The Internet ecosystem of today is nothing like the telecommunications network of yesteryear. Technology companies compete not just along traditional sector lines (network vs. network, software vs. software) but also across sectors. At other times, they form partnerships to challenge dominant products like Apple’s iPhone.

In short, the Internet is a competitive, vibrant and expanding ecosystem thanks to the hands-off regulatory approach implemented by the Clinton and Bush administrations, and public officials need to stop trying to cram the Web into a telecommunications box that is nearly a century old.

Verizon executive Tom Tauke made that case Wednesday in a compelling speech at the New Democrat Network, and he earned qualified praise from at least one critic. “Speech by VZ’s Tauke was a serious contribution,” tech analyst Kevin Werbach tweeted. “I certainly don’t agree with everything, but he posed many of the right questions.”

Tauke compared communications law that dates back to 1929 with the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, Calif., and its maze of stairways to nowhere and dead-end hallways. The law has become an “interesting maze” that is sorely in need of a remodeling job, and he sketched a blueprint for policymakers to consider.

Tauke outlined four principles for Internet policies going forward. They should: 1) empower consumers to choose the products and services they want; 2) ensure online security and privacy in ways that are “uniform across the ecosystem”; 3) make consumer access and adoption priorities; and 4) protect consumers and ensure that the free market is working.

Tauke largely avoided making specific policy suggestions, but he did call for restructuring the way the federal government subsidizes communications.

Providers currently collect universal service fees from existing customers and serve “corporate intermediaries” to subsidize access in underserved areas. He panned that approach, arguing instead for direct support like food stamps — “competitive subsidies that are technologically neutral and targeted solely for the benefit of consumers.”

On a broader scale, Tauke urged changes to the rule-making process in order to gain more input from experts in the field and ensure “flexible, adaptive oversight”:

[F]ederal enforcement agencies could structure themselves around an ongoing engagement with Internet engineers and technologists to analyze technology trends, define norms to guide such questions as network management, and understand in advance the implications of new, emerging technologies.

Technology leaders and experts from all players involved in the Internet should set up voluntary organizations and forums to provide advice, recommendations, and advisory opinions to government agencies. This will help inform the agencies’ role as backstops that deter damaging activities that undermine the vibrant competition and openness that defines the Internet.

Tauke emphasized that it’s a job for Congress, which would need to write into law “clear statutory authority” for the ruling body, whether that be the FCC, FTC or a new agency.

Adam Thierer, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, said Tauke’s plan is similar to the Digital Age Communications Act that PFF sketched in 2005 with the help of 50 scholars. Telecom industry critics portrayed Tauke’s speech as an attack on the FCC, but Thierer accurately captured the tone. “Instead, he speaks generically about the need for a more sensible process.”

NDN, a think tank built on the “third way” philosophy of recognizing both the value of the free market and the role of government in the marketplace, was a fitting venue for Tauke’s speech. He recited statistics that prove the Internet has thrived in a deregulated market but also acknowledged that government has “a legitimate interest in ensuring a functioning marketplace.”

“No one is suggesting that the Internet space should be the wild, wild West,” Tauke said. It needs a “rule of law”; it just doesn’t need one written for another era.

He said the ultimate goal should be to create an oversight system that targets “bad actors” without stifling innovation and discouraging the kinds of investments that built the system. “Good public policy is always good for companies that want to play by the rules.”

UPDATE: AT&T’s Jim Ciconni seconded Tauke’s motion for a rethinking of the Internet policy structure in a post on his company’s policy blog: “If there are questions about the authority of the FCC in the Internet ecosystem, the proper answer is not for the FCC to get adventurous in interpreting its authority, as some are urging. Instead, any question of the FCC’s jurisdiction over the Internet should properly be referred to the Congress for resolution.”