Glenn sounds off on the Comcast/Time Warner merger

The two biggest cable companies in the United States are attempting to join forces as Comcast is trying to buy Time Warner Cable for a cool $45.2 billion. The deal is likely to face a yearlong approval process involving the FCC and either the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. Needless to say, customers and regulators aren’t exactly thrilled with the idea of having even less options on the cable provider front. And while Glenn is certainly not a fan of government regulation, he did question the merger on radio this morning.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“Man, am I torn because I am not for getting involved in anybody’s business. And whatever companies want to do, companies should do. Let them succeed on their own or collapse under their own weight. When an industry has to run to Congress and say, ‘Oh, help, help, help, help, help,’ that’s a sign that that industry is about to collapse,” Glenn said. “Right now, Comcast is trying to buy Time Warner, which makes them gigantic. And I don’t have a problem. As Mike Rowe said, there is nothing inherently bad with being big. There’s nothing inherently bad with being small. It’s just where you are. And survive on your own merit.”

Regardless of how you feel about the future of cable. There are obviousl concerns about further limiting the number of options available. Last month, TheBlaze released a video that shows a very select group of people control what you see on TV:

TheBlaze’s CEO, Chris Balfe, was quoted in a Variety article expressing his concerns about what the merger could mean for independent voices:

“As monopolies in the markets that they serve, cable companies often ignore their subscribers’ wishes,” said Chris Balfe, the company’s CEO. “Major MVPDs do not have a good history of supporting independent programmers whose content is in demand like TheBlaze and we are skeptical that giving Comcast even more market power will benefit consumers, promote competition or lead to more diversity of voices or consumer choice on their channel line ups.”

Neither Comcast nor Time Warner has added TheBlaze to their channel lineups despite your persistent calls and emails. Glenn suggested now might be a good time to remind these providers you would like to see TheBlaze added.

“Comcast is one of the bigger pains in the neck for TheBlaze… Companies can run the way they want… I don’t think there’s a problem with calling up Comcast now and saying, ‘Hey, I hear you guys are going up in front of congressional hearings because you don’t listen to your people. And there’s really no balance… Have you guys thought about carrying TheBlaze?’ I just think that it would be an opportunity to remind them. Like right now, there seems to be an opportunity.”

You can learn more about how to get TheBlaze by visiting You can also call 1.800.996.BLAZE to be connected to your TV provider directly.

“There’s no such thing as too big to fail. People will fail because they suck, no matter how big they are. If they suck and government does not create special favors for them, then there’s nothing natural stop them from failing,” Glenn concluded. “U.S. out of my business, out of my bedroom, out of other people’s business that might be my competitor. Get out of our way. That’s really the message. That’s the message to Washington.”

  • MarsBarsTru7

    “Companies” wouldn’t exist without government intervention to begin with. Not only that, media is regulated to the point of absurdity. So for the government to step in and block a monopoly creation like this, *that* would be government interference in the market we take notice of… Really? Lets remember a single word that should put this into perspective: BAILOUTS

    If the government is going to be involved at all in this fascist corporatist economy we have then blocking consolidation of a given industry is something I’m not opposed to.

    “If the government doesn’t create special favors for them…” – Beck
    THEY ALREADY DO GLENN! That’s why Comcast exists as it does. For the govt. to block this wouldn’t be the initiation of government interference in the market. It would be them managing the market mess they created in the first place.

    • Bill Tilghman

      LOL! You mean THEY didn’t build that???

      The irony drips from this deal like the icicles from the eaves of my house.

      They have a monopoly that rivals Standard Oil of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Funny how the trust busting of that era seems all too absent now.

    • Mike Nelson

      I think you have it backwards… government would not exist without cooperatives of business interests; doing successful business is more profitable than war for everyone but the expert war-makers and the companies that supply them.

      Barring bare survival, commerce came first, then battles, then rules for commerce (as the lesser evil of war vs talking), then more battles, then cooperatives and conglomerates, then wars, then expert war-making groups, then, and only then, and only through extensive loss of life in yet more war, came governance by dominion, and finally representative elects.

      Individual commerce has always existed. Always.

      • Anonymous

        I admire your post, but I’m pensively reflecting on your point from a something of a philosophical standpoint.

        Does it matter? Individual commerce has always existed just as individual violence has always existed. War is simply organized violence. Both innately require organization between human beings. On the other hand, “business” in any rational sense of the modern word, requires the establishment of government.

        Would you argue that modern private businesses would be capable of responsibly carrying out both?

        • Mike Nelson

          It was more the first line of the original post, than any of the rest of it (“Companies” wouldn’t exist without government intervention to begin with.) to which I responded.

          The idea that government came before companies required address, imo, because from that perspective the case can be (inaccurately) made that government enabled the formation of companies, which is untrue… corporations, yes, but NOT companies. As I am a free market proponent, that sentiment cannot prevail in any camp I would be a part of, because it leads to a broken priority.

          I cannot agree with your sentiment that war is “simply” organized violence; the UFC is organized violence; boxing is organized violence; any contact sport is organized violence; mobsters extorting businesses is organized violence; union actions are, at times, organized (and in the US, indeed protected) violence, and so are police raids on people who dare to have “illegal plants” in their possession.

          Modern warfare is a highly complex organization of preparation for violence that requires various logistical measures be properly executed, including indoctrination, propaganda, and generational conditioning, the conflux of which, imo, independent private companies are incapable of carrying out at all, let alone doing so responsibly, unless you want to go to the level of calling Skull & Bones a private company (which it is, the executives of which run whole governments, but let’s not muddy the waters).

          However, to get to the meat of your challenge, I do not think there are many cases of war being carried out “responsibly” in the modern day by any definition of the word (for purposes of this discussion, let us assume post-industrial revolution). This is because the only effective way to end wars is to unambiguously defeat a foe, removing their very will to resist… which catastrophically devastating action I define as “responsible” only in light of the fact that the purpose of a war should be to end it, and the perceived threat, as quickly as possible. (There’s another whole discussion here, but that is… well, it’s another whole discussion; perhaps you will be unsurprised to know that Iron Man was always my favorite comic as a kid — second to GI Joe, of course.).

          Genghis Khan was in my view an expert strategist, and could in some ways be extolled as a humanitarian, because his measures were designed to promote conciliatory behavior rather than battle… but woe to his early targets, and any who challenged his decree. I believe the same of General William Tecumseh Sherman of the US Union Army in the US Civil War (reference the burning of Atlanta). These men understood the aspect of Sun Tzu that causes war to not need be fought.

          I think you make a good point about the similarities of war and business, and from a strategic/logistical perspective they can/must be viewed and waged in similar fashion, as proven by the relatively high recruiting value of military officers and senior NCOs employed by large corporations upon their exit from active service, but you will surely note that neither do modern wars ever really end, nor do the corporate interests who recruit officers wish to destroy a market that promises to be, or remains, profitable.

          At the bottom line, I think that a company whose business interest is not the making or supplying of war or fears of war, would always welcome as many clients as they can comfortably supply. Assuming the purpose of business is to make money, this would appear to indicate that a peaceable state of affairs would naturally facilitate the execution of business matters (max trade for max profits) over a desire for conflict (loss of partners, market share, or clients), and therefore the greatest opportunities for both growth and profit.

          That said, when you can eliminate the competition in order to usurp market share, the risk-reward curve must be carefully considered… and hence the circumstance of the modern era. But I tend to think that private businesses would find the execution of warfare at the scale we see today far beyond the scope of profitability, the exception, of course, being the expert warfare specialists.

          IMO, the real question is, ‘Is the cost of government worth the price?’

          To a modern people who do not understand what it means that bandits were both a rampant hazard and a life-and-death proposition so short a time ago as the early 1900s (and even today, in some places), the answer, sadly, remains “yes.”

          • Anonymous

            I really appreciated your beautifully crafted, carefully worded response. We’re basically on the same page.

            Sorry for being off the reservation.

          • Mike Nelson

            Real Life first mate…. but you should know, I’ve been wasting away without your challenge and discourse…

            If you haven’t looked at other accounts in a while to find new information, you may wish to relive your thorny past just a bit, too.

            Belated blessings of the Spring Equinox.

      • MarsBarsTru7

        Commerce has always existed. I’m a free market advocate and I know that the default is freedom. It takes intervention by groups/government making impositions on people in order to limit/eliminate the free market.

        However, corporations exist by law only. There is a specific structure for a business to have in order to qualify as a corporation, and those structures are built on the laws that regulate and enable corporate structure to exist – specifically the limited liability and accountability of ownership. Law is an extension of the government. Corporations therefore do not exist except by the will of the government. That’s my point. Not that government is necessary to create or maintain a market, but that government intervention creates the possibility of and incentive to invest in corporations.

        • Mike Nelson

          That’s about what I thought you meant, but the way you said it (companies, rather than corps) was what I had to respond to.

          I’ve read enough of your posts that I can read between the lines, but as I explained in the latter post (below Flint’s – who is an elucidating conversationalist, if a bit of a gleeful troller, heh) there’s difference enough in those terms that I was compelled to reply.


  • Stephan Bruno

    HA HA HA!!! Glenn is mad cause these two companies want nothing to do with his crazy ass!!!

    • Revan

      And they are doing so well without him oh wait a minute they are failing.

      • Stephan Bruno

        So with that same logic since Glenn is always begging for money and asking you idiots to pray for him and his station like he is Oral Fucking Roberts I can assume he is failing then?

    • Bill Tilghman


  • Revan

    I would not want to get on that sinking ship if I where you Glenn.

  • landofaahs

    Drop the cable and get a life. Don’t feed the beast of liberalism.

    • Bill Tilghman

      Beautiful! Now most of the nation is served pablum by one huge bland corporate beast.

      I love the way these guys attack the satellite dish companies, yet fail to reveal they operate on satellite feeds themselves. The rich tradition of their hypocrisy is stunning.

    • Revan

      Cable sucks.

    • CrapsDealer

      I cancelled my cable subscription months ago and bought a Roku Streaming Player. Now I enjoy current and old television reruns that aren’t on cable, plus all the movies I could ask for…and I watch what I want, when I want. I’ll never go back to cable.

    • MrOzMan

      Tried Comcast, Cableone, Dish Network, and DirecTV. They all suck. I also stream now, but I guess I still have to pay for my internet connection and subscription to Amazon. We need more choices. This merger would reduce them.

  • Anonymous

    Liberal shows are JUNK !!

  • Anonymous

    I just heard an idea that makes a lot of sense……Liberalism is a mental illness. It was mentioned on one of the talk shows…can’t remember which one….but it sure explains many, many decisions that are being made. :)

    • Isabel Benitez

      Michael Savage said it first.

  • marlene

    The worst thing about this “merger” is that comcast began as an illegal monopoly. They pushed out greater media and verizon was allowed in through fiber optics as long as they agreed to keep their rates as high as comcast. And now there is one….Watch out for the airline industry – soon there will be one…

    • Isabel Benitez

      comcast was never an illegal monopoly. It has the backing of town, state, and federal governments. The monoply was pushed by all levels of governments, not by comcast.

  • landofaahs

    I really can’t see much difference between Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Glenn Beck. They produce no physical product like a manufacturer or a famer. They stir the pot and write books that those who agree with them line up to divest themselves of their wealth to buy that would be better used to provide for their families. Glenn and Al and Jesse would call themselves businesses and I guess that is true just like our whole country seems to be doing. I guess congressmen would call themselves entrepreneurs All talkers and no doer’s. We are just trading back and forth the money printed by the Fed. I’m sure that will gather some ire, which is fine, but just please think and be honest.

    • wbaltzley

      They DO provide value for their listeners–they feed the confirmation bias of their audiences, making them feel superior to “blind sheeple” who disagree with their views. It is this sense of smug superiority they sell to the masses, and in so doing amass fortunes that they themselves take as a sign of their own superiority and the justness of their cause.

      All value in life derives from achieving a state of Peace, Power, Enjoyment, and Love. All other things are ancillary to achieving this state.

  • Anonymous

    This is a perfect example of how “free markets” are not “free.” As usual, Beck identifies the problem, and then runs from the solution because it would contradict his devotion to capitalism. Oh, once these companies are so big they tend to ignore “programs that are in demand,” explains the Blaze’s CEO. Demand with no supply. An obvious obstruction of supply. Monopolies kill markets. Competition strengthens them and gives power to the consumer. Moreover, an argument for or against the validity of “too big to fail” is not necessarily related to monopoly destruction of free markets. “Too big to fail” mainly refers to the economic impact if said company fails and millions lose their jobs, their savings, credit markets dry up, etc…i.e. banks and lending institutions.
    Breaking up a cable monopoly is not the same thing. If there is only one option, there is no choice. Most of GB’s fans, given only one cable option, will not give up their duck dynasty, their faux news, their sunday football, if that means making a stand against big cable and opting to go without.
    Beck really wants to sound off on this gross perversion of free market capitalism, but he knows he’ll contradict himself and–especially since the issue hits so close to his pocket book–he’ll sound completely hypocritical.

    • wbaltzley

      “Beck…runs from the solution because it would contradict his devotion to capitalism…” The Cognitive Dissonance must be killing him.

      However, there is a way to reconcile capitalism with “trust-busting” and this is the fact that all monopolies originate in government action. The railroad tycoons made their money from government contracts during the Civil War.

      Thomas Edison made his early money off selling goods to passengers riding on trains, and later by operating a telegraph–another system funded by government. From here he invented the stock ticker, which gave him the money to start his first inventing company where he invented the phonograph and his first lightbulb. Later he would gain funding from J.D.Rockefeller–who made his money primarily by financing Government ventures–and thus establish General Electric (GE).

      Henry Ford worked as an engineer for Edison, where he made enough money to begin tinkering with gasoline engines and invent his first car. After failing on his own he received funding from Alexander Malcomson who made his money in coal–an industry heavily subsidized by government to support other government subsidized industries. Ford made a fortune selling automobiles to people who benefited from those government subsidized industries, driving on roads subsidized by government, and filling up on gasoline subsidized by government demand.

      The rise of every corporation in the Fortune 1000 can trace its roots back to government interventions, subsidies, and contracts.

    • Isabel Benitez

      no one is too big to fail. When big companies fail the people that were hidden in their shadows have wonderful opportunities to do things better. We have not lived in a free market for a very long time, a free market would always be better. The cable companies never created the monopoly, the town, state, and federal governments did that by only allowing one cable company per town.

  • Igor Shafarevich

    With today’s Internet technology, the seeds of liberty can be spread faster, repeated more often, and affirmed to a wider audience than ever before.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately cable is the best supplier of broadband. These companies are already monopolistic and the merger would create a barrier to competition and invite price fixing. This is bad for consumers and the FTC should act.

  • KJinAZ

    Does anyone remember when Anti-Trust laws actually worked?

    Didn’t we split up ATT so we could have more competiton.

  • KJinAZ

    Learn to use the XBMC app, and you CAN get rid of Cable TV. You can watch just about anything for free on the net.

    My bill for 1 HDTV without a DVR, or any extra channels just went to $93. I cancelled it last week.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.