> 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

> 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.