6 ms·

Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside f

Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
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.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > 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.
  - wongarsu 9y ago
    >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.
    - rosser 9y ago
      A theoretical alternative no-one is deploying is not an alternative.
      - pythonaut_16 9y ago
        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.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        OneWeb has funding and has already purchased a bunch of satellites and launches.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    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.
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      > 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.
      - sheepmullet 9y ago
        > 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.
smsm42 9y ago
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.
- curun1r 9y ago
  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.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    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.
    - 9y ago

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

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.

wtallis 9y ago
> 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.
- wongarsu 9y ago
  >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.
  - rosser 9y ago
    A theoretical alternative no-one is deploying is not an alternative.
    - pythonaut_16 9y ago
      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.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      OneWeb has funding and has already purchased a bunch of satellites and launches.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  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.
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    > 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.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > 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.

smsm42 9y ago

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.

curun1r 9y ago
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.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  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.
  - 9y ago