NEW YORK TIMES Editorial: … Because it would control such a large chunk of the country, Comcast would have significant leverage in contract negotiations with media companies over what TV channels cable companies are willing to carry and how much they pay for them. Such contract talks have become increasingly acrimonious in recent years. For example, in August Time Warner Cable temporarily pulled CBS programing from its cable systems in New York, Los Angeles and Dallas because the two companies couldn’t agree on the terms of a new contract.
The merger could also strengthen Comcast’s position in its dealings with businesses like Netflix that send data to customers over broadband connections. Representatives for cable and phone companies have argued that content companies should pay them fees to transport movies and online video on top of the monthly charges individuals pay for Internet access. A recent federal appeals court decision made it easier for cable and phone companies to demand such payments by striking down Federal Communications Commission rules that required broadband providers to treat all Internet content alike…
An all-powerful cable company, for example, would be able to influence and control what Americans could watch or read by refusing to carry channels or certain Internet services, or it could favor its own content. Comcast, for example, might find it tempting to treat programming from NBC Universal,which it owns, better than shows from rival networks and movie studios…. (more)
EDITOR: Are there any businesses we have to deal with that we dislike more than our CABLE companies? Why would we want to give them even more power and monopoly profits?
As long as big business does governments bidding you will not see any objection. I point to the big banks as recent proof. There was a time when business interests were challenged, the high point being the breakup of standard oil. Bigness is not automatically bad but it must be balanced against restraint of trade and public harm.