Why you should be deeply dreading the Comcast-Time Warner merger

[Commentary] In its public interest statement filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast touts the many supposed benefits of its acquisition of Time Warner Cable, even arguing that joining with TWC would be “pro-consumer, pro-competitive, and… generate substantial public interest benefits.”

But a review of the facts shows exactly how wild this claim is:

• One Monopoly To Serve Them All. The problem with this argument is that Amazon and Microsoft, as vast as their empires are, don’t control people’s basic access to cable television and broadband (which is more or less a necessity for Internet users in 2014). The Xbox One offering Netflix doesn’t prevent users from accessing the service on dozens of other competing devices, but the same is not the case for access to basic information that TWC and Comcast’s cable networks provide. If the merger were to go through, tens of millions of Americans would be locked into less competitive cable and broadband markets, unable to vote with their feet and choose competitors who offer different services.
• Broadcasting Influence. Aside from lobbying efforts in Congress, the biggest possible tool of influence that Comcast has is its own media empire. Following its merger with NBCUniversal, Comcast now owns networks like CNBC and MSNBC, some of the networks that are traditionally turned to for business reporting and corporate accountability. In news discussion about this merger, it goes without saying that these networks will be effectively neutered.
• But they’re not unbeatable. When lobbying giant AT&T sought to buy T-Mobile, press freedom and anti-trust activists fought back, successfully killing the $39 billion deal. The campaign against that merger could prove a model for those trying to fight Comcast today, and there are signs there’s already a broad coalition ready to contest the creation of this new monopoly.

[Jilani is a Syracuse University graduate student and freelance writer]