According to a filing made by Comcast Entertainment Group with the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, the purpose of its merger with Time Warner Cable is to create a stronger company. Moreover, Comcast dispelled reports that the merger will increase competitive threat as it claims that the number of ways consumers and businesses get their video, broadband and phone services is growing, The Hollywood Reporter said. Also, Comcast said that the consolidation is actually beneficial to the public, as the company intends to voluntary extend majority of its protections of its three-year commitments when it acquired NBCUniversal in 2009.

The filing also attempted to reject suggestions that the merger will violate net neutrality rules. Comcast argued in the filing that the reach of net neutrality could be 40% achieved, thanks to the planned merger, THR added.

Part of the filing read, "This transaction, therefore, will spread the reach of those protections to all of TWC's customers. The Open Internet rules were designed to establish baseline requirements to foster the virtuous cycle of innovation involving edge providers and to provide consumers and edge providers some important certainty. Each company has had some success, but its limited geographic scope has constrained its ability to offer truly meaningful competition to the established providers," says Comcast in the filing. "The combined company's greater geographic reach and its combined expertise and services will allow it to become a stronger competitor, offering businesses of all sizes better options, lower prices, higher quality and enhanced services."

As to the main object of contestation, Comcast said that the company and Time Warner Cable provides services that do not overlap, and that there is no issue on the merger securing a lion's share of the market should the consolidation would proceed.

Comcast has been fending off class-action and individual lawsuits opposing to the merger with Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable investor Breffni Barrett, for example, argued in his filing with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan that the sale of the company undervalued the TWC on terms of its selling price.