(FORTUNE Magazine) – On a warm day in early October, Stephen Heins of Oshkosh, Wis., traveled to Washington to tell anyone who would listen that Time Warner is trying to run him out of business. A few months ago, no one would have listened. After all, smalltime operators like Heins don't usually have much firepower against the likes of Time Warner. But this trip was perfectly timed. Just weeks before Time Warner's $110 billion merger with AOL is expected to clear, suddenly everyone--from regulators to the press--is listening to what Heins has to say. His small online service provider, NorthNet, is fighting Time Warner to access its cable lines. "This is very exciting--I met with staffers from the FCC all morning; now reporters are calling," Heins said from his mobile phone as he raced across town to meet with the FCC. A week later he was interviewed by CNN and had plans to hold a press conference. "I'm getting my 15 minutes," he joked.

These days, it seems, just about anyone with a gripe against either AOL or Time Warner (parent of FORTUNE's publisher) is getting at least 15 minutes. "They're coming out of the woodwork," says John Corcoran, media analyst at CIBC. This month, Margaret Heffernan, CEO of iCast, told Congress about AOL's monopolistic hold on the instant-messaging market. Dave Baker of EarthLink protested about Time Warner's grip on high-speed Internet access. Yahoo, Excite@Home, CMGI, and others have banded to form an anti-AOL/Time Warner coalition. And Disney, the merger's chief gadfly, has protested just about any issue that comes up. "They've all got a laundry list of commercial things they want, and they are making a lot of noise," says Paul Cappuccio, AOL's general counsel. "That's really all it is--noise by competitors."

All this noise, however, is starting to have a big impact. Each new grievance (earlier this month it was ties to AT&T) creates the potential for a new condition to the merger. Already, before getting the European Commission's approval last week, Time Warner had to sacrifice its $20 billion deal with EMI. AOL had to sever partnerships with Bertelsmann and Vivendi. Now U.S. regulators are bearing down. Although they aren't expected to make a final decision for a few weeks--and won't discuss the terms of the merger until then--it looks as though there may be some further bloodletting at Time Warner's cable system and AOL's instant-messaging platform. Right now regulators are in the midst of deciding whether these systems should be forced open, giving rival Internet services access to them.

These are the toughest potential conditions to the deal that AOL and Time Warner face. After all, we're talking about giving competitors access to millions of AOL/Time Warner customers. So as regulators near their decision, the question now arises, for both companies: Are they giving up too much to get the deal done?

For Time Warner, losing control over its cable system will be a heavy toll. Right now, through its proprietary Road Runner Internet service, Time Warner controls access to high-speed Internet lines for its 12.6 million cable customers. Once rival Internet services are allowed onto the system, they'll control content and services. While Time Warner says it plans to open its system eventually, competitors say that's just lip service. Heins' NorthNet points to a deal Time Warner recently offered: NorthNet could use the system if it agreed to give Time Warner 75% of subscription revenue and 25% of advertising revenue. "No one could survive under those terms," says Heins. (Time Warner didn't respond to questions regarding this story).

For AOL, as with Time Warner, the issue is losing control. Right now it controls approximately 90% of the instant-messaging traffic on the Internet, and no other Internet services can reach those customers. Competitors cry monopoly. "It's as if Motorola wouldn't let someone who used Nokia call its customers," complains Ross Bagully, senior vice president for messaging at CMGI. But opening up the system would give rivals--like Yahoo and Excite@Home--a back door to reach AOL's vast customer base. "That's very dangerous," says Corcoran of CIBC. "AOL clearly has a strong interest in being the very last one to open this one up." AOL insists it will open up the system eventually but won't commit to a specific date. Competitors argue that by the time it gets around to it, they could be out of business.

Okay, so worst-case scenario: Regulators tell Time Warner and AOL that they've each got six months to open up their systems. Would the merger still be worthwhile? "Even if all those conditions are imposed," insists Kathy Styponais of Prudential Securities, "this deal still makes sense." Why? First off, AOL and Time Warner would still be better off financially together than apart. The combined company will have $11 billion in cash flow by next year. Analysts predict more than $1 billion in synergies. But more important is a less tangible issue: what AOL Time Warner has the potential to become. "It will be the most dominant media company in the world," says Corcoran of CIBC. Right now, no other company has its powerful mix of online, cable, film, music, and publishing assets. And as we head into the age of streaming video and digitized music, this combination promises to become more powerful. As a result, analysts say, there is almost nothing regulators could throw at AOL or Time Warner that would kill this deal. "They're like the Russians defending Moscow," says Tom Wolzien, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "They'll keep falling back and falling back--defend the deal at any cost."

FEEDBACK: first@fortunemail.com