Fb could disrupt google because it had the impressions first, so that is the dimension to think about. Adspend and advertiser pool is a by product.
Disclaimer: current fb, ex google employee.
What I don't understand here is does this not just hand Google the monopoly but now with government protection? Because they're already in place, so who's gonna offer this public utility?
We see similar situations with, e.g. cellular carriers in the states, where wherever you live, you only get not-even-a-handful of choices.
And how does a country regulate an international "utility"? For Google to maintain its global position, it needs to consider not just local regulations, but also those in international markets. Public utilities so far have always had a limited area of operation.
but back to the original idea of it being a utility: Ads are imo user hostile and harmful to a society. They do work, which make them invaluable in capitalism... But they're effectively mass manipulation. I don't think we will ever be rid of them, but a world in which this is considered a utility is extremely dark imo
Doubtful this would be done in the same way everywhere. Though big markets like the EU or US may regulate at the federal/union level to ease the burden on interstate commerce.
A company that operates in a jurisdiction is regulatable by that jurisdiction. In this case, if Google weren't physically present, you sanction advertisers and local sites that use the ad service. In cases where there's no economic connection, the option is to force ISPs not to carry that traffic (and all the cat and mouse that entails).
Also, a lot of mobile carriers are international companies. In each country, they follow the local regulations. They have some economies of scale that may make it easier to compete with a network that's only in one country, but it depends on the size of that country how big the effect is.