I see this a bit differently, and I frequently use the history of Google Fiber as evidence for strong net neutrality regulations.

In the areas where it was deployed, Google Fiber was wildly successful. And yet, Google threw in the towel. Why?

It _isn’t_ because Google Fiber is was unprofitable. To the contrary, it was profitable _despite_ driving broadband prices way down in its service areas.

It’s because the incumbent ISPs simply have too much power. That power comes in many forms:

  1. Excessive industry lobbying power;  
  2. Anti-competitive exclusivity agreements;  
  3. The ability to stall rollouts indefinitely in the absence of “one touch make ready” policies;  
  4. Required cooperation with and permission from governments who feel less pressured to move quickly once their residents have at least one incumbent provider;

etc.

If the incumbents are so well protected that one of the most powerful corporations in America found the barriers to entry too burdensome, then how can anyone argue that there is any semblance of a “free market”? What hope is there for startup ISPs?

The incumbents have received hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, so they already had a government-assisted head start. And, despite prices being so inflated that they halved overnight wherever Google Fiber rolled out, they are still able to effectively stave off meaningful competition.

Would that be possible in a healthy, competitive marketplace? No. So we need to stop treating it like one, when it clearly isn’t.