickster in radio spectrum

In Techno-Loki, I argued that the Norse trickster god is a good metaphor for technology. I described how tech, like Loki and his exploits, has to be coerced into doing the right thing; follows impulse, skipping from one thing to the next; produces effects both good and bad, which are sometimes hard to distinguish; and is a shapeshifter. The examples in the previous post were a grab-bag of technologies; here are some from my current specialization, radio and spectrum.

Techno-Loki

In his wonderful Norse Mythology, Neil Gaiman says that the trickster god Loki makes the world more interesting, but less safe. He explains that it was Loki’s fault that the gods got their greatest treasures, and sums him up this way: “You resented him even when you were at your most grateful, and you were grateful to him even when you hated him the most.”

That sounds a lot like technology to me.

Templates and narratives for change

At the end of a conversation with David Runciman about powerful women on the Talking Politics podcast (reposted on the LRB podcast; their chat starts around 18:00), Mary Beard had this to say:

The idea that women have a model for doing [changing the structures within which women can think of themselves as ambitious, as powerful, as clever, as articulate, and able to make that kind of difference in the world] -- and I don't mean a kind of role model, but I just mean a kind of cultural template for doing that -- until we can provide a narrative and a template, then I think we've got a problem.

This resonates with what I try (and fail) to do in policy innovation. It's not sufficient to have a new idea (= template). You also need to have a story (= narrative) that explains why anyone should care, and why it makes sense.

Q&A: Risk-assessment, harm claim thresholds and adjudication

In my testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday July 29, 2015 I recommended three spectrum management reforms. A summary and links to the written testimony and video are in an earlier blog post. This post offers some Q&A.

The three reforms were: (1) moving away from worst case interference analysis and using risk-informed methods that consider not only the consequences but also the likelihood of harmful interference; (2) providing more clarity about operators’ interference rights and obligations by specifying harm claim thresholds; and (3) giving any spectrum user the option of taking action directly against any other, either in front of an FCC judge or in a federal Court of Spectrum Claims.

Senate Testimony: Risk-assessment, harm claim thresholds and adjudication

I testified today before the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on “Wireless Broadband and the Future of Spectrum Policy.” My written testimony is here; this is the summary I presented during the hearing. I’ve posted some Q&A in a subsequent post. My remarks are recorded in the archived webcast, starting at 58:02; see also a question from Chairman Thune and my reply starting at 2:05:43.

Risk-informed interference assessment

I've spent the last year or so thinking about ways to complement worst-case interference assessment with a more comprehensive approach that considers many potential interference hazards, not just a possibly implausible nightmare scenario. I have concluded that quantitative risk analysis, used in many regulated industries, is a suitable tool.

Spectrum “sharing”: the convenient ambiguity of an English verb

I realized while writing Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum that my confusion over the meaning of spectrum sharing derives from two meanings of the English verb "to share":

(1) to divide and distribute in shares, to apportion;

(2) to use, experience or occupy with others, to have in common.

For example, the first is sharing a bag of peanuts, and the second is sharing a kitchen or an MP3 file. Cellular operators and economists tend to use the word with the first meaning, and Open Spectrum advocates with the second.

But that raises the question: is the double meaning inherent in the concept, or is it just an accident of English vocabulary?

I asked some friends about the regulatory terminology in other languages; so far I have information about Arabic, Chinese and German. If you could shed light on regulatory terminology in other languages, for example French, Japanese or Spanish, please get in touch.

No Common Authority: Why spectrum sharing across the Fed/non-Fed boundary is a bad idea

The ISART conference this year was about sharing in the radar bands, in line with the Administration’s efforts to encourage frequency sharing between Federal and non-Federal (e.g. commercial and civilian) users (NTIA Fast Track Evaluation PDF, FCC proceeding ET docket 10-123).

While it’s true that the NTIA has studied the feasibility of reallocating Federal Government spectrum, or relocating Federal Government systems, the current political focus is on “spectrum sharing” (cf. my post Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum) – and Federal/non-Federal sharing is the hardest possible problem.

Federal/non-Federal sharing is hard for many reasons, notably the chasm between the goals and incentives between the two groups, and thus a profound lack of trust. I’m going to focus here, though, on a seemingly technical but profound problem: the lack of a common authority that can resolve conflicts.

Follow-up post

• Partition, not sharing: An alternative approach to the Fed/non-Fed spectrum divide

Spectrum Sharing: Not really sharing, and not just spectrum

There was endless talk about spectrum sharing at ISART in Boulder last week. I’ve become increasingly confused about what those words mean, since wireless has been about more than one radio system is operating at the same time and place pretty much since the beginning.
For example, whitespace devices are said to share the UHF band with television, but the operating rules have been drawn up to ensure that whitespace devices never interfere with TV, i.e. never operate in the same place, channel and time. What’s “sharing” about that? The purpose of radio allocation from the start has been to avoid harmful interference between different radio operations, which has always been done by ensuring that two systems don’t operate in the same place, channel and time – such as two TV stations not interfering with each other.

It seems that the “new sharing” has three characteristics: (1) more boundaries (in geography, frequency and particularly time) than ever before; (2) the juxtaposition of different kinds of services that differ more from each other than they used to; and (3) sharing without central control. It’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

It’s not about sharing, since the goal is to avoid interference, i.e. to avoid sharing. It’s not about spectrum, i.e. radio frequencies, since non-interference is achieved not only by partitioning frequencies but also by dividing space, time, transmit power and the right to operate.

Cisco’s Fascinating Flaky Forecast

Ed Thomas prompted me to have a look at Cisco’s recently published Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2010–2015.

The numbers are staggering: global mobile data traffic grew 2.6-fold in 2010, nearly tripling for the third year in a row; mobile video traffic will exceed 50% for the first time in 2011; and Cisco predicts that global mobile data traffic will increase 26-fold between 2010 and 2015. Big numbers forecast by someone who’ll make money if they come true are always suspect, though. While the historical data are largely indisputable – and amazing – I think the forecasts are bogus, though in interesting ways.

Flags went up at the projection of 92% CAGR in mobile traffic growth over the next five years. From the scant details on assumptions provided in the report, I suspect the overall growth is driven (more than driven, in fact) by the growth in the number of users, not by increases in per-user usage. For example, Cisco predicts that the number of mobile-only Internet users will grow 25-fold between 2010 and 2015 to reach 788 million, over half of them in “Asia Pacific” (defined to exclude Japan).

Working back from their forecast data volumes and assumptions on user growth, however, suggests that usage per user (I prefer to think in terms of Megabits/second rather than ExaBytes/month) doesn’t increase over the study period, an in fact declines.



The growth in traffic thus hinges on the global user base growing to almost 800 million mobile-only users in five years, from 14 million today. That’s staggering, and to me implausible.

If nothing else, though, this demonstrates that using Cisco’s meganumbers don’t necessarily imply an impending bandwidth crunch doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be one, just that growth numbers don’t imply/require it, because they’re in large part driven by hundreds of millions of new users in China.

A more fundamental flaw is that the analysis is entirely demand driven. This was probably fine when Cisco was predicting wireline use, since there is so much dark fiber that supply is essentially unlimited. However, one cannot ignore the scarcity of radio licenses. We’re near the Shannon limit of the number of bits/second that can be extracted from a Hertz of bandwidth, and massive new frequency allocations will not show up overnight. An alternative is to reduce cell size and serve more users per cell by using smart antennas; however, such a build-out will take time. I don’t know how much extra traffic one can fit into the existing infrastructure and frequencies, but Cisco should at least have made an argument that this doesn’t matter, or that it can ramp up as fast as the demand.

While there may be spare capacity in China, there’s clearly a supply question in markets that are already halfway up the growth curve, though, like the US. Cisco ignores this. In North America they’re forecasting that the number of mobile-only internet users will go from 2.6 million to 55.6 million (!). It’s reasonable to assume that these most of these new users are in places that are already consuming a lot of capacity, and that one will need more radio bandwidth to deliver more data throughput.

Cisco is forecasting that throughput will go from 0.05 ExaB/mo to 1.0 ExaB/mo for North American users. That’s a factor of 20. It’s hard to see how you get there from here without massive reengineering of the infrastructure.

• One could get 2x by doubling available licenses from 400 MHz to 800 MHz; the FCC is talking about finding 500 MHz of new licenses for mobile data, but this is a pipe dream; if not in principle, then in the next five years given how slowly the gears grind in DC.

• The extra throughput isn’t coming from offloading traffic from the wireless onto the wired network; Cisco considered this, and is forecasting 39% for offload that by 2015. Let’s say they’re conservative, and it’s 50%: that’s just another 2x.

• Spectral efficiency, the bits/second that can be extracted from a Hertz of bandwidth, isn’t going to increase much. Engineers have made great strides in the last decade, we’re approaching the theoretical limits. Maybe another 50%, from 4 bps/Hz to 6 bps/Hz? Even an implausible doubling to 8 bps/Hz is just another 2x.

So by using heroically optimistic assumptions one can get an 8x increase in capacity – nowhere near that 20x Cisco is forecasting.



And last but not least, the forecast method ignores Econ 101: if demand increases with limited supply, prices will go up, and this will suppress demand. Not only does the study ignores supply, it also ignores supply/demand interactions.

Still, let’s stipulate that the demand forecast is accurate, and that grant me that supply is going to be constrained. The consequence is that there will be millions of screaming customers over the next few years when they discover that the promise of unlimited mobile connectivity cannot be delivered. The pressure on government will be huge, and the opportunities for innovations that improve effective throughput and the user experience in a world of scarcity (relative to expectations) will be immense. A crisis is coming; and with it the opportunity to make fundamental fixes to how wireless licenses are managed, and how applications are delivered.

Law without Categories?

A recent New Scientist story about the descent of birds from dinosaurs (James O'Donoghue, Living dinosaurs: How birds took over the world, Section 2, Was archaeopteryx really a bird?, 08 December 2010; subscription required) contained this passage:

The real question is, where do you draw the line between dinosaurs and birds? Ask different palaeontologists and you will get subtly different answers. That is because the distinction is basically arbitrary, says Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, China, who discovered many of the Chinese fossils [of feathered dinosaurs].

This is a common theme in biology: the boundaries between species are arbitrary. And yet we continue to think in terms of species, since categorization is such a strong human reflex.

Jurisprudence and regulation in particular is built on categorization, defining categories that determine the response to a particular situation. At the heart of current network neutrality argument is the question of whether  a company falls in "Title II" in which case a whole raft of  telecommunication regulation regarding common carriage applies, or "Title I" in which case they are much more lightly regulated.

However, as the analogy to biology illustrates, most interesting categories have fuzzy boundaries, making for a delightful amount of work for lawyers and lobbyists, but not necessarily helpful outcomes.

Taxonomies are backward-looking; they attempt to fossilize a reality but are constantly open to revision. (This necessity for revision undermines the certainty which category-based rules purport to offer since categories are less robust than they appear, necessitating the case-by-case interpretation which proponents of rules contend is the weakness of the alternative approach, principles-based regulation.) They evidently work well enough, though; they're pervasive. A paper by David Bach & Jonathan Sallet about VOIP regulation (The challenges of classification: Emerging VOIP regulation in Europe and the United States, First Monday, Volume 10, Number 7, 4 July 2005) explains the situation very well:

From a practical point of view, classification stands out because classifying different services is what regulators principally do. In an ideal world, one could just draw up rules for VOIP that address the aforementioned critical issues, keeping in mind the technology’s novelty and the substantial differences that exist between conventional circuit–switched telephony and innovative packet–switched VOIP. In the real world, however, a first step in the regulation of new technologies is usually to try to fit them into existing service categories, in part because those are the tools that regulators work with and in part because classification can provide shortcuts through complex regulatory problems. Alternatively, regulators may be inclined to ask whether VOIP service is "like" or "substitutable" for current services — an approach that may obscure technological achievement. Either way, much is at stake in these decisions.

Fitting VOIP into existing regulatory categories is not simply an administrative or technical act. Since categories are associated with distinct sets of rights and responsibilities that have distributional and market strategic implications, a large number of stakeholders have mobilized to affect the outcome. . . .

Unpacking the political economic dynamics of evolving VOIP regulation highlights a second, more analytic reason to focus on classification. The debate over how to classify VOIP represents the leading edge of the question whether regulatory classification is useful in a world of converging technologies. . . .

In the eyes of most regulators and industry observers, correctly categorizing VOIP provides a shortcut through regulatory uncertainty. Yet precisely this is the problem with classification. As policymakers almost reflexively ask how a new technology fits into existing categories, the underlying political and social objectives of regulation can get lost.

A behavioral alternative comes to mind: the regulations that should apply do not derive from the category into which an action falls, but from its consequences; in Bach & Sallet's terms, one needs to look to the political and social outcomes, not the inputs.

Social network visualizations - an online symposium

My work on the evolution of FCC lobbying coalitions has been accepted in the JoSS (Journal of Social Structure) Visualization Symposium 2010 (link to my entry). Jim Moody of Duke has done a wonderful job collecting a dozen visualizations of social networks. Each is worth exploring; in particular, see the thoughtful comments that the JoSS staff provided to each entry in order to stimulate debate.

Bill delegates caller ID regulations to FCC

SiliconValley.com reports that the US House has approved a measure that would outlaw deceptive Caller ID spoofing.

Since I'm currently enamored of a principles-based approach to regulating rapidly changing technology businesses -- that is, policy makers should specify the goals to be achieved, and delegate the means to agents nearer the action -- I'm on the look-out for working examples.

This seems to be one: the bill leaves it up to the FCC to figure out the details of regulation and enforcement.

The FCC itself could delegate further if is so chose, for example by waiting to see if telephone companies come up with effective ways of regulating this problem themselves before trying to devising and imposing its own detailed rules.

Trying to explain the Resilience Principles

I was honored to participate in a panel in DC on "An FCC for the Internet Age: Reform and Standard-Setting" organized by Silicon Flatirons, ITIF and Public Knowledge on March 5th, 2010.  My introductory comments tried to summary the "resilience principles" in five minutes: the video is available on the Public Knowledge event page, starting at time code 02:04:45.  The panel starts at around 01:57:00.

The earlier, fifteen minute pitch I gave on a panel on "The Governance Challenges of Cooperation in the Internet Ecosystem" at the Silicon Flatirons annual conference in Boulder on February 1st, 2010 can be found here at time code 01:36:00. My slides are up on Slideshare.net, and a paper is in preparation for JTHTL.

This work is an outgrowth of my TPRC 2008 paper “Internet Governance as Forestry” (SSRN).

Engineers, Commissars and Regulators: Layered self-regulation of network neutrality

My post Ostrom and Network Neutrality suggested that a nested set of self- or co- regulatory enterprises (Ostrom 1990:90) could be useful when designing regulatory approaches to network neutrality, but I didn’t give any concrete suggestions. Here’s a first step: create separate arenas for discussing engineering vs. business.

One’s immediate instinct when devising a shared regulatory regime (see the list of examples at the end) might be to involve all the key players; at least, that’s what I pointed to in When Gorillas Make Nice. However, I suspect that successful self-regulatory initiatives have to start with a relatively narrow membership and scope: typically, a single industry, rather than a whole value chain. That’s the only way to have a decent shot at creating and enforcing basic norms. Legitimacy will require broadening the list of stakeholder, but too many cooks at the beginning will lead to kitchen gridlock.

Let’s stipulate for now that the key problem is defining what “acceptable network management practices” amount to. Most participants in the network neutrality debate agree that ISPs should be able to manage their networks for security and efficiency, even if there is disagreement about whether specific practices are just good housekeeping or evil rent-seeking.

The engineering culture and operating constraints of different networks are quite distinct: phone companies vs. cable guys; more or less symmetrical last mile pipes; terminating fiber in the home vs. at cabinet; and not least, available capacity in wireline vs. wireless networks. Reconciling these differences and creating common best practices within the network access industry will be hard; that’s the lowest layer of self-regulation. The “Engineers” should be tasked with determining the basic mechanisms of service provision, monitoring compliance with norms, and enforcing penalties against members who break the rules.

The core participants are the telcos (e.g. Verizon, AT&T) and cable companies (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner Cable), in both their wireline and wireless incarnations. Only within a circumscribed group like this is there is any hope of detailed agreement about best practices, let alone the monitoring and enforcement that is essential for a well-functioning self-regulatory organization. Many important network parameters are considered secret sauce; while engineers inside the industry circle can probably devise ways monitor each other’s compliance without giving the MBAs fits, there’s no chance that they’ll be allowed to let Google or Disney look inside their network operating centers.

The next layer of the onion adds the companies who use these networks to deliver their products: web service providers like Google, and content creators like Disney. Let’s call this group the “Commissars”. This is where questions of political economy are addressed. The Commissars shape the framework within which the network engineers decide technical best practices. It’s the business negotiation group, the place where everybody fights over dividing up the rents; it needs to find political solutions that reconcile the very different interests at stake:

1. The ISPs want to prevent regulation, and be able to monetize their infrastructure by putting their hand in Google’s wallet, and squeezing content creators.
2. Google wants to keep their wallet firmly shut, and funnel small content creators’ surplus to Mountain View, not the ISPs.
3. Large content creators want to get everybody else to protect their IPR for them.
4. New content aggregators (e.g. Miro) want a shot at competing in the video business with the network facility owners.

This is not an engineering argument, and a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) along the lines described by Verizon and Google (FCC filing) would not be a suitable vehicle for addressing such questions. The Commissars are responsible for answering questions of collective choice regarding the trade-offs in network management rules, and adjudicating disputes that cannot be resolved by the Engineers among themselves.

The Engineers can work in parallel to the Commissars, and don’t need to wait for the political economists to fight out questions about rents; in any case, it will be helpful for the Commissars to have concrete network management proposals to argue about. There will be a loop, with the conclusions of one group influencing the other. The Commissars inform the Engineers about the constraints on what would constitute acceptable network management, and the Engineers inform the Commissars about what is practical.

Finally, government actors – call them the “Regulators” – set the rules of the game and provide a backstop if the Engineers and Commissars fail to come up with a socially acceptable solution, or fail to discipline bad behavior. Since the internet and the web are critical infrastructure, governments speaking for citizens are entitled to frame the overall goals that these industries should serve, even though they are not well qualified to define the means for achieving them. Final adjudication of unresolved disputes rests with the Regulators.

References

Ofcom, Initial assessments of when to adopt self- or co-regulation, December 10, 2008,
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/coregulation/condoc.pdf

Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, 1990

Philip J. Weiser, Exploring Self Regulatory Strategies for Network Management: A Flatirons Summit on Information Policy, August 25, 2008,
http://www.silicon-flatirons.org/documents/publications/summits/WeiserNetworkManagement.pdf

Examples of self- and co-regulatory bodies

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in the UK works to standardize procedures for the reporting and taking-down of abusive images of children. It was established in 1996 by the internet industry to allow the public and IT professionals to report criminal online content in a secure and confidential way. (Ofcom 2008:9, and IWF)

The UK “Classification Framework” for content on mobile phones is provided by the Independent Mobile Classification Body (IMCB) with the aim of restricting young people’s access to inappropriate content. It is the responsibility of content providers to self-classify their own content as “18” where appropriate; access to such content will be restricted by the mobile operators until customers have verified their age as 18 or over with their operator. (Ofcom 2008:9, and IMCB)

The Dutch organization NICAM (Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisuele Media) administers a scheme for audiovisual media classification. It includes representatives of representatives of public and commercial broadcasters, film distributors and cinema operators, distributors, videotheques and retailers. (Ofcom 2008:9, and NICAM)

Amateur radio service and frequency coordinators provide examples of self-regulation in spectrum policy. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) has an understanding with the FCC that it manages the relevant enforcement activities related to the use of ham radio. Only in the most egregious cases will ARRL report misbehavior to the FCC Enforcement Bureau. (Weiser 2008:23)

The Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD) enforces US rules governing false advertising, using threats of referrals to the FTC to encourage compliance with its rules. (Weiser 2008:24, and NAD)

US movie ratings are provided by a voluntary system operated by the MPAA and the National Association of Theater Owners.

When Gorillas Make Nice

Verizon and Google’s recent joint FCC filing about the values and governance of the internet largely echoes the conclusions of a Silicon Flatirons summit in August 2008 (PDF): that self-governing institutions are the best way to manage day-to-day questions of network neutrality, with the government acting as a backstop when market forces and self-regulation fail.

The filing seems to come in two parts: a statement of principles, and a sketch of how self-governance might work. I’ll largely ignore the first part, since clearly Google and Verizon found little to agree on. The three key principles are motherhood (consumer transparency and control), Google’s non-negotiable (openness) and Verizon’s (encouraging investment), respectively; it’s hard to argue with any of this, except to observe that the hard work lies in achieving them simultaneously.

The most useful resource on self-regulation in communications I’ve seen is Ofcom’s 2008 statement on “Identifying appropriate regulatory solutions: principles for analysing self- and co-regulation” (PDF). It concluded that self-regulation is most likely to work when “industry collectively has an interest in solving the issue; industry is able to establish clear objectives for a potential scheme; and the likely industry solution matches the legitimate needs of citizens and consumers.”

If their effort is to succeed, the companies will have to build an institution that represents all interests. Let's stipulate that the three main stakeholder groups are content players, network operators and consumers; Google and Verizon fall in the first two groups. On the network side, they’ll need to add the cable industry (always much more leery of network neutrality than the long-regulated telcos), and on the content side, the studios. The trickiest part will be finding a “consumer voice” with some legitimacy; everybody, not least these companies, claims to have the consumer’s best interest at heart.

The filing is predictably vague about the basis on which government would become involved, and is silent about how its proposed institution would enforce its own norms. That’s a mistake. It’s in the companies’ best interest to declare which sword they want hanging over their heads. If they don’t, there won’t be sufficient incentive to Do the Right Thing in the short term (the CEO will ask, “If I’m not breaking a law, why should I go the extra mile?”), which means that eventually a mountain of punctilious rules will be imposed on them. (It’s my understanding that this is what happened over the last decade with accessibility to the internet for those with disabilities: tech companies promised a decade ago they’d solve the problem, didn’t do all that much, and now Rep. Markey is writing detailed rules.)

It’s not clear to me whether the filing is proposing self- or co-regulation, defined by Ofcom (2008) as follows:

Self-regulation: Industry collectively administers a solution to address citizen or consumer issues, or other regulatory objectives, without formal oversight from government or regulator. There are no explicit ex ante legal backstops in relation to rules agreed by the scheme (although general obligations may still apply to providers in this area).

Co-regulation: Schemes that involve elements of self- and statutory regulation, with public authorities and industry collectively administering a solution to an identified issue. The split of responsibilities may vary, but typically government or regulators have legal backstop powers to secure desired objectives.

I think co-regulation is indicated here. Without a backstop there will not be sufficient incentive for good behavior. Politically, too, the term “self-regulation” has become anathema in Washington DC because the financial melt-down is deemed to have been due to a failure in the same. (Not that it matters, but I think this assessment is incorrect on two counts: self-regulation is only part of a much larger problem in the financial crisis; and even if it weren’t, the lessons learned are not easily transposable to communications policy. Still, it’s probably best to use another term, like shared regulation, supervised delegation or bounded autonomy.)

The internet is not an ecosystem, but…

The “internet ecosystem” metaphor is ubiquitous; I’ve used it myself, though with some trepidation. I think I can now reconcile why it’s both wrong and useful.

It’s wrong, strictly speaking, since many aspects of the ecosystem-internet mapping are questionable. As I blogged in 2007 about the “business ecosystem” terminology, the validity of the metaphor is undermined by quite a large number of mapping mismatches:

Number: a food web consists of billions of interactions among animals and plants; a business web comprises a relatively small number of companies

Metrics: Biomass a typical rough measure of an ecosystem; does that map to total revenue, profitability, return on investment, or something else?

Topology: An ecosystem is a lossy, one-way energy flow; as each organism is eaten by the next, energy is lost. Business relationships are reciprocal, and generate value.

Time scales: Species change slowly, but companies can change their role in a system overnight through merger, acquisition or divestiture.

Choice: Interactions between firms can be changed by contract, whereas that between species is not negotiable except perhaps over very long time scales by evolution of defensive strategies.

Foresight: Humans are pre-eminent among animals in their ability to anticipate the behavior of other actors, explore counter-factuals, think through What If scenarios, etc. The response of a system containing humans to some change is therefore much more complex than that of a human-free ecosystem. “Dumb” agents in an adaptive system respond to the change; humans respond to how they think other humans will respond to their response to those people’s responses etc.

Goals: Biological systems don’t have goals, but human ones do. There are no regulatory systems external to ecosystems in a state of nature (if such things still exist on this planet), but there are many, such as rule of law and anti-trust, in human markets. Natural processes don’t care about equity or justice, but societies do, and impose them on business systems. If ecosystems were a good model for business networks, there would be no need for anti-trust regulation.

The connotations of the metaphor are also misleading. Ecosystems are often used to connote stability and vibrant self-regulation; in fact, they often suffer catastrophic collapses. Companies are exhorted to invest in their ecosystem with the goal of becoming a keystone species. It’s not clear why they should do so, from the ecosystem perspective: keystone species don’t typically represent a lot of biomass. Their “bottleneck position”, however, is attractive from the perspective of a company that wants to extract rents through market power.

However, the ecosystem concept has gained traction because there is a deeper truth: both the internet and ecosystems are both examples of complex adaptive systems. (A complex adaptive system may be defined as a collection of interacting, adaptive agents; other examples include the immune system, the human body, stock markets, and economies. Note that adaptive systems are often nested.)

Thus, the internet is to an ecosystem as a whale is to an elephant. It could be useful to think in terms of elephants if one has to manage oceans but doesn’t know much about whales, since both are large, social mammals. However, one can just as well explain whales in terms of elephants – and the differences, e.g. living on land vs. in water – can be decisive in some cases.

With this realization, the utility and limitations of using an ecosystem metaphor when thinking about the internet, as I did in my Internet Governance as Forestry paper, have become much clearer to me. Lessons from managed ecosystems can illuminate the dynamics and pitfalls of managing the internet, and principles (such as the Resilience Principles I outlined in my recent talk at Silicon Flatirons; my presentation starts around time code 01:36:00 of the video) derived from one can be applied to the other.