Bad Example

Mike McCurry has been doing a lot of arguing against network neutrality recently, on behalf of his telecom industry clients. Here's the latest:

…the debate is about how to define network neutrality: some want "regulated net neutrality" (that would be the net neuts who are having great sport with me at the moment) they want the government to regulate the way content is provided on the Internet so that no network provider can introduce ways to speed some content faster than it would otherwise go on an Internet the government regulates.

Everyone gets the same service (everyone gets the Postal Service and the UPS and Fed Ex innovators do not get to charge for the service).

But McCurry's example proves the opposite of what he thinks it does. The parallel here isn't between communications networks and the USPS, it's between communications networks and transportation networks, namely, highways and skyways. We have FedEx and UPS precisely because the the government has made this infrastructure available to everyone on equal terms. If, on the other hand, the government had discriminated against Postal Service competitors (e.g., setting a lower speed limit for their vehicles, or not allowing them to use jet planes), we certainly wouldn't have the "innovators" that McCurry praises.

And it's important to keep in mind that, despite his posturing to the contrary, McCurry isn't defending the entrepreneurs here. He's defending the largest telecom companies who see a way to make a whole lot more money by skimping on network capacity and then charging access fees to content providers to use their cramped networks. The only winner here is the telecom companies; the rest of us lose.