Ask HN: Why didn't Google shake down ISPs?
4 comments
If you try to make ISPs pay for connecting to you, don't expect your users to have a good time reaching your services. And it's difficult to have a "frictionless" popular service if your websites are the slowest ones around.
To the contrary, the big sites want the opposite: they want all users to have as good connections to them as possible, which they achieve by being nice to ISPs.
To the contrary, the big sites want the opposite: they want all users to have as good connections to them as possible, which they achieve by being nice to ISPs.
The fundamental purpose of google is to use the internet(and search for things to use) while viewing their ads. The rest of the google garbage are vanity projects to make people use the internet and look at more ads. The underlying technology that drives internet search is no longer rare (look at yacy or elastisearch) what makes google powerful is vast tomes of information about who buys what. With sufficient data collection any corporation would be capable of serving targeted ad campaigns at their users weakening Google's position.
If google were to attempt to exploit ISPs, ISPs would simply use their control over the consumer to drive their traffic another search provider more than willing to service them for free and serve ads.
I see the logic here, but I have reservations. My perspective: today, maybe, with so many consumers already angry at or distrustful of Google. In the early 2010s, when "Google" was a verb and "Don't be evil" was still part of the mission? That would be like DirecTV trying to placate Disney Channel lovers by pushing them towards Fox Family.
It'd likely be ruled illegal, since Google is a direct competitor: https://fiber.google.com/
And generally, the whole idea of competition law is to try to prevent extremely large companies from leveraging their dominance like that, rather than competing on price/quality/etc in a way that would benefit consumers.
And generally, the whole idea of competition law is to try to prevent extremely large companies from leveraging their dominance like that, rather than competing on price/quality/etc in a way that would benefit consumers.
You even have precedent. Apple shook down AT&T and turned itself into America's dominant phone manufacturer. They used the threat of releasing the insanely popular iPhone with a competitor network to dictate terms, and then eventually released a phone compatible with Verizon's network anyway.
Or look at cable networks in the 90s or 2000s, going directly to consumers to force the hands of providers.
So, consumers see slightly higher internet bills. Who cares? Better than the ad hell and AI-biased neutering we currently face.
Did they just not think it could get this bad? Or was the goal just always to make us the product?