Vint Cerf, considerado uno de los padres de internet, especulaba sobre la posibilidad de nacionalizar la estructura de la red.
Cerf compara la red con el sistema de carreteras público: la red podría ser propiedad pública, en lugar de pertenecer a compañías de cable y telefonía, y el sector privado podría ofrecer sus servicios sobre la base de esa infraestructura pública, del mismo modo que los fabricantes de automóviles ofrecen sus servicios al usuario del sistema de carreteras público.
Cerf lo explica en una discusión en The Technology Liberation Front:
(...) Internet is in some ways more like the road system than telephone or cable. These are essentially single purpose networks, each built for a particular application. Because there is not a great deal of consumer choice for these services, the usual effects of competition are weaker. I think the incentives now in place for broadband service provision have not produced significant facilities-based competition. An alternative that has been explored in the UK, for instance, is to mandate that wholesale broadband services must be provided, e.g., by British Telecom. this allows substantial competition above the IP layer for value-added services and substantial consumer choice for them. What I was speculating about in the Personal Democracy Forum was whether incentives could be provided that would render the Internet more like the public road system which is open to everyone. Manufacturers are free to invent and sell vehicles suitable for use on the road system. Builders are free to construct buildings, homes, offices, manufacturing plants that use the road system. But the road system itself is not owned by the private sector and its use is essentially open to all. The question is whether incentives can be found that would produce a similar effect for broadband Internet provision.
Jim Harper, del Cato Institute, responde en el mismo debate que la analogía con las vías públicas es correcta, pero no tiene las implicaciones que Cerf cree. La propiedad pública de las carreteras impide la competencia en la provisión de esta infraestructura, lo cual limita la innovación. Al mismo tiempo, su naturaleza pública otorga al Estado la capacidad y la oportunidad de controlar y restringir el uso privado de esa infraestructura y los servicios que se ofrecen en ella.
(...) I think you view roads, telephone networks, and cable plant as similar in that they are essentially single-purpose. The road system is superior, you suggest, because it is substantially freer (more open) than the telephone networks and cable plant.
It’s a decent analogy, but I don’t think it proves what you want.
Are roadways really open? New vehicles are introduced rarely. A cartel of manufacturers allied with government safety and environment regulators make it prohibitive to invent and market new vehicles, including electric, fuel-cell-powered, ultra-light, etc. Driving a vehicle whose design doesn’t have regulatory pre-approval, and that hasn’t been registered with the government, will get you pulled over and penalized (and the vehicle impounded). Vehicles are routinely searched by the government. Try walking on the freeway. You’ll get arrested for that. Though the technology exists, there are no smart freeways taking over the driving for the long trip down 5 to Bakersfield. Etc.
Laws of physics and of man break down the analogy when it comes to what can attach to the road network. Builders are not free to attach whatever they want. They must meet zoning laws of every stripe, and even if they want to add roadway themselves, they aren’t allowed to do it without regulatory pre-approval.
So, to the extent I’ve understood your analogy, it doesn’t prove the superiority of government ownership. I don’t see why would want to make the Internet - now relatively open to new connections and new “vehicles” (apps and content) - closed like the government-owned and -controlled roadways.
The analogy doesn’t reach how wholesale access and reselling improves on the current state of affairs or how that relates to nationalization. I really don’t understand how moving from weak facilities-based competition in telecom and Internet access to no competition (i.e. nationalization) would improve things. There is essentially no facilities-based competition to roadways, so we have this unfree “sharing” regime. There is one mode I can use to get to the library. I will travel at dictated speeds in dictated vehicles over pre-determined routes. Why is that so good? How is that “open”? (...)
