Re: eat this
Please....1 Gbps broadband is only practical in dense areas. What are you going to do about the more rural areas where a significant portion of the US population lives? Say, "too bad, move to the city if you want decent broadband?" It is offered without caps because few people have any use that loads it much. If everyone was streaming 8K video for all the TV they watch instead of getting broadcast video like cable or satellite, you can be damn sure Google wouldn't offer capless 1 Gbps broadband for only $70.
It is like when AT&T offered capless cellular with the release of the iPhone. The iPhone was the only device back then that could really heavily utilize a lot of data, so it was great for selling iPhones. Unfortunately for AT&T the millions of iPhones, and the millions of Androids that came later, eventually overwhelmed their network. It was great when only a few people could use it, but when everyone could it didn't work so well. Don't be fooled into thinking Google is somehow exempt from capacity constraints when they have like three cities in the whole US and fewer broadband customers than dozens of regional ISPs you've never even heard of!
Net neutrality has absolutely NOTHING to do with usage caps. If you had caps that said "you get x GB to other sources but you can have unlimited data to Netflix because they paid us", that's something Net Neutrality would prevent. That would allow competitors to Netflix to spring up that don't have the deep pockets to pay for priority access or bypassing the normal usage caps.
The big worry of course is that Comcast or Verizon offers OTT video and makes their service capless, but enforces usage caps on competing services. Pretty much assuring that anyone who uses them for broadband (and in some places they may be the only viable option, and in most places are one of only two viable options) also uses them for video and effectively kills not only Netflix, but also Directv, Dish, Amazon Instant, and so on.