Maybe the Department of Justice has a point: Putting the nation’s largest TV provider—and second-largest wireless carrier—in charge of the company that runs HBO and Turner networks could lead to higher prices and fewer choices. That, in turn, could weaken the factors that have allowed cord-cutting to flourish over the past few years–namely, a decline in traditional pay-TV viewers and a wave of new streaming alternatives.

But even without AT&T, Time Warner could still move to increase its prices, especially if it turns around and merges with another major TV programmer. Unless the government becomes similarly opposed to mega-mergers between media companies–like the one that’s pending with Disney and Fox–cord-cutters could be worse off with or without a merged AT&T and Time Warner. Here’s why.

The Devil You Know

The DOJ’s main argument is that AT&T would would gain too much power over its pay-TV competitors if it owned Time Warner’s channels. To prop up its satellite-TV business—and its DirecTV Now streaming bundle—AT&T could, the DOJ argues, charge other providers more to carry Time Warner channels, such as HBO, TNT, and CNN. Those providers would then either be forced to forgo those channels or pass the costs onto customers, giving AT&T an unfair advantage.

That outcome seems unlikely, though. When Comcast bought NBCUniversal in 2011, the company was required to offer its channels to other TV providers under fair and reasonable terms for the next seven years. If a direct assault on competing services was the concern, the government could always impose similar conditions with this acquisition. AT&T has said it would agree to such conditions, which would at least curb the most blatant anticompetitive behavior.

However, AT&T’s real post-merger advantage will probably be more insidious. Instead of punishing competitors directly, the company could use its wireless and home internet businesses to steer customers toward its own content. This already happens today with DirecTV Now, which AT&T exempts from counting against wireless customers’ data caps. Down the road, AT&T could extend the same privileges to HBO or future services offered by Time Warner. And once carriers adopt 5G wireless technology, AT&T could bring the same uneven playing field to home internet users.

On the surface, these perks might seem beneficial. But in the long run, consumers would be worse off with their internet providers acting as content gatekeepers. Choosing the right provider would no longer be about price, reliability, and customer service, but about which one offers favorable terms for the customer’s preferred video service.