But from December, they probably can do that.

They are also free to strike deals with other specific web companies – such as Netflix or Facebook – for faster priority delivery of their music, movies and content and could slow down the delivery of competitors.

So if you're an up-and-coming video streaming platform, you'll have to outbid Google to have your website delivered to people at the same speed as Youtube. GL m8.

Perverse incentives

Now, I'm all for free markets and sometimes the private sector actually does a better job of managing public infrastructure than the government.

Will you need to pay for reliable internet? And then some more for specific features? CNN

Competition is a fantastic mechanism for giving the consumer the best possible deal and incentivising companies to perform at their very best, constantly innovating and adapting to serve demand.

But when the product the companies are producing – let's say it's the internet – is a basic necessity in order for people to work at their jobs and educate their children, some regulatory oversight is probably necessary.


Why? Because free markets also encourage the generation of peak profit, which prompts corporates to squeeze as much money from as many places as reasonably possible.

This is not always a bad thing! But in this case, if they can begin charging Facebook (more) to get its platform to its customers, they will.

Will you need to pay for reliable internet? And then some more for specific features?

If they want to charge Blizzard Entertainment for peak gaming speed for its users, they will. And if entire school curriculums are run on video streaming platforms for rural kids who don't have access to schools, then damn, those kids might not be able to afford to learn to read.

Let's define the internet as access to free-flowing information. From any portal in the world you can tap into a multi-tiered interactive database that will inform, develop, challenge and empower your world view.

An empowering tool

If you don't trust what the government is saying, you could (try) and fact check it using other sources online. If you are trying to teach yourself computer coding because you saw your dad's job replaced by a machine, you could take a course online.

If you've invented a cool way of tie-dying t-shirts and want to sell them to people, you can find your customers on the web.


It's an empowering tool that betters people's lives, especially poorer people, and it shouldn't be restricted to those who can afford it.

There are many who would argue Facebook is a luxury; a private enterprise that has the right to charge customers for its product, if it so desires. Discounting the entrenched way it monetises every sliver of personalised data we pour into it every day, that's probably true.

But by allowing a pay-to-play model, you're going to throttle small enterprise innovation who use the freedom and scale of the internet to do business and basically allow people who can afford access to more information than people that don't.

Which – in one broad economic circumstance – could mean the lower-middle classes won't be able to educate themselves without the state, will be locked out of a labour market that relies heavily on computer literacy and skill, will become welfare-burdensome and corporates/authorities will be able to dictate thought and control the information flow.

A dramatic example perhaps, but *cough* North Korea.

So, in the future, I might have to pay Google $2 to find out whether nosebleeds are cured by leaning back or leaning forward.