Charter, Cox Pitch Merger to FCC
They said the combined company would be better able to compete for fixed and mobile broadband subscribers.
WASHINGTON, July 16, 2025 – Charter’s proposed $34.5 billion acquisition of Cox Communications would allow the combined company to better compete for fixed and mobile broadband subscribers, the companies told federal regulators Tuesday.
The cable operators noted in a filing to the Federal Communications Commission, which will have to approve the deal, that fiber and fixed wireless have been gaining ground in recent years, while cable companies have been steadily losing subscribers.
Fiber, for example, is currently available in more than half of Charter’s footprint and about half of Cox’s, the companies pointed out. And “Each nationwide mobile broadband provider can potentially market fixed wireless offerings to a customer base that is more than twice as large as the subscriber base of Charter and Cox combined. Their fixed wireless offerings today collectively reach at least 38.4 million locations with advertised speeds of at least 100 * 20 [megabits per second], and they are continuing to expand.”
Charter CEO Chris Winfrey has historically bashed fixed wireless as “cell phone internet” because of its slower speeds.
“In this competitive environment, keeping pace means looking for ways to offer consumers more value and better products and services,” the companies wrote. “The Transaction will allow the combined company to do exactly that.”
Charter and fellow cable giant Comcast have recently begun new pricing programs in a bid to assuage consumer frustration over price hikes, something they’ve identified as a key reason subscribers keep looking elsewhere.
The Charter-Cox merger would not result in anticompetitive harms – a pong of the FCC’s analysis when reviewing deals – the companies said, because their footprints largely do not overlap.
“Overlaps between Charter’s and Cox’s mass-market broadband footprints are extremely limited, covering well below 0.1 percent of homes passed,” less than the overlap between Verizon and Frontier, whose merger the agency recently approved, the companies wrote.
The combined company would be the largest ISP in the country, with 69.5 million passings and 35.9 million residential and business broadband subscribers. Analysts don't expect the deal to have difficulty securing regulatory approval.
Mobile
The cable giants have also been leaning into their mobile services to get and retain customers. Offering bundled fixed and mobile broadband appears to keep subscribers around longer and produce better margins.
And its another area, Charter and Cox told the FCC, where the combined company would be better suited to compete against the major wireless carriers.
“The Transaction will enable the combined company to offer [Charter’s] more competitive Spectrum Mobile product to consumers in Cox’s footprint, enhancing competition in the overall mobile wireless landscape,” the companies wrote.
Charter’s mobile service counts more than 10 million subscribers. It’s provided via an agreement with Verizon, but the cable operator offloads the large majority of traffic via Wi-Fi and has been rolling out more of its CBRS spectrum.
Cox’s mobile service, also provided via a deal with Verizon, is still just getting off the ground. It has about 200,000 subscribers according to filing the companies made with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That, according to analysts, represents the biggest plus of the Charter-Cox deal: offering Charter’s mobile service across Cox’s roughly 6 million-location footprint. Cable companies are effectively the fourth national competitor to the three dominant wireless carriers, New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin wrote last week, with EchoStar still struggling to compete even without FCC probes threatening its business.
“The Transaction will enable Spectrum pricing and packaging, with generally lower promotional and persistent multi-product pricing and customer commitments, across an expanded and under-penetrated footprint,” the companies wrote.
Member discussion