SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 23 2014, 03:45pm EDT
Contact:
Timothy Karr: 201-533-8838,,tkarr@freepress.net
Free Press Builds upon Mountain of Evidence Against Proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger
WASHINGTON
In a filing to the Federal Communications Commission today Free Press defended its petition to deny the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, building upon the mountain of evidence already amassed against the proposed $45 billion merger. If approved, the merger would result in a communications colossus that would dominate high-speed telecommunications services in more than 60 percent of the country.
Free Press' filing (available online) urges the agency to reject the proposed merger for three primary reasons:
1) It would lead to no merger-specific benefits but ample transaction-specific harms;
2) It would occur in a market already trending towards a nationwide cable monopoly; and
3) It would give Comcast the market power and incentive to discriminate against and control the emerging high-speed online services market.
Comcast has used its already overwhelming market power to stifle innovation in the growing online video market, according to Free Press' filing. That harmful dominance would be greatly enhanced if regulators allowed Comcast to consummate its merger with Time Warner Cable.
Despite the fact that Comcast markets its broadband connections as capable of delivering content at certain speeds, its customers have been unable to access services and websites, streaming data at only a fraction of the capacity they purchased. "Content owners were more than willing to bring this content to Comcast's front door, and did not ask for any special treatment," according to Free Press' filing. "All they wanted to do was hand over the data requested by Comcast (via its customers). Instead of accepting this traffic, Comcast engaged in a cynical game of brinksmanship and exercised its market power [in ways that have] harmed millions of consumers."
The filing also highlights the threat posed by allowing a vertically integrated communications system that is devoid of consumer protections afforded to legally recognized and nondiscriminatory telecommunications services. "The Commission cannot forget the availability of telecommunications services is what let experimenters connect computers together to build the Internet half a century ago," according to Free Press' filing. "One company controlling that much of the telecom-capable infrastructure, but refusing to sell telecommunications services, would mean future innovators could not build the next interconnected network of computers."
Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood made the following statement:
"Today we presented several more facts against approval of this merger. Comcast has nothing but self-serving theories, all which have already proven wrong. The Commission has no choice but to reject this transaction.
"Letting one company control so much of America's telecommunications infrastructure puts the future of online innovation at risk. The merged entity would have the unilateral power to dictate what the Internet is today, and how that platform would be allowed to evolve. This is an unacceptable prospect for Internet users, the economy and the future of communications in America."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Report Reveals $2 Billion of New Financing by Big Banks for Oil and Gas in the Amazon
"These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”
Oct 21, 2025
A day after the Brazilian state-run oil firm Petrobras announced it would begin drilling for oil near the mouth of the Amazon River "immediately" after obtaining a license despite concerns over the impact on wildlife, an analysis on Tuesday revealed that banks have added $2 billion in direct financing for oil and gas in the biodiverse Amazon Rainforest since 2024.
The report from Stand.earth—and Petrobras' license—come weeks before officials in Belém, Brazil prepare to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), where advocates are calling for an investment of $1.3 trillion per year for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency.
Examining 843 deals involving 330 banks, Stand.earth found that US banks JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi are among the worst-performing institutions, pouring between $283 million and $326 million into oil and gas in the Amazon.
The biggest spender on oil and gas in the past year has been Itaú Unibanco, the Brazilian bank, which has sent $378 million in financing to oil and gas firms for extractive activities in the Amazon.
"Oil and gas expansion in the Amazon endangers one of the world’s most vital ecosystems and Indigenous peoples who have protected it for millennia," said Stand.earth. "In addition to fossil fuels leading global greenhouse gas emissions, in the Amazon their extraction also accelerates deforestation, and pollutes rivers and communities."
The group's research found that banks have directly financed more than $15 billion to oil and gas companies in the Amazon region since the Paris Agreement, the legally binding climate accord, was adopted in 2016. Nearly 75% of the investment has come from just 10 firms, including Itaú, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America.
The analysis comes weeks after the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance said it was suspending its operations, following decisions by several large banks to leave the alliance that was established in 2021 to limit banks' environmental footprint, achieve net-zero emissions in the sector by 2050, and set five-year goals for reducing the institutions' financing of emissions.
"Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
Devyani Singh, lead researcher for Stand.earth's new bank scorecard on fossil fuel financing, noted that European banks like BNP Paribas and HSBC have "applied more robust policies to protect the sensitive Amazon rainforest than their peers" and have "significantly dropped in financing ranks."
But, said Singh, "no bank has yet brought its financing to zero. Every one of these banks must close the existing loopholes and fully exit Amazon oil and gas without delay.”
More than 80% of the banks' Amazon fossil fuel financing since 2024 has gone to just six oil and gas companies: Petrobras, Canada's Gran Tierra, Brazil's Eneva, oil trader Gunvor, and two Peruvian companies: Hunt Oil Peru and Pluspetrol Camisea.
The companies have been associated with human rights violations and have long been resisted by Indigenous people in the Amazon region, who have suffered from health impacts of projects like the Camisea gas project, a decline in fish and game stocks, and a lack of clean water.
“It’s outrageous that Bank of America, Scotiabank, Credicorp, and Itaú are increasing their financing of oil and gas in the Amazon at a time when the forest itself is under grave threat," said Olivia Bisa, president of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Chapra Nation in Peru. "For decades, Indigenous Peoples have suffered the heaviest impacts of this destruction. We are calling on banks to change course now: by ending support for extractive industries in the Amazon, they can help protect the forest that sustains our lives and the future of the planet.”
Stand.earth's report warned that both the Amazon Rainforest—which provides a habitat for 10% of Earth's biodiversity, including many endangered species—and the people who live there are facing "escalating threats" from oil and gas companies and the firms that finance them, with centuries of exploitation driving the forest "toward an ecological tipping point with irreversible impacts that have global consequences."
Oil and gas exploration is opening roads into intact parts of the Amazon and other forests, while perpetuating the new fossil fuel emissions that scientists and energy experts have warned have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating.
"With warming temperatures, the delicate ecological balance of the Amazon could be upset, flipping it from being a carbon-absorbing rainforest into a carbon-emitting savannah," reads the group's report.
Jonas Mura, chief of the Gavião Real Indigenous Territory in Brazil, said "the noise, the constant truck traffic, and the explosions" from Eneva's projects "have driven away the animals and affected our hunting."
"Even worse: they are entering without our consent," said Mura. "Our territory feels threatened, and our families are being directly harmed. Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
"These companies have no commitment to the environment, to Indigenous and traditional peoples, or to the future of the planet," he added. "These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Court Docs Expose 'Incredibly Cynical' Trump Plot to Fire Wildlife Workers Amid Shutdown
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said one conservation advocate.
Oct 21, 2025
Court documents released Monday show that the Trump administration is exploiting the ongoing government shutdown to pursue mass firings at the US Fish and Wildlife Service amid the nation's worsening extinction crisis.
The new filings came as part of a legal fight between the administration and federal worker unions, which took emergency action earlier this month to stop the latest wave of terminations.
While the unions secured a victory last week in the form of a temporary restraining order against the new firings, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court has repeatedly proven willing to permit large-scale job cuts that labor unions and legal experts say are patently illegal and dangerous.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that the newly revealed administration push to terminate dozens of staffers at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is "really sad and troubling." The court filings show that the administration has proposed eliminating positions at the FWS Migratory Birds Program, Office of Conservation Investment, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, National Wildlife Refuge System, and other areas.
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said Zuardo. "We've lost 3 billion birds since 1970, yet the administration is slashing funding for migratory birds. It's incredibly cynical to cut programs that help struggling fish and other aquatic animals and assist landowners in conserving endangered species habitats."
The latest firing push is part of the Trump administration's sweeping effort to terminate thousands of jobs at the US Interior Department, which oversees FWS.
The attempted terminations come months after the Trump administration issued a proposal that would eviscerate habitat protections for endangered species in the United States—a push that closely aligns with the far-right Project 2025 agenda. More than 150,000 Americans used the public comment process to express opposition to the Trump administration's plan.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Monday that the proposed mass elimination of jobs at FWS would "deliver devastating blows to programs put in place to protect, restore, and conserve bird populations and their habitats."
"Court disclosures also report severe cuts to additional agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Geological Survey, and others," the group noted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Instead of Doing TikTok Videos, She Should Be Serving Her Constituents,' Johnson Says While Refusing to Swear In Grijalva
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Oct 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular