Comcast put forth an argument this week in favor of its merger with TWC. In the final of a five part series, we look at contradictions in Comcast's argument.

Read Part One of "Comcast's Competitors?" DLS and Google Fiber

Read Part Two of "Comcast's Competitors?" Wireless Broadband

Read Part Three of "Comcast's Competitors?" Digital Divide

Read Part Four of "Comcast's Competitors?" Net Neutrality

How Comcast's Net Neutrality and "Streaming Video Rivals" Argument Makes No Sense Together.

Part of why Comcast argues it needs to consolidate with TWC is because the future of Cable TV is in trouble. That's true. Last year was the worst year ever for Cable TV, as online video on demand and streaming services like Netflix, iTunes, and Google's videos services continued to offer great content and better delivery.

Cohen plays up the online video competition in his blog post, assuring everyone that there is, and will continue to be, "a dynamic and increasingly mobile and global marketplace overflowing with innovation and consumer choice." Cohen cites Netflix's 33 million customers in the U.S., and Google's 157 million unique viewers each month as evidence of both healthy competition, and a reason why Comcast/TWC will have to merge to compete.

But as The New York Times' David Carr mentioned, after the merger, Comcast will control 30 percent of cable (after divesting millions of TWC subscribers to hit that maximum allowed by law) and 40 percent in broadband. Comcast will control nearly half of the country's broadband market share if the merger happens.

And as competitive as Netflix and others can be, and as legally bound as Comcast is to the Open Internet (at least for the next four years), the argument that online video will continue to be healthy competition to Comcast/TWC doesn't make any sense. Even this year, before Comcast has expanded its power to dictate the future of the internet, Netflix still had to pay Comcast a toll for better service to its customers. It technically didn't violate the Open Internet rules, but it caused Netflix's CEO Reed Hastings to call for a new, deeper, definition of net neutrality in order to prevent Comcast from charging more fees.

That's before the merger, and before 2018. Afterwards, who knows what power Comcast will have over internet streaming services. Arguing that there is a robust and healthy competition in the streaming video marketplace, when after the merger, you'll own the largest percentage of the pipes that those streaming services need, is like if Coca-Cola argued it had plenty of competition from Pepsi and RC -- while simultaneously arguing that it needed to control and lease 40 percent of the nation's soda machines.

The Final Competition Conundrum

No hard feelings to Comcast for putting forward its best arguments for the merger, even if the internal logic between them doesn't hold -- no good PR would do it differently.

But there's a final perplexing argument from Comcast, which actually is true. Cohen argues the merger with TWC isn't anti-competitive because," Comcast and TWC do not compete against each other in any area, so there is no reduction in consumer choice in any market." Comcast provides a red state/blue state-type map proving this:

Why is that? How did the two major cable companies in the nation manage not to compete in any particular market for so long? And why is that not only the case with Comcast and TWC? As David Carr points out, Verizon also doesn't compete with Comcast.

Lack of cable competition in most areas of the country is not particularly Comcast's fault, but it's something the proposed merger with TWC brings our attention to. Even in areas where a smaller cable company operates, it's likely to be a (for profit, non-public) monopoly. That situation is maybe something we should all think long and hard about.

Read Part One of "Comcast's Competitors?" DLS and Google Fiber

Read Part Two of "Comcast's Competitors?" Wireless Broadband

Read Part Three of "Comcast's Competitors?" Digital Divide