In a public letter to both the Time Warner and Comcast, FCC said that they are holding the merge up deal that was made in between them. Comcast and Time Warner, together control most of the Internet services in the country. However, the companies said that they are in different regions and are not going to suppress the competition.

Critics have argued the merge up will result in keeping more than 35% of the people under umbrella of one company. And with the acquisition of NBCUniversal, Comcast was able to make it a one-sided war in the country. FCC reports that the other network providers were not able to raise the price.

The letter states,

* Killing competition. Most consumers already don’t have choices, and letting two huge companies merge won’t increase that. Smaller cable programmers have pointed out that the bigger Comcast gets, the harder it is for them to stay in business anywhere. And starting a new competitor? That’s basically impossible.

* Squashing innovation. Comcast, CU argues, can interfere with innovation in two key ways. One is by hindering companies like (famously) Netflix from trying new things online video distribution. The other is in hardware: there really is no competition in set-top boxes, and if one entity (Comcast) continues to dominate, there won’t be. Additionally, Comcast can squeeze out hardware platforms like TiVo and Roku by, for example, not permitting their content to stream on those devices. (Or not letting Comcast subscribers use them to access services like HBOGo.)
* Blocking media diversity. That the post-merger Comcast would control nearly all of the largest TV markets in the country (16 of the top 20, and plenty of smaller ones besides) doesn’t just demonstrate how many million people the deal would affect. It points to their gatekeeper power:
Because Comcast would control almost every key metropolitan market, video programmers would absolutely need distribution carriage through Comcast. In effect, Comcast could dictate what programs do or don’t get carried — not only in its markets, but across America. A nightly business program, for example, would not get off the ground if it were carried only in rural markets. It would need access to cable subscribers in the New York City region, for example — and those would be Comcast/TWC subscribers.”

About The Author

Abby is fun loving yet serious professional, born and raised in Sioux Falls, SD. She has a great passion for journalism, her family includes her husband, two kids, two dogs and herself. She has pursued her Mass Communication graduation degree from the Augustana College. She is currently employed at, an online news media company located in Sioux Falls, SD.

Related Posts

21 Responses

  1. FCC puts Comcast and Time Warner merge up on hold | TrendMega- What's Trending is here

    […] by nookcha to news [link] [80 comments] Click to Open […]

  2. skekze

    Toll roads or highways. One belongs in the past. Comcast’s cobble-stoned networks shouldn’t continue to block innovation or the speed and efficiency of our nationwide infrastructure. Want dirt roads again or do you like to drive 70 mph? We didn’t leave the highways in private hands for a reason. Same reason one corporation shouldn’t get to decide the future of America’s electronic information distribution.

  3. OSU develops solar battery, Maxwell's DSR tested, Comcast- TWC merger

    […] FCC puts Comcast and Time Warner merge up on hold In a public letter to both the Time Warner and Comcast, FCC said that they are holding the merge up deal that was made in between them. Comcast and Time Warner, together control most of the Internet services in the country. However, the companies said that they are in different regions and are not going to suppress the competition. The Westside Story […]

  4. Ant

    FCC, please make cable companies compete in the same areas. Same for other areas like landline phone companies.

  5. Dustin

    Please tell me that this person wasn’t paid to write this article. The grammar is embarrassing to say the least. It’s one thing to see how poorly its written, but someone in editorial had to have seen this, and approved it to go live right? TWO OR MORE people laid eyes on this article and it STILL went “to print” so to speak?

    What a joke.

  6. lazarus

    I am increasingly appalled at the illiteracy of web journalists like Abby Smith. This article reads like it was written in another language then crammed through a crappy English translation program.

      • cluelessmoron1

        lazarus is absolutely right, the grammer on this article is horrible, and I’m completely against the merger.

      • Austin S.

        The first sentence pissed me off way more than it should have. “…holding the merge up deal….” is better as “..holding up the merger deal…”

      • Jonny 2 Shoes

        “…from trying new things online video distribution,” was the one that got me.

    • Joel Detrow

      Protip: Many “web journalists” are really just computer programs. The problem comes when there’s no editor to REVIEW these computer-written articles.

  7. Zach Albrecht

    So set stipulations that one company cannot exceed more than 33 percent of the tv markets annually; This would be similar to the stipulation that the merger must sell off pieces of the network to other vendors, like charter. Television will eventually converge into the internet, likely in the next 10-20 years, so it’s not much of a concern.

    I really think our nation would benefit from a triopoly instead of a duopoly in all markets but not enough big players to do it or want to.

    • brandon

      I would rather be able to have 5 ISP’s to choose from. Not 3. I want a fair and open market where competition sets the prices rather than have only 3 companies dictate to me what I should pay. Along with that net neutrality is important for everyone. Imagine going to a website that takes forever to load because they don’t have the money to pay for preferential treatment. That will hurt businesses and innovation everywhere. We (the US) invented the internet and consistently lag behind other countries as far as pricing and speed goes. It’s sad really. ISP’s should become a title II utility.

      • Joel Detrow

        Indeed, to have 5 ISPs to choose from, the internet really would have to be regulated under Title II. It separates the company from the infrastructure; one company maintains the infrastructure within their own jurisdiction, while the customers in said jurisdiction can still pay other companies in different ones at competitive rates to the “native” company, and those other companies merely pass on the payments to the “native” company. This is how electricity and water are regulated, and it’s how internet service is regulated in the rest of the modern world. It keeps prices very low and service quality very high compared to the monopolistic environment that we’re dealing with today.

        The complaints against Title II consist of “omg Title II would be like a huge stick beating us to death” but the reality is that Title II merely gives the FCC a stick named Regulatory Authority with which they *could* beat the ISPs, but they don’t have to. The courts have said repeatedly that without Title II, the FCC has no stick, no “Net Neutrality” style regulations can be enforced at all. Tom Wheeler is a charlatan and a dingo.

      • Zach Albrecht

        The problem is enforcement of more than 2 or even 3. I would love to see a retarded amount of options to choose from but the realistic approach is to take the next step, so going from a duopoly to a triopoly, then a quad and so on.

        However, quality over quantity. I would love to see harder enforcement that service providers must adhere to than 5 crappy providers everyone hates.

  8. FCC pauses clock on Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger – New York Post – / Time Warner News

    […] Cable Merger ReviewVarietyConsumer advocates turn up the heat on Comcast/TWC merger protestsBGRThe Westside Storyall 32 news […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.