[ac1294]

I don't understand the arguments against the merger very well. From what I've read, there is currently very little overlap between the regions of Time Warner Cable and those of Comcast [1]. If this is correct, how could the merger allow either firm to raise the price?

There are also arguments that combining the customer base will give greater buying power when making deals over content (ex. complete broadcasting power over local sports franchises). But the combined customer base is supposed to be less than 30% of households that subscribe to cable or satellite TV [2].

I understand net neutrality is a huge concern, but that seems to be a separate issue from the Time Warner - Comcast merger. It looks like the problem (which is addressed at the end of the post) is higher barriers to entry from local governments. If that's the root cause of net neutrality, that probably deserves more focus than just preventing a merger.

[1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/six-takeways...

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/28/news/companies/comcast-timer...

[nitrogen]

I don't understand the arguments against the merger very well. From what I've read, there is currently very little overlap between the regions of Time Warner Cable and those of Comcast [1]. If this is correct, how could the merger allow either firm to raise the price?

Raising the consumer price is only one of many things ComcastWarner could do. Having an even larger marketshare would allow them, for example, to extort more content distributors for more paid peering and hosting, for example.

But the combined customer base is supposed to be less than 30% of households that subscribe to cable or satellite TV [2].

30% is a very big number! No company would voluntarily give up 30% of its income over a distribution dispute, so ComcastWarner would be able to extract far more concessions from content producers.

It looks like the problem (which is addressed at the end of the post) is higher barriers to entry from local governments.

A larger ComcastWarner would have even more lobbying power to ensure those barriers to entry remain high.

[hsitz]

"From what I've read, there is currently very little overlap between the regions of Time Warner Cable and those of Comcast [1]. If this is correct, how could the merger allow either firm to raise the price?"

I read an article on this the other day, can't find it right now. The objection is based on the merged company gaining too much power over (potentially competing) content providers, not over their own customers. I think the gist of it was that Netflix (or any similar company that serves content requested by ISP customers) might be able to thwart "extortion" by individual smaller ISP's, because if Netflix stood up to the ISP and ISP responded by cutting off Netflix service, Netflix would still be able to survive and derive sufficient profit by serving the population of ISP's in other areas. If a single ISP serves too much area/population, however, Netflix's negotiating power falls rapidly. In Time Warner/Comcast case, the single merged company would control so much area that as a practical matter Netflix would have to do whatever they demanded, because Netflix would lose too much money if it tried to fight the extortion and lost ability to serve all Time Warner/Comcast customers. (I believe crux of this argument depends on antitrust laws preventing individual ISP's from acting in concert against Netflix, which laws would not apply against Time Warner/Comcast as single entity.)

So basically the argument is that the TimeWarner/Comcast merger would create a company that has too much power over its competitors, leveraging its function as last-mile ISP to gain unfair advantage over content providers it competes with in providing its own content.

I did find the article, and there's a lot more to it than what I wrote in previous paragraphs: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5678080/voxsplaining-telecom