Google is as much of a monopoly than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft never was the only OS provider or browser provider or sole provider of anything, yet the parent comment calls it a monopoly and praises the effort to hurt it. You can't have it both ways - if Microsoft was a monopoly, then Google is.

Microsoft was never a monopoly and Google can never be a monopoly. It's not something that a company is, it's something that a company has. In Microsoft's case, it was Windows and it was considered a monopoly not because it was the only operating system, but because of its market share. The only product that Google has that has anywhere near the required market share to be considered a monopoly is Google Search.

Even so, Microsoft didn't get in trouble with the Justice Department for its Windows monopoly, it got in trouble for leveraging its monopoly to support its other, non-monopoly products. If you want to argue that Google should be constrained under anti-trust rules, you need to show how they're abusing a monopoly to compete unfairly with other products. People have made that argument but it's less cut-and-dry than it was in Microsoft's case.

As it is, your lack of understanding of the basic definition of 'monopoly' makes what you're saying somewhat nonsensical.

Google not only has monopoly-level market shares in Search, Ads, and Android, they also have a massively dominant market share with Chrome. The magic, and where Google runs afoul, is how they leverage those to assist each other in ways you clearly ignore.

- Chrome will soon start directly blocking Google Ads' competitors based on standards Google invented through an organization it runs.

- Chrome pushes Google Search default, Search pesters you to get Chrome like three times.

- Android devices are required to ship with nearly all of Google's products pre-installed. Literally through a confidential contract almost every phone manufacturer on the planet save like... Apple and Amazon have signed on.

There are more, mind you, but this is kinda a taste. Microsoft did nothing this illegal, ever.

Net neutrality and ISP monopolies are important to observe here because only ISP monopolies can control packet level what goes through every single internet connection you make, that is why ISPs and local monopolies are important to the impact of net neutrality going away. ISPs inspecting packets to slow some down also leads to encroaching packet inspection that leads to more surveillance.

Talking about Google here is a distraction and a false equivalency as they control nothing in the lower level of your network like ISPs do.

Google is not a monopoly, they are a market leader with mind share. They were able to get the word "google" as a verb, that is through a good product and marketing.

It seems you really prefer companies that buy their monopolies via legislation and bribes like ISPs (Comcast/AT&T/etc) over companies that build market share in the actual market (Google/Apple/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon etc).

You need to read up on your Microsoft history, you are precluding lots of history, Microsoft is well known to do the "embrace, extend and extinguish"[1] technique back when they were essentially monopoly mind share level. Just one small thing in many that they did, they killed Quicktime, Real Player[2] when Windows player was created by making them not work on the OS level.

ISPs want to do the same thing with competitive products, it is a natural progression for a market leader, you can't blame them you have to prevent it with regulation/laws.

The only control Google has is to control technology via their browser, which Microsoft did with IE4 especially - and you can use others, and what kind of search results you can get. AMP is an overstep and their control but not monopoly level yet -- and they are overstepping on stomping internet standards in a new 'embrace, extend, and extinguish'. But even then, Google has less monopoly ability to control your network compared to ISPs that control everything you do on the internet and Microsoft could control OS level when Windows was 95% share and only desktop existed, which they pushed IE then as well and crushed competition, preinstalled and all that.

I like Google and Microsoft though, they earned their mind share through innovative products. ISPs just buy off legislators and create state assisted monopolies. The latter is very anti-business and anti-competitive much more than building support in an open market.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

[2] https://www.cnet.com/news/real-hits-microsoft-with-1-billion...

"Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one. Google controls whether or not websites effectively exist on the Internet, for all intents and purposes. Google controls how those websites operate, what they must look like, and what security protocols they must use. If in any way, a website doesn't obey Google, it ends up delisted from Google Seaarch, and then it loses all it's profitability and ceases to exist.

I'm well aware of Microsoft's twenty-year-ago history, but it pales in comparison to Google's present. Your suggestion that Google earned it's place is horribly incorrect: It got it's power through buying off legislators (About half of all Congressmembers have received money from Google), working directly in the White House (During Obama's term, no company visited the executive more), and using secret agreements with other companies to pack in default apps, adware, and browser toolbars.

People make the misleading belief that everyone switched to Google because of how great it was (or used to be). I did. You probably did. Most people did not. Either a program they installed like Adobe Reader had Google Toolbar packed in which forced their default browser to switch, or they ended up on a device that comes preloaded with Chrome. Sundar Pichai's rise to stardom was the Google Toolbar, which gained penetration buy being one of those sleezy addons that came with nearly everything a Windows user wanted to install.

Now with Android, Google has every phone manufacturer doing their job for them: In order to get access to the Play Store, phone manufacturers have to ship Chrome as the default browser, Google Search as the default search engine, and include about twenty other Google apps.

> "Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one.

It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do it to have the ability to slow you down and throttle you. NN prevents packet level bias.

Even if you still want to beat the Google is a monopoly drum, I don't totally disagree that some of their tactics are that level, this is just a distraction from NN and local ISP monopolies using Google is a false equivalency to ISPs that are your entry to the internet, before Google can even get to you.

You are literally off topic at this point, this isn't a thread on Google monopoly level tactics, this is about NN which Google would be market leader with or without. Google issues for another day, today is ISP local monopolies which you continually distract from almost as if you are purposefully doing it. If you aren't being paid by the ISPs you should at this point.

If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs?

Current ISP talking points on ISP monopolies are to distract to Google, Facebook, Amazon etc just as the WSJ has been doing. You've joined the club in distracting from the real issue, NN, unrelated to whether Google is a monopoly.

You go and call out Google for lobbying, they have to the way ISPs and Comcast/AT&T etc buy off legislature. You seem to like the companies that buy off legislature and provide NO innovative benefits to them running the web today, at least with Google/Amazon/etc there are benefits not degradation of service like the ISPs of today.

Again, packet level bias isn't a big deal when there's a company that controls the whole freaking Internet. There's no "distraction" with Google, Google is the problem, and they're distracting you by saying "Look at these little companies who aren't that big a deal. They're evil! Focus on them!"

Everything you are pitching is right out of their guidebook, Google has funded every net neutrality supporting organization out there today, and is behind every single move you see to defend it. Ask yourself why.

If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient?

Google obsession aside, could care less about what they do in regards to NN really though I am glad that they and most companies and people in the country support NN, the ISPs matter on this policy.

ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers really are the ONLY ones that don't want it, ask yourself WHY they want it removed so badly...against most people's demands. They say it changes nothing, I don't want SLOW lanes, unless they are massively increasing infrastructure they will be SLOWING you down and INSPECTING packets. This is anti-internet behavior. If Google was actually using their monopoly about it they would crush NN because they will be top in mind share either way. When Netflix, who was affected by NN, stopped supporting NN for a while people flipped. Same with Google, people would be pissed if Google didn't support NN, this comes from PEOPLE's demands [1][2].

Why all the ISP love? You got some massive trust in them to both mostly have a monopoly control and to be able to control traffic (including speeds/data caps) AND have all your private info for every single connection you make.

Do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Do you think ISP competition is good enough in the US?

Do you see the difference in the level of control ISPs have over ALL your traffic while Google has to have you USE them?

I have acknowledged some issues with Google but you have yet to acknowledge anything regarding ISP abuse and questions regarding broadband availability where ISPs are failing the US (Google Fiber was an awesome competitive boost we needed), nor that most people want NN [1][2]. Yes, your Google obsession is a distraction from the main NN point, the only people that want NN are ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am...

[2] https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neu...

> The only product that Google has that has anywhere near the required market share to be considered a monopoly is Google Search.

What about Android? Did you ever see an Android phone sold without the Google App ecosystem? Oh, and the GApps tracks you everytime, even with GPS off it constantly tracks you. the only way to disable it is to reinstall with AOSP or CAF-based build. That seems pretty abusive and anti-consumer.

And we're skipping Chrome/GoogleSearch combo, DoubleClick, Youtube...

Google not only has a very monopolistic position in certain services, but also has a lot of control over the most used web services on the world (without being in a monopoly situation), and uses it to actively track it's users and get revenue with it. Google is one of the companies I trust less.

But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. Just like you can use alternative search engines and services (even FOSS self-hosted ones) if you don't like Google.

> But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP.

You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement.

ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never offer acceptable latency. Cellular radio solutions exist on a spectrum where at one end they have broad coverage but horrible latency and throughput, and at the other end they can outperform DSL but only by deploying a dense enough wired backhaul network that you aren't saving much money over building out a pure wired network.

If you want 50+ MBps with low latency, there are only three viable technologies: DOCSIS over coax, short-range xDSL, or fiber. Only one of those three is currently widely deployed in the US. The latter two are available only where it is most convenient and profitable for ISPs to deploy.

>Satellite can never offer acceptable latency.

Satellite internet can offer very competitive latency, even though nobody is doing it so far. Small cubesats make lower orbits viable than what's currently used for satellite internet. At a low earth orbit of 400km (about the height of the ISS) you have a round trip time of just 3ms.

A theoretical alternative no-one is deploying is not an alternative.

SpaceX is planning on launching there satellite internet service in the next 5 years, and it could potentially have lower latency than traditional fiber networks due to the satellites being able to communicate more directly.

I don't disagree with you though, we need solid fiber internet options available at reasonable prices.

OneWeb has funding and has already purchased a bunch of satellites and launches.

The parent's point is that most alternatives to Google are a "second-rate experience". Almost nobody else has the data input to meet Google's offerings or compete on price. While the additional configuration options is a huge perk when getting rid of "we just do the best thing" products like Google and Apple, the alternatives are often a little dumber and cost a little more.

> The parent's point is that most alternatives to Google are a "second-rate experience".

Because there is competition they have competitively built up a better product within the market and on top of the internet. Google built up when Lycos, Excite, Yahoo, Alta Vista and others were there, they did it better up until now. There are still user choice and Google has no local/physical monopoly control.

People choose to use Google, most people can't choose their broadband provider.

ISPs could have invested in their own search engine or a third party one but they did not. Google built the best search engine but there are some up and coming competitors (DuckDuckGo mainly).

Companies that built up their market lead and or mind share monopolies did so in the open market, they did not lobby their way to a monopoly that controls your local area and blocks out competitors and innovations like muni networks. Google also isn't against NN.

If there is a monopoly do which you seem to think Google is, do you support companies building up their own product into a monopoly by choice or one that uses representatives and bribes to buy their way to control your internet from the moment you are on to the moment you are off.

Google is a destination on the web, built on top of it. Broadband is a lower level that we need to access a fair playing field of competitive products.

> People choose to use Google, most people can't choose their broadband provider.

Do they? In that case let's get Chrome to default to DuckDuckGo.

If you are right then usage stats will hardly change.

On the other hand 90%+ of my internet usage goes over my phones data plan.

> Google also isn't against NN

Google discriminates more than the worst NN offenders.

Lots of mildly controversial youtubers have been deliberately de-monetized.