Look, I get it — the issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon. But I can’t help but think about how AT&T and other ISPs banded together to claim they shouldn’t be regulated because they are Internet companies just like FANG during the Net Neutrality discussions. When I see just how bad ISPs are acting, in lack of competition, price gouging, content ownership, data monitoring, it really seems they were successful in shifting the focus to FANG and convincing everyone to forget about Net Neutrality.
This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many “tech” related items at one time. People are not “locked in” to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.
You're right, ISP monopolies are a bigger antitrust issue. People are overwhelmingly pro net-neutrality
They will take this action against Google, and meanwhile, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts will continue to take in an average of $100 per customer per month.
This is, quite nakedly, Comcast influencing action against Google for trying to compete in broadband.
It is convenient that Comcast owns NBC while lobbying government for legislation it wants to see.
IDK. Maybe this is not totally relevant, and maybe it's not a valid counterpoint, but I find it interesting that the market capitalizations of AT&T, Comcast and Charter Communications combined are roughly $200 billion less than Alphabet alone.
As an occasional content creator it's impossible not to be aware that the ISPs can limit access to the bandwidth I need, while any of the platforms I might use - PayPal, Ebay, Google/YouTube, Amazon, Apple, even Etsy - can kill an income stream at any time and keep all my earnings just because they want to, with no convincing good-faith resolution procedures and no (affordable) recourse.
> any of the platforms I might use - ... - can kill an income stream at any time
Being able to access the internet at a competitive rate is more important IMO. FANG platforms depend on your ability to reach them.
Net neutrality, I'm convinced, is one of the only unifying political issues today. Breaking up Google isn't going to make people forget the expensive, low quality service from monopolistic taxpayer-funded broadband networks.
I think more importantly, ISPs made a (in my opinion, bullshit) free market argument that resonated with conservatives. At the same time, FANG made themselves an enemy of conservatives. Conservatives are now in power.
You could make the free market argument here too, but it won't appeal to them. Conservatives have a sort of pact with business interests that are otherwise neutral on social issues. They can look after each other because neither care much about the other's priorities. FANG are not reliably neutral in that same way, they are more like Hollywood in terms of "values". Of course their money is just as good as anyone else's and conservatives will take a lot of it where there is a tactical advantage but there can't be a long-term alliance.
You still have a choice about what sites you visit. Maybe FANG just provide a great value for people so they choose them more often. Most people don’t have a choice in what ISP they can use.
It shouldn't be a whataboutism, it's true. They gave too much of a pass to ISPs and that needs to stop. But it doesn't stop by relaxing on tech companies like Google, that would only further normalize it.
Not only the US is affected by Google's actions and ISPs are not evil everywhere. This is why Google is the more important issue from the perspective of the rest of the world. This is a transnational issue.
Just in case one of the downvoters stumbles upon this again, I'd appreciate your reasoning. What part of what I said is untrue (assuming this is the reason you downvoted)?
This is not meant to whataboutism, but the truth is the public/news cycles can only handle so many “tech” related items at one time. People are not “locked in” to any of the FANG companies nearly as much as they are their physical ISPs where they really do not have an option.