Reply #9: I wouldn't say laughable, or probable. Possible? You betcha!

[ovidsen]

The sheer dominance of Google makes anti-trust action possible, whether people "choose" Google or not. Often, people with less than razor sharp computer skills don't realize that Google is the default search engine on their home page (Hotsheet comes to mind) or the default engine on other pages they may be perusing.

Remember Netscape Navigator? When Bill Gates (and his Microsoft) made his Internet Explorer the default Web access program for Windows, people were unhappy, especially in Europe, at what they saw as a removal of choice by Gates. Unfortunately Europe's use of anti-trust actions against Microsoft came too little, too late for Netscape Navigator.

Going further back, to the 1940s, the federal government broke up NBC's Red and Blue radio networks after arguing successfully that NBC's commanding lead over competitors such as CBS and Mutual amounted to a restraint of trade. One of them, the Blue Network, evolved into ABC. And this was NOT a case of FCC interference. Then, as now, networks were NOT under the jurisdiction of the FCC when it comes to business practices. Programming practices like the occasional "wardrobe malfunction" or 4 letter word, yes. But the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over the way over the air radio and TV networks operate their companies. The stations that carried them were (and are), but the networks themselves were (and are) not. The networks were, and are, Justice Department territory.

You might put on the hat of a chronic pessimist and argue that there is a possibility that the Justice Department might zero in on Google. But laughable? That statement by itself gives me the giggles.

edit for clarification