It’s hard to believe it’s been over a year since Comcast ruined my Valentine’s Day plans by announcing its proposed takeover of Time Warner Cable. (Coincidence that I had a hot date that night with Comcast foe Netflix? You be the judge.)

But there’s no love lost because what Comcast once thought was a done deal is now looking more tenuous with each passing day — and rightfully so.

Last year Comcast tried to sell its merger with Time Warner Cable by saying that it was no biggie because the two companies don't compete head to head. It's somewhat true that most cable companies don't compete with one another; decades ago they agreed to carve up the country and stake out their territories. (The impact of those decisions is a blog for another day.)

Despite the tragic reality that is the competition-free cable market, the fact remains that a larger Comcast would be a nightmare for competition and the public interest.

What Comcast knows and what it hopes that regulators will overlook is that there’s more than one way to rig the game and snuff out competition. Sure, taking out a direct competitor is one. Another is to acquire a firm that produces a complement to your business, as Comcast did when it bought mammoth media empire NBCUniversal.

And yet another is to become so enormous that anyone who dreams of success has to go through you to get it. That is what Comcast is after this time around.

This merger would create a telecommunications goliath that controls the infrastructure reaching into 75 million American homes — nearly 6 out of every 10. The merged company would control 4 out of every 10 current subscribers to advanced broadband service, and half of the nation’s bundled Internet access and pay-TV customers.

So what’s the significance of Comcast lording over all of those broadband customers?

First, there’s streaming video, which has been the primary driver of the broadband market in recent years. Consumer demand for streaming video has motivated cable broadband companies to offer higher speeds —something they’ve been reticent to do because they have their own legacy video businesses to protect. Those higher speeds have paved the way for even more innovation as other content and services in the Internet ecosystem have been able to take advantage.

Here’s the gotcha. As a pay-TV and content provider, Comcast has tremendous incentives to relegate streaming video to a complementary niche market so that cable television remains King. Lest we forget, Comcast has already taken steps to frustrate the growth of the streaming video industry. Last year, Comcast used its customers as pawns to shake down Netflix for cash. In doing so, Comcast demonstrated its existing muscle and its willingness to use it. Getting bigger would only increase Comcast’s incentives (and ability) to harm further development of the streaming video market.

But it’s not only the streaming video market that would suffer. If Comcast is able to exert more and more gatekeeper power, everything that relies on broadband would suffer.

Broadband is now the primary way Americans connect, communicate and build community. The Internet lets people empower themselves politically and economically. It gives those who are traditionally left out of national debates or marginalized by traditional media the agency to represent themselves and their beliefs in a genuine way. It’s a cornerstone of our economy, and a linchpin of our nation’s future.

But if the FCC and the Justice Department approve the merger, Comcast could unilaterally dictate how the Internet functions today — and what it may look like tomorrow.

No one company should have all that power.

Original photo by Flickr user Knight725