Charter/Cox Backers See Consumer and Competition Upsides
Numerous chambers of commerce and free-market advocacy groups have lined up at the FCC behind Charter Communications' proposed purchase of Cox Communications. The $34.5 billion deal was announced in May (see 2505160060). Submissions in docket 25-233 last week filed during the federal government shutdown saw numerous backers arguing for quick FCC approval. Ziply Fiber sought conditions.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
New York Law School's Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute pushed for the deal to be approved without conditions. Rather than harm consumers or competition, Charter/Cox "comes in response to competitive pressure from intermodal rivals and insatiable consumer demand for all-things broadband. The merger is thus positioned to enhance -- not hinder -- competition."
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said cable ISPs are competing against all broadband providers, not just other cable ISPs. "Reshuffling the market to have fewer, stronger competitors will create a more stable long-term environment for competition to play out," the group said. "Companies like Cox and Charter must find ways to reduce costs, or they will lose market share to ISPs who can."
Charter/Cox "passes all the tests" economically, the American Consumer Institute said, as it involves markets with little geographic overlap, won't reduce competition or squeeze out local competitors, and would strengthen competition against wireless carriers. The institute said the cable ISPs operate in a high-fixed-cost industry, and the merger would likely improve efficiency and competition by furthering economies of scale.
The Free State Foundation also said Charter/Cox would boost competition in the broadband, mobile and video marketplaces, while there don't appear to be big transaction-specific harms, "given the de minimis extent to which the applicants' footprints overlap and the indisputable widespread existence of competitive pressures." Jeffrey Westling, the American Action Forum's former director of technology and innovation policy, advised much the same.
Consultant Vance Ginn, who was a chief economist at the OMB during the first Trump administration, said Charter/Cox is a test of "whether policymakers will stop punishing scale for its own sake and return to enforcing the law, absent from politics." The deal, while "not flashy ... is a chance to show that America is back to doing business again -- on merit, not politics."
The Center for American Rights, which has pressed the FCC for investigations of ABC (see 2509040045) and CBS (see 2503100073), said Charter has undertaken diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the past but appears now to comply with the FCC's "standards prohibiting invidious racial discrimination." The group said Charter's investments "in its largely blue-collar workforce reflect an admirable appreciation for its employees and their families."
Opposing the deal, Ziply Fiber said Charter refuses to provide access to dark fiber and interconnection points on routes funded by federal programs such as the Rural Health Care Pilot Program. It advocated that approval of Charter/Cox be conditioned on Charter providing reasonable, nondiscriminatory access to interconnection points, dark fiber and capacity built with federal support.
Other supporters of the Charter/Cox deal included free-market advocates such as the James Madison Institute, Bluegrass Institute, Pelican Institute and Digital Liberty, as well as connectivity advocate Kramden Institute. Business and economic development interests also urging FCC approval included Tech Nebraska, JobsOhio, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.