What’s Wrong With the Comcast/Time Warner Merger

What’s Wrong With the Comcast/Time Warner Merger

What’s Wrong With the Comcast/Time Warner Merger

If it’s not blocked, a single corporation will be able to dictate digital communications and media content for decades to come.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

The proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable into a telecommunications behemoth is the media equivalent of “too big to fail” banking. If the largest cable provider in the United States is allowed to merge with the second-largest, people living in major cities, suburbs and small towns across the country will find themselves even more tightly locked into a dysfunctional relationship with a monopolistic corporation focused on maximizing profits rather than serving local citizens. At the same time, the new cable giant will own national news, entertainment, sports and Spanish-language networks. With its dominance of communications in population centers, its networks and its defining role in digital communications (as a prime provider of Internet service), a single corporation will be in an unprecedented position to dictate the development and character of media content for decades to come.

That’s too much power for any one company in a country founded on the premise that a free press must be diverse and competitive in order to provide citizens with the information they need to govern themselves. Media reform groups like Free Press have joined groups representing artists and creators like the Future of Music Coalition, as well as watchdogs like Public Knowledge, Consumers Union and Common Cause, to echo the concerns of former Federal Communications Commission head Michael Copps. “The proposed deal runs roughshod over competition and consumer choice and is an affront to the public interest,” argues Copps. The arrangement is so bad, he adds, that it should be considered “dead on arrival” when it’s presented to regulators.

Unfortunately, warns Susan Crawford, who served as President Obama’s special assistant for science, technology and innovation policy, Comcast is working to “create an air of inevitability about the deal.” It won’t be hard. Telecom corporations have developed sophisticated lobbying operations in Washington; they know how to work the back rooms and the spin cycles of the media system they seek to dominate.

To maintain competition and shape a digital future that realizes the promise of the Internet as a democratizing and enlightening force, this deal must be blocked. Is that possible? Yes. As Free Press president Craig Aaron reminds us, “Stopping this kind of deal is exactly why we have anti-trust laws.” Anti-trust arguments have worked before; indeed, as Aaron notes, “after a year of sustained organizing, we convinced the Department of Justice and the FCC to stop AT&T from gobbling up T-Mobile.” In the case of the Comcast–Time Warner deal, the Justice Department, the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission all have roles to play, and Minnesota Senator Al Franken has asked those agencies “to act quickly and decisively to ensure that consumers are not exposed to increased cable prices and decreased quality of service as a result of this transaction.”

Franken has become one of the best-regarded voices in Congress on communications policy, but his letter won’t be enough. Scrutiny must be aggressive and intense. The chair of the Senate anti-trust subcommittee, Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, has announced plans to “scrutinize the details of this merger.” That’s the right signal. Now it must be amplified. Every member of Congress must hear demands from constituents to oppose this deal. So, too, must federal regulators and Attorney General Eric Holder. This merger can be stopped. But it will require outrage and a sustained outcry from Americans who know that the only way to halt an affront to the public interest is with an overwhelming assertion of the public interest.

Take Action: Tell Congress To Block the Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x