Of course, the CPUC regulates public utilities in California. The Commission gains a say in many mergers because of its broad oversight to evaluate potential effects on the price and access to telecommunications services for California residents. In that, the CPUC works with the Federal Trade Commission to align state and federal regulatory standards.
The foundation of any honest merger analysis is whether the combining parties actually compete with each other. In this case, they barely do. Charter and Cox operate in largely separate geographic markets. Fewer than one-tenth of one percent of broadband-serviceable locations in their combined footprint are served by both companies. This is a geographic expansion — two complementary networks joining forces — not a consolidation of head-to-head rivals. The competitive harm that merger skeptics reflexively invoke simply has no factual basis here.
Meanwhile, the market these companies operate in looks nothing like it did a decade ago. Fiber providers have expanded aggressively. Fixed wireless has matured into a genuine alternative for millions of households. High-speed satellite broadband has moved from novelty to real option. Mobile networks, including 5G, increasingly substitute for fixed connections. Roughly half of Cox’s existing locations already face fiber competition. The idea that approving this merger would leave California consumers without competitive options is not supported by the evidence — it contradicts it.
The consumer benefits, by contrast, are concrete. The companies project approximately $500 million in annual cost synergies within three years. Those efficiencies create tangible downward pressure on prices and free up capital for network investment. Distributing the substantial fixed costs of broadband infrastructure across a larger subscriber base improves the economics of deployment, particularly in areas where the business case for investment is otherwise thin. If California cares about broadband access in underserved communities, enabling that investment logic to work is a better policy lever than blocking a merger that harms no one.
The transaction also strengthens mobile competition. Charter’s MVNO arrangement with Verizon has produced pricing that Cox’s roughly 200,000 mobile subscribers currently cannot access. Extending those terms to Cox customers after the merger creates an immediate competitive benefit — lower-cost mobile options for consumers in markets where additional wireless competition is welcome.
There is a regulatory asymmetry problem here that deserves more attention than it typically receives. Traditional cable operators like Charter and Cox must navigate local franchise authorities, state oversight, and layers of federal compliance obligations. Streaming services and virtual pay-TV providers operate largely free of those burdens while competing directly for the same customers. Rather than piling conditions onto this merger, the Commission should recognize that allowing these companies to achieve greater scale is one of the few tools available to level a playing field tilted against traditional providers.
That asymmetry matters for the California economy. Charter has committed to maintaining a 100 percent U.S.-based customer service workforce, a standard that will extend to Cox operations following the merger. These are well-paying jobs with real benefits. In a state that talks constantly about worker protection, approving a transaction that expands a high-quality domestic workforce should be an easy call.
Free-market principles are not complicated here. Two companies that don’t compete with each other want to combine their resources to compete more effectively against larger rivals, invest more in their networks, and deliver better value to consumers. The competitive environment is robust and getting more so. The public interest case for approval is strong. The case for denial or delay is essentially nonexistent.
California regulators have an opportunity to demonstrate that the state can make a straightforward, evidence-based decision when the facts call for one. The CPUC should approve this deal without delay. California consumers are better served by competition than by process.
Bartlett Cleland is a senior fellow in tech and innovation at the Pacific Research Institute.