Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp.: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 3

From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:55 PM To: William Lake; Sherrese Smith; Joshua
Cinelli; Rosemary Harold; Eloise Gore; Brad Gillen Subject: FW: Retransmission Consent Negotiations Between FOX and Cablevision
Hello to allJust wanted you to be aware, if you arent already, that Fox launched a public campaign yesterday to educate viewers about our negotiations with Cablevision for RTC. The details, below, were just sent to key members staff in the geographic regions that are implicated, and to key staff of leadership of the Commerce Committees. Please let me know if you have any questions. We will keep you updated of developments between now and October 16. BestMaureen
From: Jackson, Paul Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:04 PM Cc: Regan, Michael; OConnell, Maureen Subject: Retransmission Consent Negotiations Between FOX and Cablevision
On behalf of News Corporation, we are contacting you about the ongoing negotiations between FOX and Cablevision regarding the terms of carriage for FOX-owned broadcast television stations, Fox 5/WNYW and My9NVWOR, as well as some of our cable channels. As you may know, the present agreement to allow such carriage expires at midnight on October 15, 2010. The companies are currently negotiating a new agreement, and FOX hopes that a new contract will be in place in time. There is a chance, however, that these negotiations might break down and that Cablevision will no longer carry FOX local news, sports, and entertainment programming as well as the Fox Business Network, Fox Sports en Espanol and National Geographic Wild. FOX is presently engaged in an advertising campaign in order to make sure that your constituents are not caught off-guard in such a scenario and to make sure that they are fully aware that they have other options to receive popular FOX programming, either over-the-air with an antenna, or through another video provider. News Corporation is not asking your office to take any action at this point; both parties should be able to work out this private contractual matter. We simply want to make sure that you are aware of the situation, and to let you know that we are here to answer any questions you may have. Thanks for your consideration. Mike Regan Maureen OConnell Paul Jackson
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:00 PM To: Catherine Bohigian; Deanne Erwin Subject: RE: Retrans Hi Catherine
--
1m tied up -from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or others Bill on my senior staff could see you in the afternoon. Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:30 AM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Retrans
Bill, would you have time to meet with a colleague and me to discuss
retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, to copyright. or taking of any action in reliance upon, this in-formation by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 S:55 PM To: Catherine Bohigian; Deanne Erwin Subject: RE: Retrans Hi Sorry, one of those days. Bill does for your folks.
--
10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if it
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:15 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Re: Retrans Sorry to bug you again but my colleague is trying to work out a travel schedule. Have you been able to determine whether you have some time in the morning of the 6th? Thanks, and have a great weekend. Original Message From: Catherine Bohiian To: Deanne Erwin To: William Lake Sent: 10/1/2010 12:07:10 PM Subject: RE: Retrans Thanks so much for the quick response. When is good for you?
>>> William Lake Hi Catherine
--
We can make the morning work.
> 10/1/2010 12:80 PM >>>
Im tied up from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or others on my senior staff could see you in the afternoon. Bill Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:30 AM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Retrans Bill, would you have time to meet with a colleague and me to discuss retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all o-F the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, to copyright. or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:55 PM To: Catherine Bohigian; Deanne Erwin Subject: RE: Retrans Hi Sorry, one of those days. does for your folks. Bill
--
10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if it
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:15 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Re: Retrans Sorry to bug you again but my colleague is trying to work out a travel schedule. Have you been able to determine whether you have some time in the morning of the 6th? Thanks, and have a great weekend. Original Message From: Catherine E To: Deanne Erwin To: William Lake Sent: 18/1/2010 12:07:10 PM Subject: RE: Retrans Thanks so much for the quick response. When is good for you?
>>> William Lake
We can make the morning work.
10/1/2010 12:00 PM >>>
Hi Catherine
Im tied up from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or Bill others on my senior staff could see you in the afternoon. Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:30 AM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Retrans Bill, would you have time to meet with a colleague and me to discuss retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain in-Formation concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
From: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:03 PM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: RE: Retrans
Have a good weekend!
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:02 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake
Subject: RE: Retrans sure, thanks so much. See you then. 10/1/2010 5:55 PM >>> William Lake 10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if Hi Sorry, one of those days. it does for your folks. Bill
>>>
--
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:15 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Re: Retrans Sorry to bug you again but my colleague is trying to work out a travel schedule. Have you been able to determine whether you have some time in the morning of the 6th? Thanks, and have a great weekend. Original Message From: Catherine E To: Deanne Erwin To: William Lake < Sent: 10/1/2010 12:07:10 PM Subject: RE: Retrans Thanks so much for the quick response. We can make the morning work. When is good for you?
--
<
>
10/1/2010 12:00 PM
>>>
Im tied up from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or
others on my senior staff could see you in the afternoon. Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian [ Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:30 AM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Retrans
Bill
Bill, would you have time to meet with a colleague and me to discuss retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine
From: William Lake Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:26 AM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: RE: Retrans Hi
Are we expecting you at 10:30 this am?
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:04 PM To: William Lake Subject: RE: Retrans thanks, you, too. finally some good weather!
>>> William Lake Have a good weekend!
10/1/2010 6:03 PM
>>>
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:02 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: RE: Retrans sure, thanks so much. See you then. 10/1/2010 5:55 PM >>> William Lake T Hi Sorry, one of those days. 10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if it does for your folks. Bill
>>>
--
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 5:15 PM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Re: Retrans Sorry to bug you again but my colleague is trying to work out a travel schedule. Have you been able to determine whether you have some time in the morning of the 6th? Thanks, and have a great weekend. Original Message From: Catherine E To: Deanne Erwin To: William Lake I Sent: 10/1/2010 12:07:10 PM Subject: RE: Retrans Thanks so much for the quick response. We can make the morning work. When is good for you? William Lake Hi Catherine
>>>
--
<
>
10/1/2010 12:00 PM
>>>
Im tied up from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or others on my senior staff could see you in the afternoon. Bill Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:30 AM To: Deanne Erwin; William Lake Subject: Retrans Bill, would you have time to meet with a colleague and me to discuss retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
From: Catherine Bohigian To: Marilyn Sonn; Sherrese Smith Sent: Wed Oct 06 16:59:15 2010 Subject: Retransmission Consent
Sherrese, Im just following up on the conversation we had a few weeks ago about our retrans negotiations with Fox, and Im adding Marilyn at your suggestion (Hi, Marilyn). Unfortunately, our negotiations are not going well. Were still talking and still exchanging offers and counter offers, but were still far apart. There is a good chance that FOX will pull through with their threat to pull their programming from our systems on the 15th, which means over 3 million households in NY/NJ/CT not seeing the Major League National League Championship series or the World Series. Certainly a concern for us, and were doing what we can to reach an agreement. Attached is a 1-pager on our position. Thanks, Catherine The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:26 AM To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake; Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; Joshua Cinelli; Rosemary Harold; Brad Gillen; Eloise Gore; Dave Grimaldi; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow Subject: Status of RTC Negotiations Between Fox and Cablevision Importance: High We wanted to provide you with a summary of the status of negotiations with Cablevision related to retransmission consent for WNYW and WWOR in New York/New Jersey and WTXF in PhiladelphialNew Jersey. On Tuesday, October 5, Fox met with Cablevision in New York and presented a proposal for the RTC of the stations as well as carriage of certain of our cable networks. This proposal was consistent with deals Fox has entered into with major operators (including operators much larger than Cablevision) within the last year, including specifically with respect to RTC. This fact was explained to Cablevision at the October 5 meeting. At that meeting, Cablevision asked for a proposal for a stand-alone rate for RTC, which Fox provided to Cablevision the very next day on Wednesday, October 6. Also on Wednesday, October 6, a member of Cablevisions team called with questions about the proposal presented the previous day, and those questions were answered. Leading up to the two proposals Fox presented last week, Fox has made consistent efforts to engage with Cablevision on this negotiation, beginning with our initial proposal on May 7. In return, Cablevision responded on July 7. Fox presented Cablevision with a revised proposal on August 24, to which Cablevision responded on September 21. Since Wednesday, October 6, Fox has not received a telephone call, email, or any other contact from Cablevision regarding either of those two proposals. Fox stands ready, willing and able to negotiate a deal, and is hopeful that t will receive a response from Cablevision. In the meantime, we will keep the FCC apprised of the status of negotiations. Any questions, feel free to call me at ThanksMaureen
From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:48 AM To: Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Steven Broeckaert; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow Subject: Per your request, Fox began airing ads in Cablevision markets on September 19, 2010. Cablevision was apprised of this fact, and was told that this was being done so that consumers would not be caught unaware. Let me know if you need anything else. Maureen This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:08 PM To: OConnell, Maureen; Sherrese Smith; William Lake; Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; Joshua Cinelli; Rosemary Harold; Brad Gillen; Eloise Gore; Dave Grimaldi; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow Subject: RE: Status of RTC Negotiations Between Fox and Cablevision
Just wanted to let you know that we reached out to Cablevision again today in an effort to receive a response to our two proposals from last week, but have yet to receive any response.
From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:26 AM Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; Joshua Cinelli; Rosemary To: Sherrese Smith; William U Mary i Murphy; I; Diana Sokolow Subject: Status of RTC Negotiations Between Fox and Cablevision Importance: High
We wanted to provide you with a summary of the status of negotiations with Cablevision related
to retransmission consent for WNYW and WWOR in New York/New Jersey and WTXF in Philadelphia/New Jersey. On Tuesday, October 5, Fox met with Cablevision in New York and presented a proposal for the RTC of the stations as well as carriage of certain of our cable networks. This proposal was consistent with deals Fox has entered into with major operators (including operators much larger than Cablevision) within the last year, including specifically with respect to RTC. This fact was explained to Cablevision at the October 5 meeting. At that meeting, Cablevision asked for a proposal for a stand-alone rate for RTC, which Fox provided to Cablevision the very next day on Wednesday, October 6. Also on Wednesday, October 6, a member of Cablevisions team called with questions about the proposal presented the previous day, and those questions were answered. Leading up to the two proposals Fox presented last week, Fox has made consistent efforts to engage with Cablevision on this negotiation, beginning with our initial proposal on May 7. In return, Cablevision responded on July 7. Fox presented Cablevision with a revised proposal on August 24, to which Cablevision responded on September 21. Since Wednesday, October 6, Fox has not received a telephone call, email, or any other contact from Cablevision regarding either of those two proposals. Fox stands ready, willing and able to negotiate a deal, and is hopeful that it will receive a response from Cablevision. In the meantime, we w[ IIJ the FCC I11I d of the status of negotiations. Any questions, feel free to call me at Thanks Maureen
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:30 PM To: Sherrese Smith Cc: Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; William Lake Subject: Re: Status update on negotiations?
Hi, all. Unfortunately there has been no change since last Tuesday. As I explained yesterday to Marilyn, they made an offer then that we said was unreasonable. They preempted our ability to counteroffer by saying they were done that offer was a take it or leave it offer. While we havent seen the memo that they sent to you all, the way it is described in the multichannel news article is completely misleading. We continue to want to negotiate. Weve said that repeatedly. It belies common sense to think we would be stonewalling them when they are threatening to take the programming off, which is a result we want to avoid at all costs.
-
As weve said before, were willing to pay FOX for their broadcast channels. In fact, weve offered to pay them more than we pay every other broadcaster including ones with much higher ratings and similar exclusive sports deals. We are being reasonable and want to reach an agreement. Encouraging them to retract their take it or leave it position of last Tuesday and come back to the bargaining table would be extremely helpful.
-
Thanks, Catherine
>>> Sherrese Smith Hi Catharine,
10/12/2010 6:15 PM
>>>
Can you please give us a status update on the negotiations? Thanks.
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision andlor its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
From: Catherine Bohigian To: Sherrese Smith Cc: Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; William Lake Sent: Wed Oct 13 10:23:33 2010 Subject: Re: Status update on negotiations?
Just FYI, attached is the letter Mac, our chief negotiator, sent to FOX last night. Thanks, C
IIIC4BLFMSION
MAC BUDILL
Executive Vice President
Programming
October 12. 2010 VIA EMAIL Michael Hopkins President Affiliate Saks & Marketing Fox Networks RO. Box 900 Beverly Fiflis, CA 90213
Dear Mike: This is in response to the letter you sent to my ofilce today. On September 2l, Cablevision proposed paying News Corp a rate for retransmission consent that is equal to or better than the rate paid to the other major New York broadcastersincluding stations with higher ratings and similar sports rights. You th rejected that offer and instead on October 5 proposed that Cablevision pay Fox more than it pays all other New York area broadcasters cprpkincd, Surprisingly, you made clear to me that this was anonnegotiable otTerthat this is it, We urge News Corp. to reconsider our fair offer p return to the table and negotiate an agreement. We will not remove Channels 5 and 9 in hopes that a new agreement can be reached, and we call on News Corp.on behalf of our mutual viewers and customers not to pull the plug on these channels and instead work to reach a fair agreement. We are ready and available to discuss at your convenience.
CABLEVISION S?SItMS CORPORATION till Stewart Avenue, Betlipage NY 11714-3581 516 803-1233
From: Catherine Bohigian To: William Lake
Sent: Wed Oct 13 11:25:16 2010 Subject: Your call
Bill, I passed on your message. I just tried you at work and on cell to make a few points that instead Ill put in writing here. First, I want to make a point about negotiating that I think you may not be considering. One style of negotiation is to come in low, the other side starts high, and you slowly come to the middle. From the very beginning we knew this would be a difficult negotiation and we did not want to lose the programming, so our executive team did something different: we went in with a very reasonable offer. We have offered to pay them MORE than every other broadcaster, including ones with higher ratings and the same sports exclusives, as I said in my email last night. Weve also offered to give them a MFN. Their counter was outrageous. Why should their crazy offer make us increase ours? Think about this. My Honda civic cost me about $25,000. If I had offered $26,000, and the dealership had countered with $100,000, does that mean I would have been negotiating in bad faith had I not increased my offer to $27,000? Of course not. Another point: we are so confident that we have a favorable, above-market rate on the table that we would submit to binding arbitration in a heartbeat. We know the outcome would be good for us. Why doesnt the Commission urge both parties to submit to binding arbitration and then see who balks because it will be the party with the unreasonable, out-of-market price on the table.
-
Thanks, C
-Original MessageFrom: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:06 PM To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake; Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; Joshua Cinelli; Rosemary Harold; Brad Gillen; [loise Gore; Dave Grimaldi; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; David Konczal; Steven Broeckaert; Diana Sokolow Cc: Regan, Michael; Jackson, Paul Subject: Fwd: FW: Wanted to update you on the most recent correspondence with Cablevision.
>
Original Message From: Mike Hopkins > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:10 AM > To: Mac Budill > Subject: >
> >
> Please see the attached.

> >
*131/1SION
MAC BUDILL
Execut1v Vt:e Preskknt Pragrarnnthg
October 12, 2010 VIA EMAIL Michael Hopkins President Affiliate Sales & Marketing Fox Networks RO Box 900 Beverly i-Tills, CA 90213
Dear Mike: This

is in
response to the letter you sent to my office today.
On Stptembei 21 Cable; iston pioposed pa) mg Nc_w s Corp a tate lot Letianslnksslon consent that is equal to or better than the rate: paid to the other major New York 0 hroadcnstersineiuding stations with. higher ratings and similar sports rights, y th 5 proposed that Cablevision pay Fox more rejected that offer and instead on October than it pays all other New York area broadcasters combined. Surprisingly.. you made clear to me that. this was a nonnegotiable offerthat this is it. We urge News Corp.. to reconsider our Thir offer return to the table and negotiate an agreement. We will not remove Channels 5 and 9 in hopes that a new agreement can be reached, and we call on News Corp.on behalf of our mutual viewers and customers not to pull the plug on these chairneis and instead work to reach a fair agreement. We are ready and available to discuss at your convenience.
CASIZVtSION SYSTEMS COEPORATION 1111 Stewart Avenue. Bethpage NY 11714-3581 516 8D3123
From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:59 PM To: William Lake; Brad Gillen; Dave Grimaldi; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow; Eloise Gore; Joshua Cinelli; Marilyn Sonn; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Rick Kaplan; Rosemary Harold; Sherrese Smith; Steven Broeckaert Cc: OConnell, Maureen; Regan, Michael; Jackson, Paul Subject: Status of Carriage Negotiations Between Fox and Cablevision
Just wanted to let you know the email below was sent to key members on Capitol Hill.
From: Jackson, Paul Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:37 PM Cc: Regan, Michael; OConnell, Maureen Subject: Status of Carriage Negotiations Between Fox and Cablevision
We wanted to provide you with a summary of the status of Foxs negotiations with Cablevision related to retransmission consent for Fox 5/WNYW and My9/WWOR in New York and Fox 29NITXF in Philadelphia. By way of background, Fox has made consistent efforts to engage with Cablevision on this negotiation, beginning with our initial proposal on May 7, 2010. In return, Cablevision responded on July 7. Fox presented Cablevision with a revised proposal on August to which Cablevision responded on st September 21
th, On Tuesday, October 5 Fox representatives met with Cablevision in New York and presented a proposal for the retransmission consent carriage of the abovereferenced stations as well as cable carriage of Nat Geo WILD, Fox Business Network, and FOX Deportes.
This proposal was consistent with deals Fox has entered into with major pay-TV companies (including providers much larger than Cablevision) within the last year, including specifically with respect to retransmission th consent. This fact was explained to Cablevision at the October 5 meeting.
At that meeting, Cablevision asked for a proposal for a stand-alone rate for retransmission consent carriage, which Fox provided to Cablevision the very next th day on Wednesday, October 6 Also on Wednesday, a representative of Cablevision called with questions about the proposal presented the previous day, and those questions were answered. Following yet another outreach attempt by Fox, Cablevision finally transmitted a letter dated October 12, 2010, regarding Foxs two proposals. Unfortunately, this Cablevision letter mischaracterizes the nature of the parties negotiations thus far, and specifically Foxs efforts to engage in a constructive, good faith dialogue.
Fox will continue to work hard to minimize the inconvenience caused to our viewers (useful information is available on Foxs website <www.keepFoxOn.com>), and we intend to do all we can to reach a fair agreement with Cablevision. However, if Cablevision refuses to provide fair compensation for our valuable broadcast and cable programming, subscribers still have time and choices to keep seeing their favorite shows and sports, as well as local news, weather and traffic. Keep in mind these options:
OPTION 1: Customers Can Find a New Pay-TV Provider. Fox has fair agreements with other pay-TV companies in your area that carry both Fox 5/WNYW and My9/WWOR in New York or Fox 29IWTXF in Philadelphia, as well as Nat Geo WILD, Fox Business Network, and FOX Deportes:
DirecTV Web: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/new customer/base packages. isp Verizon F1OS Web: http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/TV/ AT&T U-Verse Web: http://www.att.com/uverse/?sou rce=ICOOya00000000 1 U#fbid=P698WkCU cn
OPTION 2: Consumers Can Enjoy HD-quality Fox Programming Absolutely Free Via Over-the-air Antennas and TV sets. In the unfortunate event that Fox is no longer available, Cablevision subscribers can still access their local stations and popular Fox programming like Glee, House, and Lie to Me, coverage of the NFL and the MLBs NLCS and World Series, and local news and weather, traffic and emergency information via an over-the-air antenna. Customers can visit <www.AntennaWeb.org>, click on the Choose an Antenna button, and then enter their address and zip code to determine which type of antenna will work best.
Please feel free to call or email if you have any questions, Mike Regan Maureen DC.. Paul Jackson
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:32 PM To: Marilyn Sonn; Sherrese Smith; William Lake Subject: Update on negotiations
Our chief negotiator sent the attached letter to FOX today.
011CABIEVISION
MAC BUDILL
Executive Vice President
Pegrcnim1n
October 13. 2010
Michael Hopkins President Affiliate Sales & Marketing Fox Networks P.O. Dcx 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90213
Dear Mike: . 3 Ireceived your letter of October l As to your claim that your prior po.sthon was anything other than a unilateral, take it or leave th, 5 you handed me a it proposal, there is no miseommunication in my mind, On C etober proposal with, News Coq.s retransmission consent rate demands and said: this is it. which I did subsequently ask you Ibr a response consistent with our September 2 aimed to only address the principle business issues open as of October 1 5th__namely the Channel 5 and 9 retransmission consent agreements. Your response, rather than being a compromise, actually raised the price from your prior offer which really is the definition of bad faith.
If you are finally truly willing to negotiate, we would welcome that, as our ultimate goal reflected in our oilers in July. August. and recent discussions has always been and remains to reach art agreement on a fair and consumer friendly price for your channels.
--
As for your contentions to the FCC about our unwillingness to negotiate: 1 should also remind Fox that its a federal crime to knowingly make false representations to a government official including any FCC official (18 U.S.C. 1001).
We arc prepared to meet at any time to discuss this matter. Specifically, I am available by phone beginning today at 4 PM and can be in Manhattan on Thursday. I propose we begin negotiations atound the clock if necessary-- today. If we fail to reach an agreement by Friday, then we owe it to our mutual customers to extend our discussions until we succeed.
--
Lets move forward as soon as possible.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpcge NY il74-358I 518 803-1233
-Original MessageFrom: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 6:18 PM To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake Subject: Chase Carey Put a call in to the Chairman this afternoon to answer any questions on He ended up in voicemail, so just wanted you to know. Cablevision. Sent from my iPad This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee) , you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
From: OConnell, Maureen < To: William Lake Cc: OConnell, Maureen < Sent: Wed Oct 13 19:15:22 2010 Subject: Re: Chase Carey
>;
Sherrese Smith
I just learned that fox and Cablevision are negotiating. Sent from my iPad On Oct 13, wrote:
> > >
2010,
at 6:21 PM,
William Lake
<
>
Thanks. But hes Im sure the Chairman will appreciate the gesture. relying on us to keep him in touch with the situation. Bill Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen [ Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 6:18 PM To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake Subject: Chase Carey
>
> > >
>
> Put a call in to the Chairman this afternoon to answer any questions > on Cablevision. He ended up in voicemail, so just wanted you to know.
>
> Sent from my iPad > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or > confidential information. It is intended solely for the named > addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or > responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not > copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. > Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments > and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this > message and its attachments that does not relate to the official > business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be > taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No > representation is made that this email or its attachments are without > defect.
>
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:26 PM To: Sherrese Smith;MOConnell Subject: Re: Chase Carey Yes, please go for it! Bill
Original Message From: Sherrese Smith To: MOConnell Sent: Wed Oct 13 19:24:14 2010 Subject: Re: Chase Carey Very good news. Thanks for the update.
William Lake
Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen To: William Lake Cc: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Wed Oct 13 19:15:22 2010 Subject: Re: Chase Carey
Sherrese Smith
I just learned that fox and Cablevision are negotiating. Sent from my iPad On Oct 13, 2010, at 6:21 PM, William Lake
> > >
wrote:
Thanks. Im sure the Chairman will appreciate the gesture. But hes relying on us to keep him in touch with the situation. Bill
>
>
Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 6:18 PM > To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake > Subject: Chase Carey
>
> Put a call in to the Chairman this afternoon to answer any questions on > Cablevision. He ended up in voicemail, so just wanted you to know.
>
> Sent from my iPad > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or > confidential information. It is intended solely for the named > addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you > may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. > Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its > attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any > content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to
> > > > > > >
the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
-Original Message From: William Lake Sent: Thursday, October 14, 21 8:59 AM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: Your call Hi
-
I returned your call last night.
I hope you got my message.
Bill
-Original MessageFrom: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Thursday, October 14, To: William Lake Subject: Re: Your call
2010 9:24 AM
I did, thanks. I left it yesterday early before my email. As an update now, though, we made yet another offer yesterday evening, with an offer of binding arbitration if we cant reach an agreement by the deadline so that consumers dont suffer. Their response was curt and goodbye. We asked to talk again at noon today and they said ok and hung up. Honestly, Bill, they have no interest in reaching an agreement unless we pay their outlandish prices. They are playing the fcc, including telling you all outright lies just to keep you all from intervening. They wont submit to binding arbitration because they know any independent third party will laugh at their offer and go with ours. Remember we have offered to pay them more than we pay any other broadcaster and they do NOT have the highest ratings.
-
Original Message From: William Lake To: Catherine Bohigian
<
Sent: 10/14/2010 8:59:11 AM Subject: Your call Hi I returned your call last night. Bill
-
I hope you got my message.
From: Catherine Bohigian Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:48 PM To: Marilyn Sonn; Rick Kaplan; Sherrese Smith; William Lake Cc: Diana Oo Subject: Update on our negotiations with FOX
Just to update you After we submitted our most recent (and generous and market-based proposal!) to FOX last night, we received requests from several bipartisan members of Congress to agree to submit to binding arbitration. Today we publicly accepted and that press release is attached.
-
Unfortunately, we understand that FOX has refused. This is extremely upsetting. It is hard to understand why they would resist a neutral third party deciding a solution if they actually believe their offers are fair. We are confident ours are and welcome a neutral party to get us past this impasse. We want the programming to stay on, and we are willing to pay them a fair, market price for their programming. Perhaps you all could urge News Corp to re-think their decision. We have received over 80 letters from federal, state and local public officials urging that the programming stay on while we negotiate (which we have committed to do). Many also call for binding arbitration. I am attaching those written by Members of Congress (of course Id be happy to send the rest if youre interested!). In addition, I am attaching some letters from consumer organizations, associations of elected officials, and other public interest groups. They call for the FCC to structurally reform the process so that this doesnt keep happening. A few Free Press and Public Knowledge urge for binding arbitration, too.
--
Thanks, Catherine
NEW JERSEY
*
Pauthffs M. Efseds Co C66r No4 Sep Oeod H, Wen&, Co-Chai
CW4 tocI SCSI .Jorfles8 Han,s flfchsrd Bodmc, Si. (Awoate) SSow Jocsay Sfaf Csnlarsnce of NAACP
TIZENACTION
Phyllis Sakune-Xayn EecuIlve Director
October 13, 2010 Mr. James Dolan President & Chief Executive Officer Cablevision Systems Corp. [11 Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY I 171-4 Dear Sirs: I understand that your companies are engaged in negoflatons regarding the renewal of the retransmission consent agreement for WNYW (NY channel 5), WWOR (NY channel 9) and WTXF (Philadelphia channel 29). I view these as private negotiations between two companies and hope that you are able to reach a mutually beneficial outcome before the current contract expires on October 15, 2010. However, I urge you to continue these negotiations productively without depriving cable television customers in this market of their ability to view WNYW, WWOR and WTXF. You owe it to your consumers not to treat them as pawns in these discussions. The stakes for consumers are particularly high given that WNYW will air the Major League Baseball National League Championship Series, a New York Giants football game, and then the World Series, following the October 15, 2010 expiration. Whatever differences the parties have over price or terms, under no circumstances should the programming on WNYW and WWOR and its exclusive sports broadcasts be denied to New York and New Jersey area fans. Please assure me you share my views about the importance of leaving cable television customers out of your dispute and that you will not deny your customers broadcast programming while you complete negotiations for a new contract. Sincerely, Mr. Rupert Murdoch Chairman & Chief Executive Officer 1211 Avenue of Americas ew York, New York 100325
S1arcth
Bwsve NJ
afe Twasorer
Shor, Glen
Nsa R&d (Mamas) AFSCME. Ad nfotmle Ccas-,oY I

Ethar Sits $Eisnc Ie lI,s Dleatisd Id
Vie Os
Ar-Lsgs Msarieor He07 ssIlsSsin
Seth f-fade fASmnate4

CWA OthUicl
Sob Nojsn CWA Locod 1037 Odna Stoma, zold CsAlsci (Armts3
Housing . v&spnw,nt NSfwOk of NJ
P,sinsnd Ocsale La Cuss d Dun Pinko Nell SliRpilSl (ASemOte)

Nswiinsey Tenants Dzsiiai
Su,bara K SHoe M,uhaoi flynn (Altotnate) Wow Jewsy EdomkMtofatHct

Chmiee Halt, Jr.
NwrSLt-UFCW tc& 1558 tNt Sltu& tHefts ado-fcJrssi (ASemae) SEIU Iii Slab Council & SEIU 1199 NJ
Wayne irNIt
Bbas* Valise AJI,ce Eec Sdisczc.r
Ctlf Fcotd (ASl&o&) Comnitbos f vitaes, & RaskfenL SSlV

reels) Council f New Jomey Slats Goings LoCaiei AFt AFL-CIO Sfov*n GSd&eId Caislan Slala EquafSy Soocyn Noel Gray Pesethrs 01 Sould Jersey Potr,cK T1855 MNDS Inc. Mn Twcsmsy Jeanne Obersan {Afloonate) HPAEAFT Joseph Delta Fe lmnbomtd CommoNly Deaden WiSam J. tJplde John Aeson )ASeen&o) Now Jersey State FejeisNin of ToaedeIe ReS. Ronald Tu8 Paterson Tas& Poise (or Cnwtily AJIon Calr.ewia Star,trcd Rulrsra A4UP-AFT Sos 5e9ciaH t .racltsOrl St. MtfhSW%M.E Claire!, Milton Ros&k> UAWfbegait S Los f-turd Udearsal 1 ovemeitt Aasoas Woe
S,mrinlt fseklt,
Phyllis Salowe-Kayc Executive Director
NJCA is on afThiatc etfUSAciktn, a national progressive coalition
eMv.ncllizenaCtionOrg Centre) Jersey
Mom Office
744 Bread Sireot, Stalls 25580 Nowarl NJ 07102 (973) 546600 Faxi (973) 843-8100
North Jersey 125 Mackst SIreel PassaIc, NJ 07055 (9713) 018.05542 Fax: (973) 543-5100
ISWItO OS nrovctso oprn
South Jersey
2 ts)de Dys Suilu 32 Camden, NJ 06103 (856) 966-3091 Fax: (856) 966-3099
75 Rar)!an Avenue, SuIte 200

Highland PN NJ 08904 (732) 2455.4772 Fax: (732) 214-8355
NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE

1701 K Street, NW Suite 1200 Main: (202) 83 3323
Washnqton, DC 20006
Fax: (202) 835-0747
www.ndnet.org
October 12, 2010 The Honorable Julius Genachowski Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that Cablevision and Fox are engaged in negotiations regarding the renewal of the retransmission consent agreement for WNYW (New York channel 5), WWOR (New York channel 9) and WTXF (Philadelphia channel 29). We also understand that Fox has threatened to pull its programming if an agreement with Cablevision is not reached by October 15, 2010. That would mean Cablevision customers could lose access to the Major League Baseball National League Championship Series, and then the World Series. The retransmission consent regime was put in place to benefit the public by ensuring consumer access to free over-the-air broadcasting. All too often, retransmission fights result in either higher cable rates for consumers or loss of programming. Consumers are tired of being caught in the middle of these company fights. We urge you to tell both companies, which your agency regulates extensively, that they need to keep the programming on while they negotiate. Consumers should not be used as leverage by big networks in these programming fights. Sincerely,
Sally Greenberg Executive Director National Consumers League (202) 835-3323
CAROLYN McCARTHY
Dis-i Icr. N,v Yuc ,.sfuraTnN (In lCE 2246 R,ynttnc Ijuusc 0(11cc 14,ILnN(I \\;mN, DC 2(1315 (202) 22555)6 FAx: (202) 225- 575S
LI)DCATIDN AND LABOR
I lc,rny
F,1ILIEs AD
COM
111(1 IlLS
IlLLI 1. Ii ILoicNr, I
(III, .srr
FINANCIAL SDRVICES
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

((IS IRIL9 ((II LII
300
x Cu y lI.A(A, SIJIrc 200 (\11I(I(N Cciv. NY 1510 (516)731) .i0U F,x: (516) 139- 2973
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES W.SHINGTON, DC 205 .153204
(11 \EMS3I.!1:xT SII)(SURLL,
CAISrA!. AIM.1:Lrc, INSUIL;Nc( .5(I) En cci Sisc

Ircctnunr,xc scm
Cocmsu(Icm CIIWM I
1:-Mill
hI !p:J/csvwlniI
ovfwriccI 1 c.
cp/
October 12, 2010
S(E1351f In h(Ip://ricci1iInIcciirthy .IIIis.gov
Mr. James Dolan

President and Chief Executive Officer Cablevision Systems Corp. lii I Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY 11714
Mr. Rupert Murdoch

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer News Corporation 1211 Avenue of Americas New York, New York 10036
Dear Sirs:
I understand that your companies are engaged in negotiations regarding the renewal of the retransmission consent agreement for WNYW (NY channel 5) and WWOR (NY channel 9)
I view these as private negotiations between two companies and hope that you are able to reach a mutually beneficial outcome before the current contract expires on October 15, 2010. However, I urge you to continue these negotiations productively without depriving cable television customers in this market of their ability to view WNYW and WWOR. You owe it to your consumers not to treat
them as pawns in these discussions. The stakes for consumers are particularly high given that WNYW will air the Major League Baseball National League Championship Series, a New York Giants football game, and then the World Series, following the October 15, 2010 expiration. Whatever differences the parties have over price or terms, under no circumstances should the programming on WNYW and WWOR and its exclusive sports broadcasts be denied to New York and New Jersey area fans.
Please assure me you share my views about the importance of leaving cable television customers out of your dispute and that you will not deny your customers broadcast programming while you complete negotiations for a new contract.
Sincerely,
1 C
Carolyn McCarthy
Member of Congress
L&c
The National Black Caucus ofState Legislators
i1iI
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Rep. Calvin Smyre, GA
President
September 28, 2010 The Honorable Julius Genachowski Chairman Federal Communications Commission l2 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski: The National Black Caucus of State Legislators prides itself on championing policies that will protect and benefit all Americans, continually striving for equality in an effort to uplift underserved communities. This is why it is important to our organization to ensure fairness, on behalf of minority consumers in communities that depend on local broadcasting for news, sports, weather, and entertainment, and ask the FCC to re examine the retransmission consent issue. On behalf of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and our constituents across the nation, we urge the Commission to consider an update of the retransmission consent rules, in order that they protect consumer access to broadcast television, as well as protect consumers from excessive rate increases. Changes in the competitive marketplace have made it easier for broadcasters to charge excessive rates for carriage, or even pull the signal from viewers, as has been done on several occasions. Losing access to broadcast programming that should be free and having to bear the burden of increased costs is unfair. The real losers are the consumers. Television is a much-needed service, and consumers should be able to enjoy broadcast television without the worry of increased cost or blackouts. Therefore we urge the FCC to restore balance, protect communities from service disruptions and excessive rate increases, and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will address this issue in a manner that ensures that minority communities and all communities do not suffer from an arbitrary loss of programming. Thank you for your consideration in a matter that we feel is critical to the integrity of cable operators and broadcasters, as well as financially burdensome to those affected the most, the consumer. Sincerely,
Rep. Barbara Ballard. KS lice Presideni Rep. Ulysses Jones, TN 1st Vice President Rep. Thackleus Kirkland, PA 2nd Vice President Rep. Charlie Brown, IN Secretary Sen. Constance Johnson, OK Rec rding Secretary Rep. Annette Folly Williams, WI Financial Secrelrz,s Sen. Rodger N. Smitberman, AL Treasurer Sen. Hillrnan Terome Frazier, MS Parliamentarian Rep, Helen Miller, IA Chaplain Rep. Mary H. Coleman, MS
Ptist Ptesilcsi
REGIONAL CHAIRPERSONS Rep. Claire Clarke, NH Region i Rep. Ronald G. Waters, PA Region I Del. Nathaniel T, Oaks, MD Region 3 Rep, Joe Armstrong. TN Region 4 Rep. Larry Wonsble, NC
Region 5
Rep. Sharon Beasley-Teague, GA Region 6 Rep. Willie Perkins. MS

Region 7
Rep. Arthur Turner, IL Region 8 Sen. Spencer Coggs, WI

Region 9
Rep. Cedric Riclsntond, LA Region 10 Rep. Shalonn KiKi Curls, MO Region 11 Sen. Bettye Davis. AK Region 12
LaKiniha DeSaNer
NBCSL Exccuti,e Dircrto,
Calvin Smyre President, National Black Caucus of State Legislators
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NW, SUITE 622, WASHINGTON, DC 20001
202.624.5457
202.508.3826 WWW.NBCSLORG
JOSEPH CROWLEY
7TH DIsTRIcT, NEW
YcIiK
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Qtirngrc of tfj uJ1ftniterj tate

3Hout at 3tprentatib
inton, Qt 205153207
October 8, 2010
CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP WEB PAGE hrtp:l/www.crowley.housegov
Mr. James Dolan President and Chief Executive Officer Cablevision Systems Corp. 1111 Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY 11714
Mr. Rupert Murdoch Chairman and Chief Executive Officer News Corporation 1211 Avenue of Americas New York, New York 100325 Dear Sirs: I understand that your companies are engaged in negotiations regarding the renewal of the retransmission consent agreement for WNYW (NY channel 5) and WWOR (NY channel 9). While these are clearly private negotiations, I do hope particularly for the sake of your consumers that you will be able to reach a mutually beneficial outcome before the current contract expires on October 15, 2010. In the event that a new agreement is not reached by the 15th, I urge you to continue negotiations without depriving cable television customers in this market who include residents in my Congressional district of their ability to view WNYW and WWOR.
-----
T.V. viewers in our area are looking forward to watching the Major League Baseball National League Championship Series, New York Giants football games, and the World Series this fall. It is my hope that the New Yorkers awaiting these broadcasts will be able to view them no matter the status of your retransmission agreement negotiations. Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter, and urge you to take every necessary to step to ensure that your customers signal remains on as you work to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. Sincerely,
WASHINGTON fEIGE:
2404 RAYBURN HOUSE ORFIOS BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 20515 (2021 2253565
BRONX Q:
2820 BRUcKNER BLVD., SuITE 301 BRONX, NY 10465 (7181 5311400
EfiE;
74-08 3711-i AVENUE, SUITE 3088 JACKsON HEIGHm, NY 11372 (718) 7791400 177 DREISER Loo, ROOM 3 RRorx, NY 10475 1718) 3202314
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN

WESTERN HEMISPHERE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES: ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRdNMENT MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
2161 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 206153217 (202) 2252464 DISTRICT OFFICES: 3655 JOHNSON AVENUE BRONX, NY 10463 (718) 7969700 6 GRAMATAN AVENUE SUITE 205 MOUNT VERNON, NY 10550 (914)699-4100 261 WEST NYACKROAD WEST NYACK, NY 10994 1845)739-1090 WEBSITE: http:I/engel.house.gov
Qrengrc
4
ot Uje rntc tatc
COMMITTEE ON ENERGYAND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES:

HEALTH ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ASSISTANT DEMOCRATIC WHIP
ELIflT I ENtI
17th DISTRICT, NEW YORK
Otober 13, 2010
The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski: I am writing as a follow up to my previous letter of March 2, 2010 about the retransmission consent issue. Today, there is a similar situation brewing. The current impasse between Cablevision and News Corporation threatens my constituents with losing access to the Fox network on Friday, October 15. In March, my letter to you asked for the FCC to provide a regulatory fix which would allow broadcasters and networks to be compensated fairly for their product, while not charging cable and satellite providers outrageously high rates. Today, I repeat my request for the FCC to intervene to protect my constituents. The next proposed broadcast cutoff is scheduled to occur in the midst of the Major League Baseball playoffs, and only days before the New York Yankees potentially enter the World Series. In a previous retransmission consent dispute, the broadcast of the Academy Awards was nearly disrupted. I have been hearing from a large number of constituents requesting Congressional action on this issue. This situation has to stop. My constituents cannot constantly be on the hook and be held hostage while two giant corporations fight over revenues. Broadcast blackouts are painful at all times, but they are particularly harmful regarding live sporting or entertainment events which cannot be viewed enjoyably after the event takes place. I understand that broadcast networks are the most highly viewed channels on cable, and that broadcasters deserve to be fairly compensated for their product. However, this compensation must be agreed to without causing the viewers to be held hostage. Television viewers are being subjected to an increasing number of retransmission disputes that continue to threaten their favorite programming. To prevent the continuation of these threats to consumers, I respectfully request that the FCC expeditiously take a thorough look into the retransmission consent system. While investigating the situation,
the FCC should propose a solution which would ensure that consumers will not have their signal shut off, especially during some of their most popular programming of the year. Although I am a strong proponent of allowing businesses to work out their disputes without having the government intervene, I cannot stand idly by if my constituents continue to be harmed, and I must ask for FCC intervention. I would appreciate a thoughtful and prompt response regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Eliot L. Engel Member of Congress
COMMITTEE
ON APPEIOPIIAtIONS
succn,MIZrCEC: CKAIEWOMAT1, 41,VIE, rcJIIEloI1 OPEEF4TIOIIG. AlIT)

TIE LATTO TROUTIATIS
SELECT INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT PANEL
LAIIC)8. H&ALfll AND I)U1.l)lt SE VICES, AlIT) EI)IJCA1 DII

OlIELAND SECUIIIIY
J.iti jFIlL 7Lob.iep Qiicc& ot t1)t 1fltt

October 14, 2010
tLtt5 tSt{j itrict. Jcbi ort
Mr. Chase Carey President and Chief Operating Officer News Corporation 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. Carey and Mr. Dolan:
Mr. James Damn President and Chief Executive Officer Cablevision Systems Corp 1111 Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY 11714
I write with great concern over the potential impact on my constituents and your consumers in New Yoik as the ongoing dispute fo the etiansimssion of WNYW and WWOR on Cablevision continues. Millions of customers who receive these stations on Cablevisions systems expect continued coverage of their favorite networks and shows without interruption, regardless of iny disputes that may arise between parent companies. It is appalling that a dispute between two of the largest media and telecommunication companies in the nation would imperil service to the number one market and your own consumers. Further, it is unacceptable that either side would use popular, one-time only events, such as the World Series or New York Giants games, as leverage in their negotiiuions. I must stress my continued disappointment in both companies use of the public as a negotiating tool. This is not the first, nor do I expect the last, disagreement over retransmission fees for either company. Yet time and time again, both sides seem more interested in winning the public relations battle than serving the publics interest in providing quality, affordable )iogranln1ig, With imminent expiration of the current contract, I urge both parties to continue transmission on Cablevisions systems while negotiations continue. This is the only way to best serve the publics interest. I look forward to your prompt response on this matter
of Congress Cc; The Honorable Julius Genachowski, FCC Chair

WEJEJlE8XEI5 222 l.ISEIAIIGNECI< AVENUE SUITE 310 VlII1E ELAINE TIE 10685 18141 4201797 rAV 19141 3211-1908 WASR1NGEQN (5451 628-3406
WWWOWEyUUSEg0)4
18141 3759766
2329 flVI6liflN 1151155 SF556 51J11171NG
E6ITITED Oil RECYCLED EASER
WASHINGTON, 0528516 2021 726-6955 fAX 12921 228-0045
From: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:15 PM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: Quick further question Do you know when www.cablevision.com/fox went up on the Web? Thx B
-Original MessageFrom: OConnell, Maureen [mailto: Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:02 PM To: William Lake; Brad Gillen; Dave Grimaldi; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow; Eloise Gore; Joshua Cinelli; Marilyn Sonn; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Rick Kaplan; Rosemary Harold; Sherrese Smith; Steven Broeckaert Cc: Regan, Michael; Jackson, Paul Subject: FW: Rep. Butterfield Letter to FCC Importance: High
-
As you may know, negotiations with Cablevision and Fox are ongoing, with the expiration o-F the deal at midnight tonight looming large. Not much else to report at this point in time, but I will let you know developments as I get them. Also, below is a letter from Representative Butterfield. I am reachable tonight by email or my cell phone have any questions.
i-F you
Original Message From: Jackson, Paul Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:39 PM To: Regan, Michael; OConnell, Maureen; Lane, Rick; Grogin, Scott A
Fox
)
Cc: Coffey, Jocelyn; Walsh, Deborah Subject: Rep. Butterfield Letter to FCC Importance: High Dear Chairman Genachowski: As the retransmission consent negotiations between Cablevision and Fox over carriage of Fox programming continue, the parties involved should negotiate the terms of their agreement without government influence. As you know, these negotiations attempt to achieve a very delicate balance between two sizeable media companies. As with any business negotiation, discussions about the terms of retransmission consent can, at times, become quite contentious. However, government intervention in businessto-business negotiations of this nature could impact this and future retransmission consent negotiations. The marketplace has changed greatly since the 1992 Cable Act created the retransmission consent regulations, much to the benefit of viewers. Today, there are many multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) and other content viewing options available to consumers that were not available nearly a decade ago. In many markets, including those covered in this current negotiation, consumers have many options for viewing content: a cable operator, two satellite providers, two telephone companies, the Internet, and over-the-air.
Programming and distribution of video content is a vibrant and competitive market. In order to continue fostering strong competition, private companies should engage in these negotiations without government intervention. The current retransmission consent regulations have worked well for nearly two decades, to the benefit of viewers, MVPDs and content owners.
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business o-F News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:36 PM To: Catherine Bohigan Subject: I hope I was clear Our request was to extend thru Tues so the parties could do a mediation on The fcc would not be involved in the mediation. Nyt has that Tuesday. wrong.
From: Catherine Bohigian [ Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:46 PM To: William Lake Subject: Re: I hope I was clear
you were absolutely clear, that didnt come through me. This apparently filtered down to our media dept dont know whether they got it wrong or NYT did but will look into it asap. Im sorry.
...
> 10/15/2010 5:36 PM >>> >>> William Lake < Our request was to extend thru Tues so the parties could do a mediation on Tuesday. would not be involved in the mediation. Nyt has that wrong.
The fcc
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision andlor its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen <I To: OConnell, Maureen Cc: William Lake; Rick Kaplan; OConnell, Maureen Sherrese Smith >; Sent: Sat Oct 16 00:34:38 2010 Subject: Re: Re: RE: Fwd:
-
Also, we told them before they left that we were ready to engage if they were. Sent from my ipad Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen < To: William Lake Cc: Rick Kaplan; OConnell, Maureen Sherrese Smith Sent: Sat Oct 16 00:32:51 2010 Subject: Re: RE: Fwd:
>
<
>
Cablevision negotiators have gone home. Our negotiators are staying in new York this weekend in the hope that Cablevision will counter our most recent offer. Sent from my iPad On Oct 16, 2010, at 12:12 AM, > wrote: William Lake
> Yes, thanks for keeping us informed. trying! >
We assume youll keep
> And good night!

> >
Bill
Original Message From: Rick Kaplan > Sent: Sat 10/16/2010 12:09 AM > To: Maureen OConnell Smith; William Lake > Subject: Re: Fwd:
> >
>
Sherrese
> Thanks
> > >
lets stay in close touch.
> From: OConnell, Maureen < > To: Sherrese Smith; William Lake; Rick Kaplan > Sent: Sat Oct 16 00:05:27 2010
>
> > >
Subject:
Fwd:
> This just went out.

>
> Sent from my iPad

> > > >
> This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
> >
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:29 PM To: Maureen OConnell Cc: Rick Kaplan Subject: Rumor Hi Maureen
-
Theres a rumor that Fox has blocked Cablevision broadband subscribers Thanks, Bill Know anything about this? from accessing Fox.com.
Original Message From: Oconnell, Maureen < To: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 16 13:18:18 2010 Subject: Re: Rumor
-
>
This is correct. Original Message From: William Lake < To: OConnell, Maureen Cc: Rick Kaplan < Sent: Sat Oct 16 12:28:43 2010 Subject: Rumor Hi Maureen
-
>
>
Theres a rumor that Fox has blocked Cablevision broadband subscribers Thanks, Bill Know anything about this? from accessing Fox.com. This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
From: Catherine Bohigian < To: Rick Kaplan Sent: Sat Oct 16 16:56:13 2010 Subject: FOX blocking internet content
-
>
Rick Thought you should know that FOX is blocking our broadband subscribers from accessing their online internet at fox.com and on Hulu. Blatant violation of the FCCs internet principles. Here is WSJ article in which News Corp. spokesperson confirms: FOX is blocking all Cablevision broadband subscribers from accessing their free online content on fox.com and hulu. http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20101016/news-corp-shuts-off-hulu-access-to-cablevisionsubs! News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access To Cablevision Customers by Peter Kafka Posted on October 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM PT One new twist to the Cablevision/News Corp. fight: News Corp. has apparently cut off Cablevision subscribers access to its shows on Hulu, the video site joint venture. Heres a screenshot from Fortune.com columnist Seth Weintraub, taken this afternoon when he tried to watch a Fox show on the site, which is co-owned by News Corp., Disneys ABC and GEs NBC Universal:
***
Screen Shot: We notice that you are attempting to access Fox content on Hulu. Unfortunately this content is currently unavailable to Cablevision customers.
We look forward to bringing Fox content to Cablevision customers again soon.
This is an important escalation from News Corp. (which owns this Web site) in its fight to extract more dollars from its cable partners. In the past, cable subscribers who couldnt get Fox shows during fee disputes have still been able to watch some of them via Hulu. I know that News Corp. has discussed shutting off access to the site during past fee fights, but as far as I know this is the first time theyve actually done it. News Corp.s comment, via Fox Networks PR guy Scott Grogin: Fox.com and Fox content on hulu is unavailable to Cablevision subscribers. Ive also asked Hulu for comment. The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
From: OConnell, Maureen [ Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:40 PM To: Sherrese Smith; Rick Kaplan; Marilyn Sonn; William Lake; Joshua Cinelli; Rosemary Harold; Eloise Gore Subject: Fox/Cablevision
The latest public statement from Fox? Sent from my iPad Begin
STATEMENT FROM FOX REGARDING STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH CABLEVISION October 18, 2010
Monday morning the parties talked again briefly. Unfortunately, no significant progress was made because Cablevision continues to demand preferential treatment and rejects the same fair terms that have been accepted by other providers in the market. It is increasingly clear that Cablevisions real intention is to continue making this their subscribers problem in the hope that with enough inconvenience, politicians will intervene to protect Cablevisions huge profits nearly $795 per subscriber last year.
-
That is why Cablevision is calling for arbitration despite knowing that this is not a serious solution. After all, Cablevision would never agree to arbitration for its own MSG cable network. Indeed, MSG and MSG Plus recently went off the dial for millions of DISH subscribers and MSG did not seek arbitration. Cablevision also continues to put out the false information that Fox is seeking $150 million in fees, which is simply not true.
Fox continues to call on Cablevision to quit punishing its own subscribers in service of a cynical political strategy. Only serious business-to-business negotiations will protect viewers, which should be everyones top priority.
CONTACT:
Scott
F
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not
to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
Nancy Murphy
From: Sent: To: Nancy Murphy Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:20 PM Hochstein, Leora
Subject: Im back in my office if you can give me a call!
NTancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 2th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
IL
e-mail:
3/10/2011
From: Nancy Murphy Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:20 PM To: Hochstein, Leora Subject: Im back in my office if you can give me a call!
Nancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20554
From: Nancy Murphy Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:42 PM To: christopher.heimann Subject: Status of Information Request
Will you be able to get back to me today with the requested information?
Nancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washin ton. U C. 20554
-I
From: Hochstein, Leora [ ] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:51 PM To: Nancy Murphy Subject: Coverage See Cablevisions Q2 earnings call transcript
-
Attachments: 2Q1 0_CVC_transcript.pdf

Scroll down to p.11 of this document. Heres the text:
Leora Hochstein V
From: HEIMANN, CHRISTOPHER M (Legal) Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:51 PM To: Nancy Murphy Cc: HULTQUIST, HANK (ATTSfl Subject: RE: Status of Information Request
Hello Nancy, Im sorry I was not able to respond earlier. I have some of the information you requested. First, the communities in Connecticut in which we offer service include: Fairfield, Milford, Bridgeport, Stratford, Waterbury, Darien, Norwalk, and Stamford; and Second, we have not run ads or promotions in Connecticut to take advantage of the Cablevision/Fox dispute. We still are working on answers to your other questions. Notice: This e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s) above. DO NOT FORWARD this message outside the Legal Department without my approval. It contains information that may be privileged, attorney work product, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Thank you. notify me at Christopher M. Heimann General Attorney
From: Nancy Murphy [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:42 PM To: christopher.heimann Subject: Status of Information Request Will you be able to get back to me today with the requested information? Nancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. C. 2
From: Nancy Murphy Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:54 PM To: HEIMANN, CHRISTOPHER M (Legal) Cc: HULTQUIST, HANK (ATTSI) Subject: RE: Status of Information Request
No problem
and thanks for the information Chris!
From: HEIMANN, CHRISTOPHER M (Legal) [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:51 PM To: Nancy Murphy Cc: HULTQUIST, HANK (ATTSI) Subject: RE: Status of Information Request
Hello Nancy,
Im sorry I was not able to respond earlier. I have some of the information you requested. First, the communities in Connecticut in which we offer service include: Fairfield, Milford, Bridgeport, Stratford, Waterbury, Darien, Norwalk, and Stamford; and Second, we have not run ads or promotions in Connecticut to take advantage of the CablevisionfFox dispute. We still are working on answers to your other questions. Notice: This e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s) above. DO NOT FORWARD this message outside the Legal Department without my approval. It contains information that may be privileged, attorney work product, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Thank you. notify me at Christopher M. Heimann General Attorney
From: Nancy Murphy [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:42 PM To: christopher.heimann Subject: Status of Information Request
Will you be able to get back to me today with the requested information? Nancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. flC 20554
From: Nancy Murphy Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:18 PM To: Hochstein, Leora Subject: Will you be providing any more information or was that it yesterday?
Nancy Murphy Associate Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
From: Catherine Bohigian [mailto: Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 7:58 PM To: William Lake Subject: Re: Any update?
Negotiations broke up late this morning and their negotiators went back to CA this afternoon.
<
>
10/18/2010 6:57 PM
>>>
Do you have an update on negotiations with Fox? Thanks, Bill
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use o-F, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
----Original MessageFrom: John Bergmayer Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:23 AM To: John Bergmayer Subject: PK Letter on Implications of Fox Blocking Cablevision on NBC/Comcast HelloPlC wanted to draw your attention to a letter we filed yesterday (before the news about networks blocking Google TV) about the implications of Fox blocking Cablevision ISP customers from Hulu and Fox.com on the NBC/Comcast merger, the online video market (which implicates AllVid, since part of the idea is to be able to mix OTT and MVPD video on one device) and retransmission consent.
The letter is attached,
and here are links:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/PK implications-of-fox PDF: blocking 10-21.pdf http://www.publicknowledge.org/letter-fcc-implications-foxs HTML: internet-blocking
Thanks for your timeJohn Bergmayer Public Knowledge Staff Attorney
:: Public Knowledge
October 21, 2010 The Honorable Julius Genachowksi Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: WC Docket No. 07-52, Commission Inquiry Into Broadband Market Practices; MB Docket No. 09-182, 2010 Media Ownership Review; GN Docket No. 09-191, Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices; GN Docket No. 10-25, Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age; MB Docket No. 10-56, Application of Corncast Corporation General Electric Company and NBC Universal Inc. for consent to assign license or transfer control of licensees; MB Docket No. 10-7 1, Petition for Rulemaking to Amend the Commissions Rules Governing Retransmission Consent.
Dear Chairman Genachowski: As you are aware, last weekend a dispute between Fox and Cablevision led Fox to pull its programming from Cablevision viewers. While this kind of dispute has become a regular occurrence due to the dysfunctional retransmission consent regime, in a new twist, Fox began preventing Cablevision broadband customers from accessing Fox content on Hulu and Fox.com. Foxs actions raise several policy concerns. The Comcast/NBC Merger Would Increase the Merged Companys Ability To Engage In Anti-Competitive Blocking of Access To Content To The Detriment Of Consumers And Competitors. Last weekends blocking incident shows that programmers are willing and able to limit their online content only to ISPs who are willing to pay to play. Along with NBC blocking access to Olympics coverage to customers of many ISPs, ESPN blocking access to ESPN 3 to 2 all but those ISPs who have paid them, the TV Everywhere scheme which limits online content 3 45 to certain ISPs, and Hulus blocking of Boxee, Kylo, and Google TV, Foxs blocking of 6
See John Eggerton, Fox Still Off DC Still Fired Up, BROADCASTING & CABLE, Oct. 16, 2010, http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458509-Fox_Still_Off_D_CStill_Fired_Up.php.
2
See Over-the-Air Viewers Left Out ofNBCs Online Future, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE POLICY BL0G, Feb. 24, 2010, http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2920. See Press Release, Public Knowledge Criticizes TVEveiywhere, http://www.pub1ickriowledge.org/node/2493.
June 24, 2009,
See Oopsie! Zucker Caught Fibbing To Boucher About Hit/u Blocking Boxee, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE POLICY BL0G, Feb. 4, 2010, http://www.pub1icknowledge.org/node/2881. See Ex Porte Filing ofPublic Knowledge, CS Docket 97-80, filed Sep. 1, 2010, http://fj alifoss ,fcc.gov/ecfs/document!view?id=7020910700.
Public Knowledge, 1818 N St. NW, Washington DC 20036
Pubhc Knowledge
Cablevisions broadband customers shows that the current generation of dominant content and content delivery networks are trying to control the next. This kind of blocking, which concerns anti-competitive conduct inflicted on ISPs or end-user applications, rather than committed by an ISP, is not a network neutrality concern as precisely understood. But network neutrality is not the end-all be-all of consumer protection, and these practices could threaten the integrity of the open Internet as much as anti-competitive behavior by telecommunications providers. Accordingly, incidents such as these should be investigated by the FCC, FTC, Justice Department, or other agencies, according to their jurisdiction. NBC Universal has a 32% ownership stake in Hulu, and Foxs stake is comparable. If 7 Fox has the power to order Hulu to start blocking some Internet users from its site, then so does NBC. But whereas NBC only has incentive to block access to ISP/MVPDs during retransmission negotiations, a combined Corncast/NBC would have the incentive to block customers of competing MVPDs or competing over-the-top programming distributors independent of retransmission disputes. Alternatively, rather than block access entirely, Comcast/NBC would have strong incentive to impose discriminatory terms for access to Hulu to competing broadband access providers and MVPDs. Therefore, it should deny the Comcast/NBC merger, or should 8 impose conditions that would prevent Comcast/NBC from behaving in such an anti-competitive and anti-consumer fashion.
The Commission Must Address The Underlying Problem of Media Concentration And Prevent Further Concentration That Would Foreclose The Market From Competitors
Only a handful of companies produce most commercial media in this country, and the market power they have gives them the means and the motive to behave anticompetitively, as Fox has in this instance. Further media consolidations, such as the merger between 9 programming providers/delivery networks Comcast and NBC, would only exacerbate an already untenable situation. If the Commission allows the merger between Comcast and NBC to proceed, it can expect to have more, and more damaging, retransmission consent and online video blocking disputes thrown on its lap. In addition to denying or conditioning the Comcast/NBC transaction, however, the Commission must address the overall problem of media consolidation that allows a single commercial dispute between two companies to deprive millions of consumers of programming and impacts the evolution of the open internet ecosystem. For too long, the Commission has allowed consolidation in the MVPD market, the programming market, and the broadband access market, justified in no small part on the theory that the Internet would provide competition and
6
See Janko Roettgers, Logitech Revue. The Wrong Choice for Cord Cutters, NEwTEEVEE, Oct. 6, 2010, http://newteevee.com/20 10/1 0/06/logitech-revue-the-wrong-choice-for-cordcutters. Chadwick Matlin, NBC Officially Owns 32 Percent ofHulu (Until Comcast Acquires It), THE BIG MONEY, Feb. 3, 2010, http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/hu1ucination/201 0/02/03/nbc-officially-owns-32-percent-hulu-untilcomcast-acquires-it.
8
Historically, Comcast has used its control of content and new distribution technologies to disadvantage direct competitors. See, e.g., Comcast/Tirne Warner/Adelphia Transaction, 21 FCC Rcd 8203 (2006) at J167-69 (discriminatory tenns with regard to access to PBS Kids and PBS Sprout Video-on-Demand (VoD) programming controlled by Comcast). See Sister Spat, SUSAN CRAwFoRD BLOG, Oct. 19, 2010, http://scrawford.net/blog/sister-spat/1408. 2
Pubhc Knowledge
access to diverse views. As the Fox/Cablevision dispute illustrates, rather than the Internet providing the cure to media consolidation, the few remaining media conglomerates can and will leverage their off-line market power to control the distribution and evolution of online media.

Left on its own, the market is moving in a direction that will increasingly drive programmers and cable operators like Cablevision to ever increasing levels of consolidation. (As libertarian analysts agree, it would not be accurate to call this market a free one since the government has proactively stepped in to give broadcasters extra legal advantages. This would ) 0 be a worst-case scenario for consumers, who would suffer from higher prices and poor service, and for the health of the media, since a lack of plurality would limit the exposure of voters to alternative viewpoints. The Commission must consider this reality in the context of its pending Quadrennial Media Ownership review, as well as other proceedings that bear on video competition and media diversity.
Broadcasters Are Abusing the Government-Created Retransmission Consent System
The current retransmission consent regime gives undue power to broadcasters. Cable systems have no choice but to carry certain broadcasters due to must-carry rules, and local broadcasters are protected from competition by many FCC rules (such as network program nonduplication, syndicated program exclusivity, and sports blackout requirements) that give these companieswho already enjoy free, exclusive access to billions of dollars worth of spectrum unfair negotiating power. The millions of customers who have their access to valuable sports, entertainment, and news programming cut off are collateral damage in the broadcasters game of high-stakes brinksmanship. It is therefore valuable to recall that, before Congress and the FCC stepped in, cable systems did not need the consent of local broadcasters to boost their signals. Given the unintended consequences of the current system, the Commission should strongly consider what regulatory or legislative fixes could rebalance the power between broadcasters and the cable industry. One way broadcasters are abusing the government-created retransmission regime is by extending the fight to the Internet, as Fox demonstrated when it began blocking Cablevision broadband customers. It is not clear whether Fox was attempting to block customers of the Cablevision ISP per se or whether it was assuming that all Cablevision broadband customers were also Cablevision cable customers. Thus, there is no way to know whether it is Foxs position that only customers of MVPDs that provide Fox programming may access Fox content online, or whether its policy is that only customers of ISPs who are affiliated with MVPDs who provide Fox programming may access Fox content online. In any event, Foxs ISP-based blocking scheme is crude and causes many unintended consequences. For example, Cablevision broadband customers who subscribe to other MVPDs (such as Dish or DirecTV) that do provide Fox programming were blocked. Fox also demonstrated that it has little regard for its 2 traditional over-the-air viewers, since Cablevision broadband customers who watch broadcast
RANDOLPH J. MAY, BROADCAST RETRANSMISSION NEGOTIATIONS AND FREE MARKETS (2010), http ://www.freestatefoundation. org/irnages/Broadcast_Retransmission_Consent_Negotiations_and_FreeMarketsl 01610.pdf.
See Fortnightly Corp. v. UnitedArtists Television, 392 U.S. 390 (1968).

12
Public Knowledge has confirmed this with representatives of Cablevision.
a Public Knowledge
television over the air were also blocked from Hulu. Furthermore, flow that Cablevision broadband access to Fox content has been restored, many customers who use Cablevisions Internet services but do not subscribe to Cablevisions video offering have access to Fox content in apparent violation of Foxs policy. 3
* * *
The Commission should not view Foxs blocking of Cablevision customers, as a one-ofa-kind occurrence. Rather, it is a sign of things to come, unless the Commission reexamines its media ownership, merger, and retransmission consent policies. Sincerely, /s Harold Feld Legal Director Public Knowledge
Given the severe under- and over-inclusiveness of the means Fox used to block access to its content, the FCC should ask Fox whether its policy is to (1) block access to Fox content to all but those who also subscribe to MVPDs that provide Fox content, or (2) to block access to Fox content to all but those who use ISPs that have cut special deals with Fox. While neither of these policies is good for consumers, further analysis depends on knowing whom Fox thought it was blocking, and for what reason.
From: Catherine Bohigian < To: William Lake Sent: Mon Oct 25 16:17:33 2010 Subject: Re: FCC letter
Bill, Attached please find Mr. Dolans response to your letter. Thanks for your attention to this important and time-sensitive issue. Catherine
>>> William Lake Catherine
--
<
>
10/22/2010 1:25 PM
>>>
I attach a letter addressed to Messrs. Carey and Dolan. We will put an original the mail for your files; but in light of the shortness time please communicate it within the company. And please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Bill The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
liiiCABIJMSION
JAMES L. DOLAN President and Chief Executive Officer
October 25, 2010 Mr. William T. Lake Chief, Media Bureau Federal Co mmunicat ions Co mmission 445 l2 Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Mr. Lake: Attached please find Cablevisions response to your letter of October 22, 20l0 regarding the pending retransmission consent dispute between Cablevision and News Corporation regarding carriage of WNYW, WWOR, and WTXF (the Fox stations). As detailed in the attached submission, Cablevisions conduct throughout the negotiations with News Corp. has been in complete compliance with the Commissions good faith rules. Regrettably, the same cannot be said about News Corp.
Cablevision is committed to trying to resolve these negotiations in good faith. To end the current impasse, we have proposed that both parties submit the dispute to binding arbitration and that News Corp. restore carriage of the Fox stations during the pendency of arbitration. More than 50 elected officials and other policymakers have joined our call for this common-sense approach. In light of News Corp.s intransigence and bad faith, the only solution is for the Commission to act. We therefore respectfully request that the Commission redress News Corp.s violation of the good faith rules by ordering News Corp. to arbitrate and to restore the Fox stations immediately.
We are prepared to engage immediately under FCC auspices in Washington to resolve this dispute with News and to restore programming, starting Tuesday morning. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. Sincerely,
James L. Dolan Attachment

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION liii Stewart Avenue, Bethpage, NY 11714-3581
516 803-1002
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP. RESPONSE TO MEDIA BUREAU
October 25, 2010
Cablevision System Corp. (Cablevision) hereby responds to William T. Lakes letter of October 22, 2010, regarding the pending retransmission consent dispute between Cablevision and News Corporation (News Corp.) regarding carriage of WNYW, WWOR, and WTXF (the Fox stations). The letter asks Cablevision to describe how it is satisfying the good faith requirement of the Commissions retransmission consent rules, and in particular what has transpired since we initially began our negotiations with News Corp. and the efforts we are making to end the culTent impasse. The letter also asks Cablevision to describe and provide supporting evidence of any conduct by News Corp. that we believe violates the good faith
requirement.
Throughout all of its negotiations with News Corp., Cablevision has consistently acted in good faith and in compliance with the Commissions rules. News Corp., on the other hand, has refused to negotiate in good faith, leading to the current situation where millions of Cablevision subscribers are unfairly deprived of News Corp. programming and clearly will continue to be unable to access that programming without Commission intervention. Specifically: News Corp. has refused to negotiate in good faith by demanding a take it or leave it rate for WNYW, based on a rate it claims Time Warner Cable agreed to pay in a much broader, national agreement. Further, News Corp. has claimed it cannot show any flexibility in its demands for WNYW because it is bound by the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in that agreement, a self-imposed limitation that is a clear violation of the FCCs good faith rules. News Corp. deliberately timed the deadline to black out WNYW and WWOR to ensure that Cablevision customers would be denied access to must see sporting events including Major League Baseball playoffs and the World Series to force Cablevision to accept its take it or leave it demands. This strategy, designed to inflict maximum inconvenience on customers for private gain, presents Cablevision with the untenable choice of losing access to a marquee National sports events, or accepting unconscionably high subscription rates for Fox broadcast stations a model of bad faith tactics that if permitted would result in a spiral of ever higher consumer prices for broadcast cable.
News Corp. has abused the power in the New York market it has achieved through government broadcast licenses and special one of its kind FCC waivers that allow it to own multiple broadcast stations and newspapers in the market. News Corp. is attempting to leverage its unprecedented government-enabled media consolidation to force Cablevision to accept unreasonable fee demands.
The Commission has the authority to order News Corp. to allow carriage of that programming pending resolution of the contract dispute resolution that might, as Cablevision has suggested, be appropriately achieved through binding arbitration.
Given the impasse resulting from News Corp.s intransigence, it appears that Commission intervention is the only practical solution to restoring programming and addressing consumer needs. The Commission should exercise that authority in this case.
I. Cablevisions Conduct Has Adhered to the Good Faith Requirements
As detailed in the attached summary of the negotiations, Cablevision has consistently acted in good faith and in compliance with the Commissions rules. Throughout the negotiations, Cablevision has been flexible in trying to find a mutually acceptable arrangement that would permit the continued availability of the Fox stations for Cablevisions 3 million customers. Significantly, all of our proposals included retransmission consent fees that represented substantial increases over what Cablevision had previously paid for the Fox stations and have been in line with (and in some instances, have been more than) the fees we pay other stations affiliated with major networks, including networks that have higher ratings than Fox. Moreover, as the negotiations progressed, we submitted numerous proposals in which we increased the overall amount of compensation we were prepared to pay News Corp. In July, we responded to News Corp.s initial offer with a reasonable and creative proposal that would provide fair compensation for the Fox stations and other News Corp. programming at a substantially higher level than we paid under the one-year agreement that expired on October 15. Our proposal included a number of options for News Corp. such as providing additional programming on demand and multi-platform rights that would have enabled News Corp. to substantially increase its compensation.

When News Corp. dismissed that proposal in August, we responded in September with a proposal for carriage fees that would have nearly tripled the compensation to News Corp. for the Fox stations that we paid in the prior one-year agreement. When News Corp. refused to make any material concessions to the demanded compensation model for the Fox stations, particularly WNYW, Cablevision made another, materially richer, proposal that would have permitted News Corp.s WNYW to earn as much as, if not more than, any other broadcaster carried by Cablevision. News Corp. rejected that proposal, too. As expiration approached and News Corp. resorted to advertisements and threats, Cablevision repeatedly urged News Corp. to agree either to a reasonable contract or to a process that would ensure a timely resolution fair to both parties (such as arbitration), but in either case to suspend its threatened harm to customers by agreeing that the Fox stations would remain available until a contract was achieved. News Corp. rejected all of these proposals. Meanwhile, senior Cablevision executives with authority to make binding representations on behalf of the company have responded in a timely fashion to every News Corp. proposal and have made themselves available for discussions on an ongoing basis with the singular aim of finalizing a fair contract.
Cablevision is committed to trying to resolve these negotiations in good faith, both by proposing reasonable financial proposals and by proposing reasonable processes that would permit resolution. When it was clear that negotiations were at an impasse and News Corp. reiterated that it had no flexibility on the rate for WNYW because of a most favored nation clause in a contract with another multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), Cablevision urged that the parties submit the dispute to binding arbitration and that News Corp. restore carriage of the Fox stations during the pendency of arbitration. More than 50 elected officials and other policymakers have joined our call for this common-sense solution. In other contexts, the Commission has recognized that binding arbitration with interim carriage is an appropriate means for resolving carriage disputes, including retransmission consent disputes. News Corp. has refused to agree to our proposal, or any proposed process, to reach a resolution that restores programming timely and on reasonable terms. The result has been that millions of Cablevision subscribers have been harmed needlessly, held hostage to News Corp.s unreasonable demands.
II.
News Corp. Has Refused to Negotiate in Good Faith
In contrast to Cablevisions flexibility and its willingness to propose increased compensation for the Fox stations as the negotiations progressed, News Corp. effectively refused to move from its offer, including a steadfast refusal to reduce the price for its FOX network affiliate, WNYW. The Commission has explained that [t]ake it or leave it bargaining is not consistent with an affirmative obligation to negotiate in good faith. The Commissions regulations also provide 2 that a broadcaster may be found to have violated good faith bargaining rules based on the totality of the circumstances of a particular retransmission consent negotiation. On both of 3 these scores, Foxs current negotiating position violates the good faith requirement. As discussed in more detail below, in the course of the current negotiations News Corp. has violated its duty to negotiate in good faith by (1) proposing unreasonable compensation, including unreasonable bundling, on a take it or leave it basis that is inconsistent with 4 competitive marketplace considerations; (2) deliberately structuring the timing of its 5 agreements and negotiations so it could withhold its signal immediately prior to a must see marquee event; (3) hiding behind most favored nation clauses in other agreements as the basis 6
See, e.g., General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, Transferors, and
The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 473, App. F
(2004) (News Corp./DirecTV Order); Applications for Consent to the Ass igninent and/or Transfer of Control ofLicenses ofAdeiphia Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8203, App. B (2006) (Adelphia Order).
2/
See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of]999; Retransmission Consent Issues: Good Faith Negotiation and Exclusivity, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5445, (Good Faith Order). 47 C.F.R.
43
6/
76.65(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. 76.65(b)(1)(iv) (barring a single, unilateral proposal). 47 C.F.R. 76.65(b)(1); see Good Faith OrderJ 8. See 47 C.F.R. 76.65(b)(2) (totality of the circumstances test for good faith negotiations).
3
for refusing to negotiate a reasonable rate for WNYW; and (4) refusing to enter into arbitration 7 in which the reasonable value of its programming could be determined. News Corp.s conduct 8 also represents an abuse of its duopoly in the New York market and its two extraordinary waivers of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules. Finally, its disregard of the interests of its viewers raises serious questions about its fitness as a broadcast licensee operating as a trustee of an important public asset. The sum of thes.e unfair negotiating tactics the totality of the circumstances is that Fox has not engaged in negotiations with a sincere intent of trying to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both parties 9

1. News Corp. has proposed unreasonable compensation, including unreasonable bundling, on a take it or leave it basis. Within the past year, Cablevision which is the largest MVPD in the New York market has reached new retransmission consent agreements with the flagship stations of each of the other broadcast networks. We therefore have a solid understanding of the prevailing market rate for broadcast carriage in the New York market. We have offered to pay News Corp. more for carriage of the FOX network affiliates than we pay every other broadcaster despite the fact that it is not the highest rated network in our market.

News Corp., however, has not moved from its take it or leave it price demand for the Fox stations that is significantly higher than what we pay for every other broadcaster in this market combined. Its insistence on this single, unilateral price at multiples of the prevailing market rate is not justified by ratings, popularity, or content, and therefore is not based on reasonable market considerations as required by the Commissions rules. News Corp.s [t]ake it or leave it bargaining is not consistent with an affirmative obligation to negotiate in good faith. In violation of this obligation, News Corp. has been unwilling to consider any significant changes to the first proposal it made to us in May. As the attached summary of negotiations indicates, while News Corp. has made some incremental changes on the prices and terms of carriage of the other News Corp. programming services it is bundling with the broadcast stations, it has been wholly unwilling to move off its demands for WNYW. Thus, News Corp. has effectively put forth a single, unilateral proposal on a take it or leave it basis, in direct contravention of the good faith rules and the Commissions orders.
.7/ 8/
47 C.F.R. Id.
76.65(b)(1)(iv).
Good Faith Order 39. Good Faith Order 43. Good Faith Order 43. News Corp. attempts to justify its unreasonable demands by comparing its proposal to the price for Madison Square Gardens two regional sport networks, but that is an applesto-oranges comparison. Broadcast channels have a number of advantages that more than offset the difference in pricing for these small, regional cable channels. In particular, the Communications Act guarantees broadcasters like the Fox stations carriage on the most widely distributed tier of cable programming and requires that all subscribers purchase this tier. See 47 U.S.C. 543(b)(7)(A). There are a number of other distinguishing factors that make News Corp.s equivalence claim unpersuasive, but the Commission need not address these here. The parties submission of this pricing dispute to an arbitrator
News Corp. also insisted on tying retransmission consent to increased payments for its other cable programming services. While a broadcaster is not barred per se from seeking retransmission consent compensation through the carriage of cable programming, such compensation must be reasonable and based on market considerations. This was clearly not the case here. Much of the compensation that News Corp. receives for its cable channels from Cablevision is, in fact, indirect compensation for its broadcast channels. News Corp.s demand for direct compensation for its broadcast stations in addition to increases in the fees for its cable channels is an attempt to obtain double compensation through tying. News Corp. made this obvious when Cablevision asked for a standalone broadcast proposal, untied to unrelated cable networks. When, after Cablevisions repeated requests, News Corp. finally made such a proposal, the price for the Fox stations was more thanfour times the price for the stations as part of the bundle, and multiple times more than what Cablevision pays other broadcasters like CBS and ABC. Such bargaining tactics cannot reasonably be characterized as good faith. News Corp.s demand for a substantial premium over and above what other broadcasters receive including broadcasters with whom Cablevision contracted in 2010 is unjustified and not based on reasonable market considerations, such as relative ratings, content, or popularity.

2. News Corp. deliberately structured the timing of its agreements and negotiations so its existing consent agreement would expire immediately before the baseball playoffs and the World Series. The Commissions regulations also provide that a broadcaster may be found to have violated good faith bargaining rules based on the totality of the circumstances of a particular retransmission consent negotiation. On this ground as well, News Corp.s conduct 2 violates the good faith requirement. As the attached summary notes, News Corp. deliberately structured the timing of its agreements and negotiations with Cablevision so that its 2009 extension of retransmission consent would expire immediately before the National League playoffs and the World Series. Those marquee events are must see programming for Cablevision subscribers. Fox obviously realized that scheduling expiration of its agreement to 3 occur immediately prior to an event that is likely to be extremely popular with Cablevision subscribers gives it maximum and unfair leverage in negotiations because withholding

would allow each to make its case for whether its proposed price model is reasonable in light of market
circumstances,
12/ 13/
47 C.F.R.
76.65(b)(2).
See, e.g., Press Release, Major League Baseball, Excitement building as the teams fight for the World Series berth (Oct. 21, 2010) (2010 LCS coverage on FOX and TBS continues to generate the highest combined television ratings and viewership levels since 2006.); Johnathan Berr, World Series ratings: Fox Knocks It Out of the Park, DAILY F1NANCE (Oct. 29, 2009) (Game 1 of the World Series posted stunning ratings, underscoring the bonanza News Corp.s Fox television network is reaping.), at http://www. dailyfinance.comlstory/media/world-series-tv-ratings-fox-knocks-it-out-of-the park119215695/. See also, e.g., Wayne Friedman, TVBrands Can Be Hurt Long-Term In the Retrans Wars, TV WATCH, Oct. 18, 2010 (Higher-gloss TV brands, like Fox, will win out in these situations, especially this time of year with the World Series and NFL programming in full swing. [Cablevision] will lose subscribers at a far faster pace than its prior battles given the timing of key sporting events.) at http://www.mediapost.com!publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art aid 137879.
. . .
retransmission of the marquee event causes Cablevision the maximum possible damage with its 4 subscribers. Exploiting exclusive broadcast rights to marquee events to extract leverage for long-term contracts at an above-market price violates the requirement that retransmission consent be based on market considerations. The Commission has long recognized the unfair leverage a party to carriage negotiations can exert by threatening to withhold or actually withholding carriage during a programming event valuable to the other party. It is for just this reason that Commission rules prohibit cable operators from deleting any local commercial television station from their channel line-ups during any television ratings sweeps. The same unfair leverage exists when a broadcaster 5 threatens to or does withhold consent to rebroadcast the signal during a popular national television event such as the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Academy Awards. Just as cable operators are prohibited from using their leverage at critical times for broadcasters, broadcasters should be similarly prohibited from abusing their leverage during times of marquee events.

The Commission has acknowledged that it must always take into account the relative bargaining position of the parties when examining the totality of the circumstances for a failure to negotiate in good faith. News Corp.s exploitation of its rights to the American and 16 National League playoffs and the World Series can only be viewed as an abuse of its bargaining position.
News Corp.s self-imposed limitation on negotiating because of a most favored 3. nation clause in its agreement with Time Warner Cable violates the good faith requirement. In discussions with Cablevision, News Corp. representatives acknowledged that one reason they were unwilling to consider Cablevisions offer for carriage of WNYW was the existence of a most favored nation (MFN) clause in its retransmission consent agreements with other MVPDs. They told us that because of MFN they could not agree to any rate for WNYW 7 that is less than what Time Warner Cable pays. In fact, they said that because the MFN would
See Congressional Research Service, A Condensed Review ofRetransmission Consent and Other Federal Rules Affecting Programmer-Distributor Negotiations, Summary, at 17 (July 9, 2007) (There often is a timing element to must-have progranmiing that programmers can use strategically in their negotiations with distributors. Television households are far more likely to switch MVPD providers if they fear the loss of particular time sensitive programming, such as the Super Bowl, the Olympic Gaines, the National Football League season, or the finale of American Idol or some other extremely popular series. Some programmers have effectively timed their negotiations with distributors to take advantage of such program schedules.).
15/ 16/ 14/
47 C.F,R.
76.1601.
Implementation of Section 207 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004; Reciprocal Bargaining Obligations, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd. 10339, 15 (2005).
The existence of an MFN in News Corp.s contract with Time Warner Cable has been reported in the press and effectively acknowledged publicly by Fox. See Joe Flint, One reason Fox is reluctant to arbitrate its contract dispute with Cablevision, Los ANGELES TIMES (Company Town Blog), Oct. 21, 2010, available at http ://latimesblogs .latimes comlentertainmentnewsbuzz/20 10/10/fox-arbitrate-contractcablevision.htrnl.
17/
require them to reduce Time Warner Cables rate if they agreed to a lower rate for Cablevision, not doing a deal with Cablevision would be an easy decision. This self-imposed limitation violates the good faith rules because it effectively presented Cablevision with just the kind of take it or leave it offer for WNYW that is baiTed by the rules. 8 As the courts and the Department of Justice have recognized, MFNs under certain circumstances are antithetical to competition because they inhibit a party to an MFN from negotiating competitive deals with third parties. Clearly, News Corp.s insistence on avoiding triggering 19 the MFN has had that effect here. News Corp.s insistence on the MFN would also force Cablevision to accept a rate for WNYW that is not reflective of the prevailing market rate. Time Warner Cables rate reflects bargaining by Time Warner Cable and News Corp. across multiple markets rather than a rate that is based on market conditions in New York. Retransmission consent was designed to protect and 201 support local broadcasting and the origination of local programming, a national carriage but 21 rate by definition reflects the parties judgment of an appropriate rate across a range of markets. An MFN that effectively ties the rate for carriage of WNYW in New York to a national composite rate effectively decouples the rate from the competitive market conditions in the New York market. Further, the rate represented in a national MFN may also reflect other offsets between the contracting parties that are not present in the New York market. For instance, Time Warner Cables rate may be higher because News Corp. gave Time Warner Cable rate discounts or ad availabilities on the News Corp. regional sports networks (RSNs) that Time Warner Cable carries in other markets. The absence of any News Corp. RSNs in the New York market make such offsets unavailable to Cablevision, rendering the national MFN a poor substitute for market-based negotiation. As discussed above, the best determination of the prevailing rate in the New York market are the deals Cablevision has struck with the other major broadcasters in that market. Because News Corp. insists on a cash payment that is greater than what Cablevision pays for all the other retransmission consent stations in the New York market combined, its offer clearly deviates significantly from the prevailing market rate. As a consequence, News Corp.s adherence to its MFN rate has produced an unreasonable proposal and made News Corp. inflexible in
47 C.F.R. 76.65(b)(iv) (barring a single, unilateral proposal). See, e.g., United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield ofMichigan, No. 2:l0-cv-14155 (E.D. Mich. filed Oct. 18, 2010) (complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice alleging Blue Cross use of MFNs has reduced competition in the sale of health insurance in markets throughout Michigan. Cf United States v. Delta Dental ofRhode Island, 943 F. Supp. 172, 182, (1996) (accepting the proposition that courts should not adopt a per se rule regarding MFN clauses, but should carefully examine the alleged anticompetitive effects of each challenged clause.).
.
18/
201
Cf 47 C.F.R. 76.65(a); see Good Faith Order 8 (an offer violates the good faith rules if it is inconsistent with competitive marketplace considerations).
21/
See S. Rep. No. 102-92, lO2d Cong.,lst Sess., at 35 (June 28, 1991) (Congress sought to protect and preserve local broadcast programming so that broadcasters no longer had to subsidize the establishment of their chief competitors).
negotiations regarding that proposal. News Corp.s insistence on this rate violates its duty to negotiate in good faith. 4. News Corp.s refusal to submit to arbitration is evidence of bad faith. The prohibition on take it or leave bargaining is not limited to the terms of a retransmission consent offer, but goes to a partys willingness to engage in a process that can yield a fair, market-based result. With respect to the process for resolving disputes that arise in a negotiation, a party may not refus[ej 23 to put forth more than a single, unilateral proposal. News Corp.s refusal to submit to binding arbitration in the face of a persistent impasse in negotiations is the kind of take it or leave it behavior that is inconsistent with the requirement to negotiate in good faith. The Commission has long reconized the value of arbitration where parties cannot reach agreement on the terms of carriage. Under the circumstances presented here, News 24 Corp.s refusal to agree to a mechanism to break the impasse is unreasonable. The Commission should break this impasse by ordering News Corp. to agree to arbitration, just as it has imposed that requirement on News Corp. in the past. 25
. . .
5. News Corp.s special duopoly in the New York market confers additional unfair leverage. The Commission is currently seeking comment on whether its current duopoly rules serve the goals of diversity, competition, and localism. It is clear that permitting News Corp.s 26 duopoly in this instance does not advance any of those objectives. As a general matter, enabling a broadcaster to control multiple local stations in a market gives a broadcaster the ability to increase leverage in retransmission consent negotiations by tying low-rated stations and stations that have discontinued offering valued programming with network affiliates that have musthave national sports programming. The result is that broadcasters are able to extract higher retransmission consent fees than a less concentrated market would produce, driving up consumer costs with no added value. The additional negotiating leverage that comes from owning two stations in the same market is in this case solely the result of the extraordinary grant to News Corp.s of Iwo waivers of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, one of which is a temporary waiver that expired in 2008, with Foxs requested extension hotly opposed. That exceptional treatment should 27
22/ 23/
Good Faith Order 43. 47 C.F.R.
76.65(b)(iv).
24/ 25/ 26/
News Corp/DirecTV Order 177, 222; Adelphia Order, App. B. News Corp/DirecTV Order 220-224.
2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review Review of the Commission s Broadcast Ownershz Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 6086, 83-85 (2010).
27/
See K. Rupert Murdoch, (Transferor) and Fox Entertainment Group (Transferee), 21 FCC Rcd 11499, 8 (2006) (extending for 24 months the temporary waiver for WWOR first granted in 2001, see Applications of UTVoI San Francisco Inc., et al. (Assignor) and Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Assignee), 16 FCC Rcd 14975 (2001)). Foxs requested permanent waiver for WWOR, see Fox Television Stations, Inc., Applications for Renewal ofLicense of WWOR-TVand WI/YTJ2 Supplement to Petition for Modification of Permanent Waiver (filed Jun. 23, 2008), has been opposed, see Fox Television Stations,
impose a special responsibility on News Corp. to meet the spirit and the letter of the Commissions good faith negotiation rules. As we have demonstrated, News Corp.s conduct has been exactly to the contrary.
6. News Corp. has engaged in bad faith by abusing its government-granted assets and using them as leverage to the detriment of the public. News Corp. built Fox by using government-granted free broadcast licenses such as that used by the Fox stations. In exchange, it is obligated b,y law to operate in a manner that serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 28 WNYW and WWOR are both culTently operating with expired broadcast licenses, and as noted above News Corp. enjoys two special waivers of the newspaper-broadcast crossownership prohibition. Moreover, there has been significant opposition to renewal of the WWOR license specifically based on the stations failure to serve the local community as 29 required. Under these circumstances, News Corp. has a special obligation to protect the public and to ensure that WWOR and WNYW operate in a manner that serves the public interest while the FCC determines whether the licenses should be renewed.
Inc. Applications for Renewal ofLicense of WWOR-TV-TV and WATYWRequestfor Waiver of the Newspaper-BroadcastCross-Ownershi Rule Relating to WWOR-TVand the New York Post, Opposition of Office of Communication, United Church Of Christ, Inc., Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Free Press (filed July 15, 2009).
28/
47 U.S.C. 307, 309. See Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission, 707F.2d]4]3, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (In return for the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain, broadcasters were to be burdened by enforceable public obligations) (quoting Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission, 359 F.2d 994, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1966)); Black Citizens for a Fair Media, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 719 F.2d 407, 419 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Wright, J., dissenting) (It is a fundamental premise of the Act that the public, and not the broadcaster, owns the airwaves. Under the regulatory scheme, a broadcaster receives free and exclusive use of a slice of this public resource, the remunerative potential of which has proven to be vast. In return, the broadcaster must use this public resource so as to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This public interest standard mandates programming that meets the needs of a broadcasters viewing or listening community.) (internal citations omitted).
29/
See, e.g., Application for Renewal of Station License of WWOR(TV) Secaucus, NJ, Petition to Deny Renewal Filed by Voice for New Jersey, MB Docket No. 07-260, at 6-7 (filed April 28,. 2007) (The quantity of news coverage provided by WWOR is not adequate to properly serve the community of license [and] WWORs coverage of New Jersey issues is completely inadequate.); Fox Television Stations, Inc. Applications for Renewal of WIT/OR-TV-TV and WATYW Requestfor Waiver of the Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule Relating to WWOR-TVand the New York Post, Opposition of Office of Communication, United Church of Christ, Inc., Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Free Press to Fox Television, Inc. and News Corporation Limiteds Supplement to Petition for Modification of Permanent Waiver, MB Docket No. 07-260, at 17 (filed July 15, 2009) (WWOR-TV has failed to provide adequate local news coverage to its community of license.); Letter from Charles Lovey, Member, Voice for New Jersey, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, MB Docket No. 07-260, at 5 (filed Feb. 15, 2010) (It is [] difficult to fathom that WWOR-TV could maintain even the minimal service levels that Fox boasts of, having just reduced its news and public affairs programming by more than half and its staffing by over 2/3.).
News Corp.s decision to withdraw carriage of these stations to increase its leverage in retransmission consent negotiations with Cablevision violates this public trust by holding consumers hostage to Foxs unreasonable retransmission consent demands. The FCC and the courts have long recognized that a station is not serving the public interest if it is not meeting the needs and interests of its viewers. Withholding programming is certainly not meeting those 307 needs and interests. The Commission has held that [c]onduct that is violative of national policies favoring competition violates rules requiring good faith bargaining. Retransmission 31 consent required by a statute that was designed to preserve local broadcasting for the public should not be allowed to become simply a tool in an anticompetitive strategy to withhold broadcast programming from competitors as a bargaining tool or to leverage a substantial increase in the costs of receiving the programming. Indeed, allowing a national network to pursue through its owned and operated stations a national economic strategy driven by the increased cost of sports and that is divorced from local market realities perverts the spirit and purpose of the retransmission consent statute. News Corp.s abuse of its public trust violates the good faith negotiation requirements 327

III.
The Commission Has The Authority To Order Carriage Pending Arbitration
The FCC has recognized that interruption of local broadcast signals is highly undesirable, 33 and has expressed concern regarding the service disruptions and consumer outrage that will inevitably result should MVPDs that are entitled to retransmit local signals lose such 34 authorization. The Commissions broad and unique authority over broadcasters under Title III of the Communications Act, as well as other provisions of the Act, allow it to redress News Corp.s violations of the good faith requirement by ordering News Corp. to submit to arbitration and by requiring News Corp. to immediately allow Cablevision to carry the Fox stations during the pendency of the arbitration.
First, the Commission has the authority to enforce the requirement that parties negotiate
retransmission consent in good faith. In addition to its obligation to adopt rules governing the exercise by television broadcast stations of the right to grant retransmission consent, including the requirement to negotiate in good faith, the Commission has the power to enforce those 35 rules and the underlying statutory good faith requirement. That power is found in section 4(i) of the Communications Act, which authorizes the FCC to perform any and all acts not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions. 36
. . .
30/ 31/ 32/
Office of Communication of the United Church Of Christ v. FCC, 359 F,2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Good Faith Order 58.
News Corp.s conduct in its negotiations with Cablevision also goes to its fitness to remain a broadcast licensee, let alone the beneficiary of two waivers of the newspaper-cable cross-ownership rules.
Good Faith Order 12. Good Faith Order 61. Id.
36/
47 U.S.C. 154(i); see also id. 303(r) (in exercising its plenary authority over radio communications, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not
.,.
10
Enforcement of the Communications Acts duties is clearly an act that is necessary to the execution of [the FCCs] functions.
Second, it is well established that the FCC has the authority to impose interim relief in order to preserve the status quo while the dispute is finally resolved. In the broadcast carriage context, that authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, invoking sections 4(i) 371 and 303(r) of the Communications Act, the Commission held that it had the authority to order continued carriage of cable programming services in order to minimiz[e] the impact on subscribers who may otherwise lose valued programming pending resolution of a dispute. 38 After the adoption of the 2010 Program Access Order, but before it became effective, the Media Bureau held that it has authority to impose a standstill order during the pendency of a program access complaint under section 4(i) of the Act, independently of that order. In the News Corp 39 DirecTV and Adeiphia proceedings described above, the Commission likewise required the parties to permit continued carriage of their television stations and regional sports programming during the pendency of a retransmission consent or program access dispute. 40 Third, specifically in the context of a retransmission consent dispute, the Commission has exercised this authority to ensure continued carriage of broadcast signals even where the retransmission consent agreement has expired. In that instance, Time Warner was required to 41 restore carriage of ABC broadcast stations because, the Commission held, section 614 of the Communications Act applies to all local commercial broadcast stations [u]pon expiration of an
inconsistent with law, as maybe necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act); 20 1(b) (authorizing the Commission to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act). While the latter provision is contained in Title II of the Communications Act, the FCC has invoked it in support of its regulation of cable service. Implementation ofSection 62] (a)(]) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5101, 54(2007), affd sub nom Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008),
See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 180 (1968) (recognizing the Commissions authority under sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act to issue an order maintaining the status quo in cable carriage disputes whenever the public interest demands interim relief) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Review of the Commission Program Access Rules and Examination ofProgramming Tying Arrangements, First Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 746, 71(2010). The Commission cited numerous prior instances where it imposed interim relief, including orders for temporary carriage. See id. at 72 n. 265. Sky Angel US., LLC, Emergency Petition for Temporary Standstill, 25 FCC Rcd 3879 (MB 2010) (FCC has authority to impose interim carriage requirement under its general grant of authority in section 4(i)).
40/ 41/ 38/
News Corp-DIRECTV Order
J 177, 222; Adelphia Order, App. B.
Time Warner Cable, Emergency Petition ofABC, Inc. for Declaratory Ruling And Enforcement Order For Violation ofSection 76.58 of the Commissions Rules, or in the Alternative For Immediate Injunctive Relief 15 FCC Rcd 7882 (MB 2000).
11
existing retransmission consent. While the Time Warner-ABC dispute involved the specific 421 question of whether a station could be dropped during sweeps week, the logic of that decision applies to this dispute. In particular, the same important government interest in promoting free, over-the-air local broadcast television, the widespread dissemination of information, and fair competition that the Commission noted there support an order for Fox to restore carriage of its 43 stations to Cablevision pending arbitration of this dispute.
Finally, requiring News Corp. to restore carriage will further the purposes of the 1992 Cable
Act. In the 1992 Cable Act, Congress found that [t]he Federal Government has a substantial interest in making all nonduplicative local public television services available on cable systems and in having cable systems carry the signals of local commercial television stations. 451 Congress also recognized the popularity of broadcast programming and that consumers who subscribe to cable television often do so to obtain local broadcast signals. Continuing to allow 46 Foxs unilateral decision to deny broadcast programming to Cablevision subscribers undermines these substantial Federal interests. Conclusion Under the Commissions rules, a broadcaster may be found to have violated good faith bargaining rules based on the totality of the circumstances of a particular retransmission consent 47 negotiation. News Corp. has engaged in multiple unfair tactics in the course of the current negotiations deliberately structuring the timing of its agreements and negotiations so it could withhold its signal immediately prior to a must see marquee event; making a take it or leave it proposal in which it demanded a cash payment that far exceeds the retransmission consent demands of other broadcasters; hiding behind most favored nation clauses in other agreements as the basis for refusing to negotiate a reasonable rate for WNYW; and refusing to enter into arbitration in which the reasonable value of its programming could be determined. Viewed as a whole in the totality of the circumstances the sum of these unfair negotiating tactics reveals that News Corp. has not engaged in negotiations with a sincere intent of trying to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. We respectfully request that the Commission 48 take immediate steps to redress this violation of Commission rules by ordering News Corp. to arbitrate and to restore the Fox stations immediately. The Commission has ample authority to do so.

42/
Id.7.
Cf Exclusive Service Contractsfor Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and
Other Real Estate Developments, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20235, 47 (2007) (invoking the purposes of the 1992 Cable Act in support of its action). Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 1023 85, 2(a)(8), (9).
46/
Id.
2(a)(17), (19). 47 C.F.R. 76.65(b)(2).

Good Faith Order 39.
12
ATTACHMENT A CABLEVISION-NEWS CORP. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT NEGOTIATIONS
This document sets forth a summary of the retransmission consent negotiations between Cablevision and News Corp. for carriage of WNYW, WWOR, and WTXF (the Fox stations).
Summary of Negotiations
October 2009. After 15 years of month-to-month retransmission consent, News Corp. sent Cablevision a 30-day termination notice deliberately timed to coincide with the start of the American League Championship Series featuring the New York Yankees. The timing was intended as leverage to force Cablevision to agree to a substantial increase in retransmission consent fees. Cablevision agreed to a one-year extension of the retransmission consent agreement and further agreed to launch and pay for two new cable channels (Fox Business Network and National Geographic Wild) that Cablevision had otherwise not intended to launch. Cablevision asked for an extension until mid-November 2010, but News Corp. insisted that the agreement expire on October 15, just before the National League playoffs and the World Series.
May 2010. News Corp. proposes terms for a three-year retransmission consent deal that would increase the price for the Fox stations by more than 10 times the effective rate under the existing agreement, and only if Cablevision also agreed to an increase of tens of millions of dollars in fees for other News Corp. cable programming, including programming subject to in-place contracts that otherwise lock in a rate for another year or longer. Annual increases during the second and third years of the proposal would dramatically exceed the rate of inflation. When News Corp.s later proposal for an increase in the rate for Fox News is taken into account, the total amount of News Corp.s proposal reached $150 million, compared to the $70 million that Cablevision was then paying for the same broadcast and cable programming. July 2010. Cablevision responded with its own proposal, which, contained base rates for retransmission consent that it believe reflected market conditions in the New York market. Significantly, this proposal, for the first time, would have obligated Cablevision to pay cash directly for the retransmission of broadcast signals at a rate that would increase each January 1 beginning in 2011. Cablevision also proposed to extend its existing agreements for various News Corp. cable channels. Cablevision further proposed a unique structure for the retransmission consent component of its offer that provided News Corp. with a menu of options to increase the retransmission consent fee in exchange for providing expanded rights, such as enhanced VOD, to Cablevision and its subscribers. In addition, as added value to News Corp., Cablevision proposed an innovative interactive, on-demand video channel dedicated to News Corp. programming that would provide the opportunity to drive deeper viewer engagement and an additional vehicle to monetize advertising revenue for them. July 2010. In a call between Cablevision and News Corp. representatives later in July, the News Corp. representatives noted that accepting Cablevisions proposal would cost them more money in givebacks to other distributors because of most favored nation clauses in their
retransmission consent agreements with those distributors. They suggested that agreeing to Cablevisions proposal would require them to reduce rates to these other distributors and said that therefore not doing a deal with Cablevision would be an easy decision.
August 2010. Significantly, News Corp. responded to Cablevisions proposal by raising its proposed fees. Although the base retransmission consent rates were somewhat lower than its May proposal, News Corp. restructured components of its offer such that the total cost to Cablevision under this new proposal was actually higher than News Corp.s May proposal. Once again, News Corp. included increases for cable services subject to in-place contracts. News Corp. refused Cablevisions request for a proposal for Fox News, despite the December 2010 expiration of the contract for that service. September 2010. Cablevision made a substantially more generous offer to News Corp., raising the proposed fee for the Fox stations while attempting to greatly simplify the negotiation by limiting it to only those broadcast and cable services that were set to expire on October 15. Based on News Corps selective demand to include some, but not all of the cable services with near-term expirations, Cablevision suggested this fair and simpler approach in the hopes that the parties could quickly come to agreement. Cablevisions new proposal represented an almost tripling of News Corp.s combined compensation under the existing one-year agreement for this group of services. October 5. News Corp. responded with what its lead negotiator characterized as a nonnegotiable (this is it) proposal to Cablevision for Fox retransmission consent and indicated that it would not show any flexibility in this regard. News Corp. representatives suggested that the rate contained in this proposal was their MFN rate and thus any reduction below it would trigger give-backs to other distributors. While the proposal represented a slight reduction from News Corp.s August offer, the broadcast component was still many times the market rate for broadcast channels in the New York market. Moreover, like past proposals, the broadcast fee was conditioned on Cablevision agreeing to tens of millions of dollars of new fees on cable programming, but once again, addressed some, but not all of the imminently expiring cable services. In some instances, this would have required Cablevision to reopen contracts in mid-term and increase payments for the programming. Because the price for the package of broadcast and cable programming proposed by News Corp. was simply too costly and incomplete, Cablevision asked News Corp for a standalone price for the Fox stations. October 6. News Corp. responded with a proposal for the Fox stations that would have increased the price more than four-fold for those stations in its prior proposals. October 12. News Corp. and Cablevision exchanged letters. News Corp. asked for a response to its October 6 proposal. Cablevision responded that it was prepared to negotiate and pay a fair market rate, but that News Corps demand that Cablevision pay more for News Corp.s broadcast than it pays all other New York area broadcasters combined was not a useful starting point. Cablevision urged News Corp. not to pull the stations while negotiations continued beyond October 15.
October 13. News Corp. and Cablevision again exchanged letters. Cablevision reiterated its willingness to negotiate a fair price for News Corp.s programming and indicated its availability for around-the-clock talks if necessary. News Corp. again asked for a response to its October 6 proposal, ignoring Cablevisions October 12 response. Cablevision made a new proposal to News Corp. that further increased the price for the Fox stations above Cablevisions September proposal, along with separate payments for News Corp.s cable programming. Cablevision also proposed that the parties agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. News Corp. refused. October 14. News Corp. made another proposal that included the exact same rates for the Fox stations as its prior offer. This time they finally included a proposal for Fox News, but with a 44% year-one rate increase that further widened, rather than narrowed, the gap between our respective positions. October 15-17. Cablevision representatives attended numerous face-to-face meetings in News Corps New York headquarters, during which Cablevision extended a total of four new proposals, each with increased rates for WNYW and WTXF. News Corp. refused to negotiate the rate for those stations and persisted in their October 5 this is it rate. News Corp. representatives told Cablevision that the WNYW rate was the rate in agreements subject to the most favored nation clause in their agreements with other MVPDs and that therefore they would not agree to a lower rate. They strongly suggested that any future proposal we make should begin with agreeing to the rates they proposed for WNYW.
At the conclusion of these meetings Cablevision representatives made it clear that they had sufficient flexibility to negotiate and make a deal, but that it was essential that News Corp. demonstrate willingness to creatively approach bridging the price difference between Cablevisions position and News Corps position on WNYW. News Corp. has declined to do so.
DECLARATION OF E. McRAE BUDILL
I, E. McRae Budill, declare as follows: My title is Executive Vice President Programming. I have been employed by Cablevision Systems Corporation since June 10, 1991. In this capacity, my duties include negotiating retransmission consent and program carriage agreements. I have primary responsibility for negotiating with News Corp. for retransmission consent for the carriage of WNYW, WWOR, and WTXF (the Fox stations).
I have reviewed the foregoing summary of the retransmission consent negotiations between Cablevision and News Corp. for carriage of the Fox stations. I solemnly affirm under penalty of perjury that the summary is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Date:
E. McRae Budill
From: O Maureen [mailto: Connell, T I Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:28 PM To: William Lake; Brad Gillen; Dave Grimaldi; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow; Eloise Gore; Joshua Cinelli; Marilyn Sonn; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Rick Kaplan; Rosemary Harold; Sherrese Smith; Steven Broeckaert Subject: Attached is our letter in response to the letter from William Lake of October 22 asking for information related to our retransmission consent dispute with Cablevision. Please let me know if you need anything else. Maureen
FOX
N ETWORKS
October 25, 2010 Mr. William T. Lake Chief, Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission i2 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Dear Mr. Lake: Chase Carey asked me to reply to your letter of October 22 requesting information regarding our negotiations with Cablevision Systems Corporation for retransmission consent. As President, Affiliate Sales and Marketing of the Fox Networks Group, I am the person within News Corporation who is most familiar with the entire scope of the ongoing negotiations. We are aware of the impact these negotiations have on our viewers and we have carefully complied with our duty to engage in good faith negotiations while making efforts to achieve fair value for Fox content. As you requested in your letter, I will describe the specific events that have transpired since we began negotiating with Cablevision for retransmission consent in September 2009. This chronology clearly demonstrates that Fox has fulfilled its obligations to negotiate in good faith. This entire process has been very discouraging for us. We actually started the negotiations over a year ago and, while we have been able to reach agreements with other program distributors, large and small, it eventually became apparent Cablevision did not seem to be truly interested in reaching a fair agreement. When we first approached Cablevision to begin the process, they asked us to negotiate with others first to establish the fair market cash value of our stations. When we did exactly that and returned to them, they refused to acknowledge the value determined by those other agreements. As we came closer and closer to the expiration of our last agreement, we were prepared to work full tilt with an assembled staff of our top executives and attorneys. Cablevision seemed more interested in making points to Congress and the press. Time after time, even after our stations were no longer carried, Fox made changes to its proposals and concessions to meet Cablevision requests, while Cablevision only moved the same money around, presenting new offers with no net difference from their previous proposals. We recognize that our approach to retransmission consent has evolved from seeking cable network launches to requiring cash compensation. In the early 1990s bundling cable networks was a benefit to both broadcast station groups and MVPDs. MVPDs were reluctant to pay cash and were in need of additional programming for their cable tiers. Broadcasters wanted to achieve some value for their network programming, and getting into the cable network business was appealing.
MICHAEL C. HOPKINS
President, Affiliate Sales & Marketing P.O. Box 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90213 0900 t:3103690828 f:3109690677 mike.hopkins@fox.com
A Unit of Fox Networks Group toxnetworkslnfo.com
Fox / Cablevision Retransmission Consent Negotiations
Mr. William T. Lake October 25, 2010 Page 2
Today, the broadcast business is facing new challenges and it is apparent that without creating a second revenue stream, broadcasters will no longer be able to acquire major sports events and the popular entertainment programming that consumers value and to produce local news. In determining what retransmission consent is worth, we look to viewership, important events, and the value MVPDs receive in reselling our station programming. Based on these measures, Fox could fairly seek fees in excess of the highest-paid cable channels. In spite of that, we recognize the disruptions that level of compensation would create, so we decided to pursue the middle ground of smaller cash fees and continued carriage of certain cable channels. In October 2009, Cablevisions carriage of Fox owned and operated television broadcast stations (WNYW, WWOR-TV, and WTXF-TV) was governed by a very simple open-ended retransmission consent agreement. That agreement provided no cash compensation to Fox for Cablevisions right to carry the Fox stations. Although Cablevision charged as much as $18 per subscriber per month for its basic tier, none of that went to compensate Fox for the popular programming that provided actual value to subscribers. In September 2009, Fox notified Cablevision of its intent to establish new retransmission consent agreements with all of the multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) carrying Fox broadcast stations in order to recover some of the value of our programming. We invited Cablevision to begin negotiations immediately. Although the existing agreement had no defined expiration date, it permitted either party to terminate with a thirty-day written notice. On September 21, 2009, Fox provided that thirty-day notice to Cablevision, effectively ending the existing arrangement on October 22, 2009. We discussed with Cablevision how changes in the industry made it absolutely vital for Fox and other broadcasters to establish a viable dual revenue stream in order to continue providing the high quality entertainment and sports programming that viewers have come to expect. With our highly rated and expensive-to-produce programming, Fox intended to seek compensation that takes a step toward recognizing the value it adds to a cable operators channel lineup. Cablevision had been carrying Fox stations with no cash compensation while paying substantial fees well in excess of what Fox is seeking to an array of cable network programmers with much less popular programming. In our negotiations, Cablevision objected to being the first to complete this type of arrangement with us because it was a relatively small operator with only a regional footprint concentrated in the largest U.S. television market. They asked that we establish the market value of the Fox stations with other MVPDs first and then come back to them. We accommodated this request by negotiating and executing a limited one-year retransmission consent agreement covering the period from October 21, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. on October 15, 2010. Under this agreement, Cablevision still did not make any cash payments for the retransmission of Fox stations; however, Cablevision did agree to launch Fox Business Channel and National Geographic Wild and carry the networks through the one-year extension period. Since the extension, at an array of meetings between Chase Carey, Tony Vinciquerra, Chairman and CEO of Fox Networks Group, and James Dolan, President and CEO of Cablevision, Mr. Dolan acknowledged that Fox is worth
what we are asking, if not more, and that Cablevision was willing to pay what we were asking to get a deal completed. On May 7, 2010, Tony Vinciquerra and I flew from Los Angeles to Cablevision headquarters in Bethpage, New York to present a proposal for a long-term retransmission consent agreement. We flew across the country to present our proposal in person so that we could demonstrate to Cablevision that Fox was fully committed to the process of reaching an agreement. By this time we had completed retransmission consent agreements with other MVPDs, small and large, including Time Warner Cable, a much larger MVPD (negotiating for about five times the subscribers of Cablevision) that also has a significant footprint in the New York area. Through these agreements Fox had established the market value for its broadcast programming and, in particular, WNYW and WWOR-TV, exactly what Cablevision had asked us to do when we entered the one-year agreement in 2009. Given Mr. Dolans statements regarding his willingness to pay our market rate, we approached this proposal with an eye towards honoring the gentlemens agreement reached the prior October. Thus, we presented a straightforward proposal at close to the market rates. Three members of my distribution team followed up by meeting with two members of Cablevisions programming acquisition team on May 11, during the NCTA Cable Show in Los Angeles. They discussed the Fox proposal in detail. On July 7, Mac Budill, Cablevisions Executive Vice President, Programming, presented Cablevisions first response to our May proposal. It was very different from our original proposal in scope, substance, and format. It proposed vastly expanded rights for Cablevision and similarly broad restrictions on Fox that would have required us to terminate business relationships with other distribution outlets with which Cablevision competes, and would have materially restrained established distribution channels for our content. The scope of rights and restrictions that Cablevision was seeking was beyond the reach of any retransmission consent proposal that I have ever seen and, to my knowledge, has no remotely similar precedent in the industry. This response was discouraging and very different from what Fox senior management had been led to expect. It was becoming clear that Cablevision intended to pursue a path geared to a larger agenda of political and regulatory intervention. On August 24, Fox presented another comprehensive proposal, this time adopting Cablevisions format, including its approach to fees, to make it easier for the parties to see the points of agreement and those on which we were still far apart. I specifically noted to Mr. Budill that the fees for the Fox stations reflected the bundling of our stations with some of the Fox cable networks. I informed him that the fees we proposed were consistent with our other deals that covered both retransmission consent and cable network carriage and that we would never offer those terms for station carriage on a stand-alone basis. Cablevision provided its response in a one-page proposal on September 21. Mr. Budill described it as a much simpler structure that focused on retransmission consent in isolation and reflected what he called the market rate that they had agreed to pay other major broadcasters in previously negotiated agreements.
On October 5, 1 met with Mr. Budill at Foxs New York City offices. I presented a revised proposal covering the Fox broadcast stations bundled with a number of other Fox cable networks. I explained to Mr. Budill that the cash fee for Foxs television stations was vital to the continued ability of Fox to provide quality programming and that it was extremely important to us to achieve that rate with Cablevision. I told him that, in the interest of quickly bringing our negotiations to a successful resolution, the proposed terms for WNYW and WXTF were the very best rates we could offer but specifically noted that many other terms in the bundled proposal were open for negotiation if Cablevision could get to that rate. I reiterated that the rate for the stations was based on the bundled package and that we could not offer that rate on a stand-alone basis. Mr. Budill then requested a proposal for a stand-alone agreement covering only the broadcast stations. I agreed to provide a stand-alone proposal and followed up with one the next day, October 6. 1 explained to Mr. Budill, however, that Fox realizes substantial economic advantages from the carriage of our non-broadcast channels by MVPDs. The fees for the stations in the bundled deal are significantly below the fees that our ratings would otherwise justify. By any objective measure, the Fox stations provide more value to Cablevisions lineup than any cable network it distributes. The Fox network spends more on its entertainment and sports programming than virtually any cable network that Cablevision distributes. In fact, the Fox broadcast network will lose money this year on its programming while the Fox television stations will make sharply reduced profits. Indeed, as I pointed out to Mr. Budill, based on established rates for cable programming services that do not approach the performance of the Fox stations, such as the reported $3.40 Cablevision charged other MVPDs for MSG and MSG Plus in 2009, it would be reasonable for us to seek a rate between $5 and $6 per subscriber. If carriage of Foxs cable channels were not part of the compensation in the retransmission consent agreement, we could no longer discount the value of the stations and would need to increase the monthly fees for them. Even the stand-alone rate that we proposed on October 6 was far less than what could reasonably be justified for some of the most highly rated programming on television, including NFL on Fox, NASCAR on Fox, Major League Baseballs League Championship Series, the World Series, televisions perennially top-rated American Idol, Glee, House, Bones, Family Guy, American Dad, So You Think You Can Dance, and the longest-running show on television, The Simnpsons. I reminded Mr. Budill that our bundled offer remained on the table and that it would give Cablevision the advantage of the same terms for retransmission consent of the Fox stations that we had established through negotiations with other, larger MVPDs, including one that is several times Cablevisions size. Six days later, just three days before the expiration of the existing retransmission agreement, Cablevision still had not provided a response to either the bundled proposal of October 5 or the
stand-alone proposal of October 6. 1 wrote to Mr. Budill on October 12, reminding him of the imminent deadline and our availability to discuss the proposals at his convenience. Mr. Budill responded on October 12, effectively reiterating his September 21 proposal and how it compared to Cablevisions retransmission consent agreements covering other New York stations. His letter also asserted that I presented our October 5 offer as non-negotiable, quoting me as saying that, this is it. About this time we noticed that Cablevision was leaking details of our negotiations to the press with increased frequency. I responded to Mr. Budill by letter the next day, October 13, that I had been very specific that our October 5 offer was not a take it or leave it proposition, a message made clear by my colleague, Michael Biard, Executive VP, Affiliate Sales & Marketing, in a call with Tom Montemagno, Cablevisions Senior VP of Programming Acquisition, on October 6 and, in fact, by our submission of the stand-alone proposal on October 6. I repeated that critical elements of our October 5 proposal were as favorable as any that we had reached with any MVPD, regardless of size, but that Fox had never presented Cablevision with an ultimatum. To the contrary, I expressed our desire to get back to the negotiating table. Mr. Budill replied with a letter stating that there was no miscommunication in his mind, repeating his claim that when 1 handed Cablevision our proposal on October 5 I had said, this is it. He also accused Fox of violating federal law by making false representations to the Commission. Although he still did not provide any counterproposal to our October 5 or October 6 proposals, he nevertheless suggested that we begin negotiations that day, around the clock if necessary. Mr. Budills letter was released to the press simultaneously with its delivery to me. On Wednesday, October 13, I responded to Mr. Budill by e-mail that, rather than expending energy and time in an unproductive dialogue about what was said or not said in the past, we were prepared to negotiate with Cablevision immediately and I directly asked him if Cablevision intended to send Fox a counterproposal. Mr. Budill called me on the afternoon of October 13 and provided me with an oral proposal. He requested that Fox also propose rates for Fox News Channel, even though its carriage agreement is still in effect. Later that day he provided a written version by e-mail. On the phone and in the letter accompanying that proposal and for the first time in our negotiations Mr. Budill raised the possibility of binding arbitration, though he claimed it was not a preferred path. We determined that a face-to-face meeting would be more productive than continued phone calls and I offered to take a late-night flight and meet with Cablevision in New York City the next day, Thursday, October 14. In order to give Fox time to prepare a response to Cablevisions October 13 proposal, we agreed to meet on Friday, October 15. Given the imminent deadline, I requested a start time of 9:00 a.m.; he preferred a noon start.

As soon as I got off the phone with Mr. Budill, we began working on a revised proposal and continued working on it late into the night. As Cablevision requested, we included rates for Fox News Channel to be included at Cablevisions option. We sent the proposal to Cablevision by e
Mr. WilliamT. Lake October 25, 2010 Page 6
mail at about 4:40 p.m., Eastern Time, Thursday, October 14. Mr. Budill replied that it came too late to engage anyone at Cablevision that day. Fox put together a team of its senior distribution executives and attorneys so it would be prepared to complete a deal. Flying to New York from our California offices were myself; Mr. Biard; Sean Riley, Senior VP, Affiliate Sales & Marketing; Lisa Smolinisky, VP, Business and Legal Affairs; Andrew Biggers, VP, Affiliate Sales & Marketing; and David Espinosa, Director, Affiliate Sales & Marketing. Joe Di Scipio,VP, Legal and FCC Compliance, Fox Television Stations, Inc., came up from his Washington office and Tim Carry, Executive VP, Affiliate Sales for Fox News and Fox Business Channel, based in New York, was also with us. Sometime after 1:00 p.m. Friday afternoon, more than an hour after the scheduled start time, we were joined by Mr. Budill, Mr. Montemagno, and Clifford Harris of Cablevision. Our initial meeting on Friday lasted less than an hour. Cablevision still did not have a response to our proposal of the previous day. We reconvened at about 5:00 p.m. when Cablevision made a new offer in a half-hour session. The Fox team did not believe the proposal made much, if any movement toward reaching an agreement. We met again at 7:00 p.m. for a short meeting at which Fox offered a revised proposal that provided significant concessions on the cable networks portion of the agreement as well as the terms covering carriage of WWOR-TV. At approximately 8:00 p.m. Mr. Budill called to inform me that Cablevision did not intend to respond to Foxs last proposal and that he believed we were at an impasse. Nevertheless, he asked if he and his team could return to our offices after they went to dinner in the event that something were to change. They returned after 10:00 p.m., but there were no further negotiations that night. Friday morning, while we.were waiting for the Cablevision executives to arrive, I had received a letter from Mr. Budill proposing the continued carriage of Fox stations and networks beyond the midnight expiration of the existing one-year agreement, without payment for the broadcast stations. The letter stated (inaccurately) that because Fox provides the signals for its stations to Cablevision by fiber feed and Fox has the physical ability to shut off the feeds, Cablevision would consider the continued provision of the signals on the fiber to constitute authorization for carriage. I drafted a response stating that Fox had been trying in good faith to negotiate a new agreement with Cablevision since May and that if we did not reach an agreement by midnight, Cablevision would no longer have the authority to retransmit the signals of Fox broadcast stations, regardless of how it received them. Just as Cablevision would not allow its customers to continue to receive cable service without paying their bills, we needed to take the same position.
. .
At 11:55 p.m., I c-mailed Mr. Budill my letter and hand-delivered a copy. Midnight arrived, our agreement expired, and Cablevision terminated carriage of the three stations. The Cablevision executives left our office at 12: 15 a.m.
By e-mail at 1:30 a.m., Cablevision requested another meeting for noon, Saturday October 16. They arrived at 12:30 p.m. on Saturday and proceeded to disparage the value of our programming, specifically WWOR-TV, our New Jersey station, which, according to Mr. Budill, should have to pay Cablevision to carry it. We found this argument interesting given that WWOR carried 2 i Yankees games, and Cablevision pays YES Network a reported $2.50 per subscriber for the YES Network for its 125 games. They similarly discounted [he concessions on the cable networks portion of the proposal we made the prior evening. Cablevision then made a new offer with an extremely small increase in compensation. At about 3:00 p.m., Fox replied with a counteroffer that made additional significant concessions. About an hour and a half later, Cablevision made another proposal. On examination, we noticed that it did not make any net changes from their offer of earlier that day, which was not much different from their last offer of Friday. Cablevision confirmed that our evaluation of their proposal was accurate. We determined that with no net changes being made to the proposals, we were at an impasse and I suggested meeting again the next morning. Cablevision agreed to meet, but not until noon, and left the building at about 5:30 p.m. Our meeting on Sunday, October 17 began about 12:35 p.m., less than an hour before the kick off of the Fox Network telecast of the New York Giants game. We made a proposal and left the Cablevision representatives in the conference room to discuss it. They called us back in at 3:00 p.m. with a change to their previous proposal that amounted to no net difference in the consideration proposed to Fox. We offered to continue discussions as long as they wanted, but they decided to leave at about 3:30 p.m. Brief conversations took place on Monday by phone. During one call, Cablevision suggested that it might be willing to purchase WWOR-TV from Fox, provided that the sales price recognized the value of Cablevisions retransmission fees for WNYW at Foxs proposed rate. On Monday afternoon, my team and I returned to Los Angeles. We had brief phone calls on Tuesday and Wednesday. Neither side made any new proposals and no progress was made. On Wednesday, October 20, Chase Carey reached out to James Dolan to request a meeting. Mr. Carey rearranged his schedule and flew to New York from Los Angeles to meet with Mr. Dolan. They discussed the deal and whether there was a path to resolution of the impasse. Mr. Dolan made it clear that Cablevisions preferred path was to continue to seek political or regulatory relief, despite the fact that in numerous meetings dating back to October 2009, Mr. Dolan had acknowledged that Fox programming was worth at least what Fox had proposed. However, in light of what Cablevision already pays for other programming, Cablevision asserted that it could not absorb the cost. You have also requested that we detail the efforts that Fox is making to end the current impasse. Mr. Careys meeting with Mr. Dolan represented one such significant effort. We remain willing to meet with Cablevision at any time in any place to continue good faith negotiations and we have made this clear to Cablevision. Fox believes that such negotiations between business partners will ultimately reach fair results.
We do not believe that binding arbitration is an effective path to the resolution of retransmission consent disputes. An arbitrated result is not required to determine the fair market value of retransmission consent for Fox stations. An arbitrator will not have the knowledge of our business that would allow him or her to establish a price that would permit us to continue to provide the high quality, and very expensive, sports and entertainment content that we currently provide. Arbitration was not required to establish fair value through arms-length negotiations with other MVPDs in recent months. Furthermore, if we agree to arbitration with one party it will denigrate the efforts and results of all who worked to negotiate those agreements already in place. Granting Cablevisions demand for arbitration would open the door to every future negotiation being distorted by arbitration demands in lieu of the marketplace negotiations that have led to the successful and uneventful completion of hundreds of other retransmission consent agreements covering the Fox stations. In fact, the specter of a politically-imposed arbitration or heightened regulation has become an impediment to reaching a business solution. Cablevision, along with an array of other MVPDs, have undertaken a broad effort to change the law to their advantage, despite wide recognition that the broadcast industry cannot compete without a second revenue stream. Finally, your letter asked us to bring to your attention any conduct by Cablevision that we believe violates its good faith obligations. We respectfully decline to do so at this time. We remain hopeful that negotiations will continue and ultimately result in a retransmission consent agreement acceptable to both of our companies. Making charges of statutory violations will not advance this process. Please let us know if you have any additional questions, and be assured that Foxs commitment to serve our broadcast audiences remains rock-solid. Sincerely,
Michael C. Hopkins
From: OConnell, Maureen [ ] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:15 PM To: William Lake; Brad Gillen; Dave Grimaldi; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow; Eloise Gore; Joshua Cinelli; Marilyn Sonn; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Rick Kaplan; Rosemary Harold; Sherrese Smith; Steven Broeckaert Subject: FW: FOX SERVES CABLEVISION WITH CEASE AND DESIST LETTER FOR ENCOURAGING THEFT OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT This issue goes well beyond our Cablevision dispute and goes to the heart of our content business, therefore we had to take action. Let me know if you have any questions.
FOX SERVES CABLEVISION WITH CEASE AND DESIST LETTER FOR ENCOURAGING THEFT OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT October 26, 2010 Today, FOX delivered a demand that Cablevision cease and desist encouraging theft of copyrighted material. As was reported in todays New York Daily News, Cablevision is apparently directing subscribers to illegal websites to view FOX shows, as well as coverage of NFL games and Major League Baseballs playoffs all copyrighted content.
Copyright law exists to protect the very creative freedoms that fuel our industry. As both a creator and owner of intellectual property not to mention major sports franchises Cablevision knows better and should immediately call an end to this unlawful activity.
Contact:
EDITORS NOTE: NEW YORK DAILY NEWS story can be located at: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny local/201 0/10/26/2010-1026 taped call by fox employee to cablevision nets suggestions for fox viewing on il.html
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message (or responsible. for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
Reed Smith
John P. Hooper Direct Phone: 212.205.6125 Email: jhooperreedsmith.com Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-7650 +1 212 521 5400 Fax +1 212 521 5450 reedsmith.com
October 26, 2010 Via Email and Federal Express Mr. James Dolan CEO Cablevision Systems Corporation Ill I Stewart Avenue Bethpage, NY 11714 Dear Mr. Dolan: We represent Fox which recently learned that certain Cablevision employees who answer customer service calls have been making false representations about Fox to consumers in an attempt to convince them not to switch from Cablevision to another service. Even more disturbing, the Cablevision employees are referring customers to illegal, and perhaps criminal, web sites from which the consumers can allegedly watch unauthorized Fox programming while Fox 5 and My9 remain dark on Cablevision. Directing customers to illegal web sites that steal Fox programming constitutes copyright infringement by Cablevision because Cablevision is inducing and materially contributing to the infringing activities of these illegal web sites. We demand that you immediately cease this activity. Fox reserves the rightto exercise appropriate legal remedies to enforce its rights, which may include, among other things, seeking immediate injunctive relief recovery of its actual and exemplary damages and reimbursement of its attorneys fees incurred in enforcing its rights. This letter is without prejudice to Foxs rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved, Ver truly yours,
L. (7 fr
John P. Hooper JPH:gn
From: Catherine Bohigian [ Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:06 PM To: William Lake Subject: Response to News Corp.s letter
Bill, Attached please find our response to News Corp.s letter of yesterday. Thanks, Catherine
1111CABLEVISION
THOMAS M. RUTLEDGE Chief Operating Officer
October 26, 2010
Mr. William T. Lake Chief; Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 I2 Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Cablevision/News Corp. Retransmission Consent Negotiations
Dear Mr. Lake, On behalf of Cablevision Systems Corp. (Cablevision), this responds to Fox Networks letter to you of October 25, 2010 regarding the retransmission consent dispute between Cablevision and News Corp.
The parties respective responses make two points perfectly clear: News Corp. has negotiated in utter bad faith and the matter is at an impasse. Commission intervention at this point through mediation, arbitration, or any other process through which an independent entity determines a fair price is the only practical solution to restoring programming and addressing consumer needs.
News Corp.s main argument that it is not acting in bad faith appears to rest on the fact that its agreement with Time Warner Cable includes a most favored nation clause that News Corp. does not want to trigger by agreeing to a market rate in New York. Although News Corp. states that it is willing to continue negotiations, it admits that resolution is only possible if Cablevision agrees to its WNYW rates as proposed.
The problem, as discussed in Cablevisions response of October 25, is that the rate that News Corp. negotiated with Time Warner Cable was based on a nationwide arrangement covering a variety of broadcast and cable programming networks including broadcast stations in various markets and cannot possibly form the basis of the market rate for WNYW in New York. Indeed, Time Warner Cables insistence on an MFN in its agreement suggests that even Time Warner Cable thought the rate was too high and left it to other, subsequent distributors to negotiate and set a real market price that Time Warner would enjoy under its MFN a common strategy in difficult negotiations. For News Corp. to claim that the MFN price is the market price, of course, is exactly backward. Nevertheless, News Corps reliance on its MFN means that Cablevisions attempt to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for its customers cannot yield results, and that restoring programming to consumers without Commission intervention is no longer a possibility.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION 1111 Stewart Avenue, Bethpage NY 11714-3581 515 803-1010 Fax 516 803-1183 rutledge@cablevision.com
While it is unproductive to address each and every claim raised in News Corp.s letter, there are several to which we feel compelled to respond.
First, News Corp. would have the Commission believe that Cablevision agreed, sight unseen, to adopt whatever rate News Corp. could get from Time Warner Cable, regardless of the consequences for its business and its customers. We deny that claim completely.
Second, News Corp.s letter includes accusations that Cablevision preferred political and regulatory intervention from the start. Those claims are belied by the details in our response yesterday. Right up until News Corp. terminated our right to carry the News Corp. stations and beyond, we have continued to seek retransmission on fair terms and conditions both directly with News Corp. and with the aid of any appropriate third party. News Corp.s finger-wagging about Cablevisions efforts to inform the media of this dispute is particularly ironic given that News Corp. not Cablevision first resorted to use of the media and government to create public and political pressure on Cablevision to accede to its take-it-or-leave-it offer.
Finally, on the bad faith point, Foxs letter provides no real answer to any ofour specific charges of intransigence. Despite its assertions of a willingness to negotiate, News Corp. has at no time backed off its insistence that Cablevision pay both its inflexible rate for the WNYW broadcasts and substantial increases for the cable channels it already carries under contract. As we detailed in yesterdays letter, because we thought News Corp.s demand to tie retransmission consent to renegotiation of the cable channels was both unreasonable and too expensive, we asked for a standalone price for the broadcast stations. News Corp. retaliated with a broadcastonly price increase of nearly $100 million annually for WNYW apparently a penalty for not accommodating the tying arrangement. If this is the new broadcast pricing model, then customers can expect to bear cost increases of nearly $250 a year for broadcast programming in basic cable, for channels that are otherwise available for free, over the air.
At this point, Commission intervention in the dispute is critical. Accordingly, Cablevision stands ready to engage immediately in FCC-supervised arbitration, or whatever means of outside intervention the Commission believes would be most productive, and respectfully asks the Commission to use its authority to order such intervention and News Corp. programming to be restored to the public.
The first time that Cablevision said anything to the pt-ess related to the situation was October 12 via a reactive public press statement qfier receiving calls from media outlets prompted by Fox circulating a memo at the FCC and elsewhere accusing Cablevision of, among other things, failure to negotiate. In contrast, Fox went public against Cablevision on September 19, running a TV spot during NFL football, launching a Web site, and reactivating various social media tactics (that previously it had used last year against Time Warner Cable) to inflame Cablevision customers.
From: OConnell, Maureen [mailto: I Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:52 PM To: William Lake; Brad Gillen; Dave Grimaldi; David Konczal; Diana Sokolow; Eloise Gore; Joshua Cinelli; Marilyn Sonn; Mary Beth Murphy; Michelle Carey; Rick Kaplan; Rosemary Harold; Sherrese Smith; Steven Broeckaert Subject: Foxs Response to Cablevisions 10/25 Letter on Fox RTC
Attached is our response to Cablevisions letter yesterday to the FCC on our RTC negotiations.
NETWORKS
FOX
October 26, 2010 Mr. William T. Lake Chief Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 RE: Dear Mr. Lake: Fox Networks Group, for itself and on behalf of Fox Television Stations, Inc., licensee of WNYW, WWOR-TV, and WTXF-TV, would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised by Cablevision Systems Corporation in its submission to you of October 25, 2010. In our submission of the same day, we explained how Fox has at all times during its negotiations with Cablevision conducted itself in full compliance with its obligations to engage in good-faith negotiations. In its submission, Cablevision characterizes certain of Foxs negotiations as violations of those obligations. As we explain in the attachment to this letter, Cablevision is incorrect in all instances. Fox I Cablevision Retransmission Consent Negotiations
Sincerely,
Michael C. Hopkins
MCF1AEL C. HOPKINS
President, Affihiole Scies & Morketing P.O. Box 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90213 0900 t:310390828 f:3109690677 mike.hopkins@fox.com
A Unit of Fox Networks Gro&sp (oxnelworkslntocorn
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:45 AM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: RE: Parties are not talking Thx. Ill be moving around, so pls call my bb,
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:42 AM To: William Lake Subject: Parties are not talking Will call you in a bit. Thanks.
From: OConnell, Maureen [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:58 AM To: William Lake Subject: FW: RBC Capital Note v good
-
FYI.
RBC Capital Markets Corp. David Bank (Analyst) (212) 858-7333; david. bank@rbccm.com Ryan Vineyard (Analyst)
INDUSTRY
COMMENT
OCTOBER 28, 2010
(212) 428-6489; ryan.vineyard@rbccm.com
Ross Sandier (Analyst) (212) 428-6227; ross.sandterrbccm.com Stephen Ju (Analyst) (212) 428-2365; stephen.jurbccm.com Sun-Il (Sean) Kim (Associate) (212) 428-2363- sean.kim@rbccm.com Whitney Goldstein (Associate) (212) 428-6412; whitney. goldstein@rbccm.com (212)6187688d@b
Is Fox Broadcast Worth $10 This Month? Cablevisions Reimbursement Offer For MLB.com Puts Retrans Comp In Perspective Investment Opinion
Cablevision Just Validated The Value Of Broadcast Network ContentCablevision offered to reimburse subscribers who choose to order MLB.com World Series package $10 (full cost of the subscription). While we dont consider the ability to watch the World Series on MLB.com via small
PC screen a true substitute for the Fox TV experience, we think it illustrates a very important data point in the fight for retransmission consent the value of broadcast network programming.
Cablevisions Offer Is Effectively Oniy For This Month (Given The World Series), But We Wonder If The Blackout Continues, Would Cablevision Have To Make Whole Viewers For Other Important Event Programming In Other MonthsWhile the World Series is something of an outlier in terms of its popularity with viewers, its not as much of an outlier as one might think. For instance, as we highlighted in our piece dated 10/11/2010, Moneyball: The Economics Of Sports Media, OTT and Other Media Hot Buttons, the average World Series audience last year was 19mm per game. This is similar to the average audience size of a regular Sunday NFL game on Fox. In other words, in any given month, the average content has more passionate relative critical mass than one might think.
Anecdotally weve heard that Cablevision is offering subscribers discounts/promotions for premium pay TV channels as effective compensation for the loss of Fox programming, in the event that subscribers threaten to cancel. Effectively Valuing World Series Viewership Opportunity For $10 Offers Context In The Retransmission Consent DebateCablevision states News Corp. is seeking an incremental -$8Omm annual increase in affiliate fees. This includes Fox and MyTV retrans fees for the first time. Overall, this equates to an incremental $2/sub/month. Cablevision pushed back on this rate, yet, offers to subsidize subscribers by $10/sub for the World Series on MLB.com, at leastfor this month. Fox TV Clearly Isnt Worth $10/month, But Maybe We Have A Roadmap Defining How MSOs Might Think About Value Of Programming, At Least In A World Series MonthAssuming World Series audience of 19mm, we could further assume 19mm people probably represents closer to 10mm homes, representing 10% of pay TV homes. But this online experience is probably inferior, so lets assume only half would choose to watch the game. For Cablevision, this would be -5% of its subscriber base, (-450K subscribers). Total cost to Cablevision would be l5OKx $10 or $1.5mm. $1.5mm spread across all 3mm subscribers is $0.50/sub justfor the World Series.
Given the World Series comprises only 13% of the weeks programming or ---3% of the month, one could easily see how Cablevision is valuing Fox at a figure greater than $1/sub.
Priced as of prior trading days market close, EST (unless otherwise noted). All values in USD unless otherwise noted. For Required Conflicts Disclosures, see Page 3.
October 28, 2010

Ticker Company
Price as of:
Is Fox Broadcast Worth $10 This Month?

NWSA News Corporation DIS Disney VIAB Viacom
TWX
DISCA Discovery Comm.
SNI Scripps Networks
Time Warner
CBS CBS Corporation
10/27/2010 Class A NWS Shares 50 Day Average Volume ENT. VALUE CALCULATION Diluted Shares Out. Diluted Equity Market Cap Total Enterprise Value KEY FINANCIAL METRICS Net Revenues 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E EBITDA 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E EPS 2008A 2009A 2010E 2011E TRADING/VALUATION MULTIPLES EV/2008A EBITDA EV/2009A EBITDA EV/2010E EBITDA EV/2011E EBITDA Price/2008A Earnings Price/2009A Earnings Price/2O1OE Earnings Price/2011E Earnings
$15.87 $14.32 17,535,530
$35.92
$37.80
$31.45
$44.96
$49.56
$16.83
10,537,695
4,193,367
6,902,568
1,466,071
639,483
10,210,343
2,620,704 $38,766,187 $35,211,173
1,897,768 $68,167,812 $78,566,958
608,154 $22,988,229 $29,194,229
1,124,216 $35,356,588 $45,965,588
431,127 $18,176,934 $19,866,934
172,448 $8,546,537 $9,301,399
681,728 $11,473,485 $17,177,385
32,719,000 30,926,000 33,128,246 N/A
36,990,000 36,289,000 39,113,667 41,489,942
14,625,000 13,619,000 13,640,209 14,194,923
30,637,000 25,388,000 26,608,280 27,546,491
3,407,210 3,516,000 3,771,324 4,029,658
1,590,640 1,541,250 2,006,860 2,175,660
13,832,700 13,014,600 14,101,640 14,360,310
5,909,000 5,092,000 5,868,983 N/A
8,465,000 7,765,000 8,797,168 9,490,893
2,928,000 3,295,000 3,604,699 3,920,691
6,793,000 5,418,000 6,316,632 6,707,216
1,310,656 1,204,000 1,515,096 1,779,533
666,430 597,650 871,510 987,970
2,703,400 1,803,700 2,350,410 2,491,680
$0.98 $0.78 $1.16 N/A
$2.07 $1.94 $2.10 $2.41
$2.38 $2.56 $2.81 $3.33
($5.40) $1.83 $2.25 $2.52
$1.55 $1.25 $1.82 $2.10
$1.90 $1.77 $2.16 $2.50
$1.63 $0.50 $1.04 $1.23 Average
6.Ox 6 9x 6.Ox N/A 14.6x 18 3x 12 3x N/A
9.3x 10 lx 8.9x 8 3x 17.4x 18 5x 17 lx 14 9x
10.Ox 8 9x 8.lx 7 4x 15.9x 14 7x 13 4x 11 3x
6.8x 8 5x 7.3x 6 9x N/A 17 lx 14 Ox 12 5x
15.2x 16 5x 13.lx 11 2x 29.Ox 36 Ox 24 7x 21 4x
14.Ox 15 6x 10.7x 9 4x 26.lx 28 Ox 22 9x 19 8x
6.4x 9 5x 7.3x 6 9x 10.3x 33 7x 16 2x 13 6x
$43x 1B9 23 Bx.. 172x 15 6t
Figures in thousands, except per share data. All multiples based on calendar year estimates/consensus. Source: Company reports, RBC Capital Markets estimates (NWSA, DIS, VIAB, TWX, DISCA), Thomson One Analytics (SNI, CBSI.
RBC CapitaL Marketsa
October 28, 2010 Required Disclosures Conflicts Disclosures
The analyst(s) responsible for preparing this research report received compensation that is based upon various factors, including total revenues of the member companies of RBC Capital Markets and its affiliates, a portion of which are or have been generated by investment banking activities of the member companies of RBC Capital Markets and its affiliates. The author is employed by RBC Capital Markets Corp., a securities broker-dealer with principal offices located in New York, USA.
Distribution of Ratings
For the purpose of ratings distributions, regulatory rules require member firms to assign ratings to one of three rating categories -Buy, Hold/Neutral, or Sell regardless of a firms own rating categories. Although RBC Capital Markets ratings of Top Pick/Outperform, Sector Perform and Underperform most closely correspond to Buy, Hold/Neutral and Sell, respectively, the meanings are not the same because our ratings are determined on a relative basis (as described above).
-
Distribution of Ratings RBC Capital Markets, Equity Research Investment Banking Serv.IPast 12 Mos. Rating BUY[TPIO] HOLD[SP] SELL[U] Count 653 589 59 Percent 50.20 45.30 4.50 Count 196 132 9 Percent 30.02 22.41 15.25
Conflicts Policy
RBC Capital Markets Policy for Managing Conflicts of Interest in Relation to Investment Research is available from us on request. To access our current policy, clients should refer to https://www.rbccm.comlglobal/file-4141 64.pdf or send a request to RBC CM Research Publishing, P.O. Box 50, 200 Bay Street, Royal Bank Plaza, 29th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W7. We reserve the right to amend or supplement this policy at any time.
Dissemination of Research and Short-Term Trading CalLs

RBC Capital Markets endeavors to make all reasonable efforts to provide research simultaneously to all eligible clients, having regard to local time zones in overseas jurisdictions. RBC Capital Markets equity research is posted to our proprietary websites to ensure eligible clients receive coverage initiations and changes in ratings, targets and opinions in a timely manner. Additional distribution may be done by the sales personnel via email, fax or regular mail. Clients may also receive our research via third-party vendors. Please contact your investment advisor or institutional salesperson for more information regarding RBC Capital Markets research. RBC Capital Markets also provides eligible clients with access to SPARC on the Firms proprietary INSIGHT website. SPARC contains market color and commentary, and may also contain Short-Term Trade Ideas regarding the publicly-traded common equity of subject companies on which the Firm currently provides equity research coverage. SPARC may be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://www.rbcinsight.com. A Short-Term Trade Idea reflects the research analysts directional view regarding the price of the subject companys publicly-traded common equity in the coming days or weeks, based on market and trading events. A Short-Term Trade Idea may differ from the price targets and recommendations in our published research reports reflecting the research analysts views of the longer-term (one year) prospects of the subject company, as a result of the differing time horizons, methodologies and/or other factors. Thus, it is possible that a subject companys common equity that is considered a long-term sector perform or even an underperform might be a short-term buying opportunity as a result of temporary selling pressure in the market; conversely, a subject companys common equity rated a long-term outperform could be considered susceptible to a short-term downward price correction. Short-Term Trade Ideas are not ratings, nor are they part of any ratings system, and the Firm generally does not intend, nor undertakes any obligation, to maintain or update Short-Term Trade Ideas. Securities and Short-Term Trade Ideas discussed in SPARC may not be suitable for all investors and have not been tailored to individual investor circumstances and objectives, and investors should make their own independent decisions regarding any securities or strategies discussed herein.
Analyst Certification
All of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect the personal views of the responsible analyst(s) about any and all of the subject securities or issuers. No part of the compensation of the responsible analyst(s) named herein is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the responsible analyst(s) in this report.
RBC Capital Markets
October 28, 2010 Disclaimer
RBC Capital Markets is the business name used by certain subsidisries of Royal Bank of Csnads, including RBC Dominion Securities Inc., RBC Capital Msrkets Corporation, Royal Bank of Canads Europe Limited and Roysl Bank of Canada Sydney Brsnch. The information contained in this report has been compiled by RBC Capital Markets from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, expresa or implied, is made by Royal Baok of Canada, RBC Capital Markets, its affiliates or any other person as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. All opiniona and estimates contained in this report constitute RBC Capital Marketa judgement as of the date of thia report, are subject to change without notice and are provided in good faith but without legal reaponaibility. Nothing in this report constitutes legal, accounting or tax advice or individually tailored investment advice. This material is prepared for general circulation to clients and has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persona who receive it. The investmenta or servicea contained in this report may not be suitable for you and it is recomsnended that you consult an independent inveatment advisor if you are in doubt about the suitability of such investments or services. This report is not an offer to sell or a aolicitation of an offer to buy any aecurities. Past performance ia not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of original capital may occur. RBC Capital Markets research analyst compensation is based in part on the overall profitability of RBC Capital Markets, which includea profits attributable to inveatment banking revenues. Every province in Canada, state in the U.S., and moat countries throughout the world have their own laws regulating the types of aeeurities and other investment products which may be offered to their residents, as well as the process for doing ao. As a result, the aecuritiea discussed in this report may not be eligible for sale in some jurisdictions. This report is not, and under no circumstances should be conatrued as, a solicitation to act as securities broker or dealer in any jurisdiction by any person or company that is not legally permitted to carry on the busineas of a securities broker or dealer in that jurisdiction. To the full extent permitted by law neither RBC Capital Markets nor any of its affiliates, nor any other person, accepts any liability whataoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this report or the information contained herein. No matter contained in this document may be reproduced or copied by any means without the prior consent of RBC Capital Markets.
-
Additional information is available on request. To U.S. Residents: This publication has been approved by RBC Capital Markets Corporation (member FINRA, NYSE), which is a U.S. registered broker-dealer and which accepts responsibility for this report and its dissemination in the United Statea. Any U.S. recipient of this report that is not a registered broker-dealer or a bank acting in a broker or dealer capacity and that wiahes further information regarding, or to effect any transaction in, any of the aeeurities discussed in this report, should contact and place orders with RBC Capital Markets Corporation. To Canadian Residents: This publication has been approved by RBC Dominion Securities Inc.(member IIROC). Any Canadian recipient of this report that is not a Designated Institution in Ontario, an Accredited Investor in British Columbia or Alberta or a Sophisticated Purchaser in Quebec (or similar permitted purchaser in any other province) and that wishes further information regarding, or to effect any transaction in, sny of the securities discussed in this report should contact and place orders with RBC Dominion Securities Inc., which, without in any way limiting the foregoing, accepts responsibility for this report and its disaemination in Canada. To U.K. Residents: This publication has been approved by Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited (RECEL) which is authorized and regulated by Financial ServicesAuthority (FSA), in connection with its distribution in the United Kingdom. This material is not for general distribution in the United Kingdom to retail clients, as defined under the rules of the FSA. However, targeted distribution may be made to selected retail clients of RBC and its affiliates. RBCEL accepts responsibility for this report and its dissemination in the United Kingdom. To Persons Receiving This Advice in Australia: This material has been distributed in Australia by Royal Bank of Canada Sydney Branch (ABN 86 076 940 880, AFSL No. 246521). This material has been prepared for general circulation and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any recipient. Accordingly, any recipient should, before acting on this material, consider the appropriateness of this material having regard to their objectives, financial situation and needs. If this material relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of a particular financial product, a recipient in Australia should obtain any relevant disclosure document prepared in respect of that product and consider that document before making any decision about whether to acquire the product. To Hong Kong Residents: This publication is distributed in Hong Kong by RBC Investment Services (Asia) Limited and R.BC Investment Management (Aaia) Limited, licensed corporations under the Securities and Futures Ordinance or, by Royal Bank of Canada, Hong Kong Branch, a registered institution under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, This material has been prepared for general circulation and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation, or needs of any recipient. Hong Kong persons wishing to obtain further information on any of the securities mentioned in this publication should contact RBC Investment Services (Asia) Limited, RBC Investment Management (Asia) Limited or Royal Bank of Canada, Hong Kong Branch at 17/Floor, Cheung Kong Center, 2 Queens Road Central, Hong Kong (telephone number is 2848-1388). Tn Singapore Residents: This publication is distributed in Singapore by RBC (Singapore Branch) and RBC (Asia) Limited, registered entities granted offshore bank status by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. This material has been prepared for general circulation and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation, or needs of any recipient. You are advised to seek independent advice from a financial adviser before purchasing any product. If you do not obtain independent advice, you should consider whether the product is suitable for you. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
-
Registered trademark of Royal Bank of Canada. REC Capital Markets is a trademark of Royal Bank of Canada. Used under license. Copyright RBC Capital Markets Corporation 2010 Member SIPC Copyright RBC Dominion Securities Inc. 2010 Member CIPF Copyright Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited 2010 Copyright Royal Bank of Canada 2010 All rights reserved
-
RBC CapitaL Markets
From: OConnell, Maureen [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:58 AM To: William Lake Subject: FW: Greenfield Retrans Missive from last night
Another FYI. Im sending these to you only because they are fairly neutral outside sources.
fIG Research a Blog Archive> Hear What 285 Cablevision Customers Said About Fox plus Cablevision Now Encouraging Over-the-Top MLB
W&come Reed Nolte

My Account I Logout
jh
LJ
Important Disclosure and Analysts Certification

..
Back to Your Fiftered Article List
1.
,.,,..,-,
Hear What 285 Cablevision Customers Said About Fox plus Cablevision Now Encouraging Over-the-Top MLB
Posted on Wed, Oct 27th, 2010 at 9:43 pm by Richard Greenfield * POSTS DiSCLAIMER Categories: Media, Equity Research, USA Tags: NWSA, VZ CVC, DTV DISH Retrans With Game 1 of the 2010 World Series underway, retransmission consent battles have broken new ground, with the highest profile programming ever blacked out (meaning the World Series) now dark across 90% of Cablevisions 3 mm subscriber footprint (note: about 10% can receive a CTbased standard def feed of Fox). Last week, we discussed (click here) our view of why Fox would ultimately prevail in its battle with Cablevision, including our belief that the FCC lacks the power to intervene. The FCC remains powerless (due to Congressional law) and Cablevision has let FOX programming go dark for far longer than we and investors ever anticipated. Cablevision is losing subscribers and still appears to have no way to win the current battle. Survey Says: We surveyed consumers in the NY Tn-State area about their views on the Cablevision/Fox situation. The key takeaways below are from the first 285 respondents (28% Long Island, 28% New Jersey, 18% Westchester, 16% Connecticut, and 10% NYC) please spread the word on our survey, which remains active at http://bit.ly/cablevisionsurvey
-
Recommended Reading for Reed Nolte

Big Box Office, Lower Attendance: Good for Nobody: Blame 3D Want NFL Sunday Ticket Without DirecTV Service? All You Have To Do Is Lie Apple Relents: Time Inc. and the Magazine Industry Can Breathe a Sigh of Relief Net Neutrality Fears Resurface Creates Another Buying Opportunity in Cable Stocks
-
MTVs Content Surging into the VMAs; Watch Our Video Demonstrating How They are Embracing Social Media
Most Read
Most Emeiled*Edtor s Picks

La,
-,,,
28% blame Cablevision, 25% blame Fox and 47% blame both companies. Programming that consumers missed the most: 36% MLB Playoffs, 33% NFL, 10% Glee, 7% House and 4% local news, but other shows written-in included Wendy Williams Show, Fringe, Lie to Me, Family Guy, The Simpsons and American Dad. 7% (20 of 285) indicated that they had already disconnected Cablevision due to the dispute. We believe this number is HEAVILY skewed (high) as respondents to the survey were likely more willing to take the survey in the first place than the overall CVC sub base. Given CVCs high triple play penetration and the hassle of switching, we susciect 1% or less of subscribers have churned to-date, but fear that number could grow meaningfully if the dispute continues, Vast majority of the disconnects appear to have shifted to Verizon FIOS, with a minority to DirecTV and nobody mentioning DISH. 19% of current subscribers will leave Cablevision in the next week if the FOX situation is not settled and 37% will leave in the next month. Why subscribers have stayed with Cablevision: 64% indicated too much of a hassle to switch, 17% value of the bundle, 14% believe Cablevisions fight to keep prices down is the right move, and 5% do not watch the Fox network. 21% called to complain, with more than half those that called Cablevision waiting at least 15 minutes to talk to a customer service representative and 15% waiting at least 30 minutes. Multiple comments indicate that subscribers hung up rather than wait to talk to a representative. 16% called to complain and asked for a discount/rebate. The vast majority received nothing (CSR5 were trained to simply say no, not until the situation is resolved), however, multiple people that told Cablevision CSR5 that they were actually canceling (and returning their set top boxes) were given between $10/month off for 12 months (free DVR service) to $20/month off their bills for two years. Cablevision Now Actively Encouraging Over the Top Video. Last week we published a Broadcast TV
,
What You Need to Know About Retransmission Consent Law - A Fair and Balanced Perspective Broadcast TV Manifesto - if You Want t be Paid Like Cable Nets, Start Acting Like Cable Nets on the Web A Look at Radically Changing Media Habits Among Youth/Young Adults In 2010 vs. 2000 Are Eric Schmidt and Reed Hastings Lighting a Fire Under the Cable Industry to Innovate? Why Would Cablevision Want to Lose Subs? No Win Situation with FOXLook at the Dueling Ad Campaigns Are Tablet Newspapers Cheap Enough for Consumers if They Cost 60% Less Than Print Editions? AT&T Points Out Yet Another Reason that Broadband Regulation is Silly: They Have No Control Over Content Hear What 285 Cablevision Customers Said About Fox plus CablevisIon Now Encouraging Overthe-Top MLB More details emerging about Sprints
TIG Research
>>
Blog Archive>> Hear What 285 Cablevision Customers Said About Fox plus Cablevision Now Encouraging Over-the-Top MLB
Manifesto (click here), explaining why it was so important for broadcasters to stop making content available online without authentication from a multichannel distributor (to protect the existing TV ecosystem). Yet, just before tonights World Series got underway, Cablevision emailed its subscribers that it was offering a full-refund of the MLB.com streaming video service. The post-season MLB package allows broadband subscribers to watch the World Series via their computers for $9.95 (with CVC offering subscribers a $10 one-time discount).
a One would never expect to see a cable company actively encouraging its consumers to watch live TV
$3 billion modernization project Read Rupert Murdoclis First Major Speech In the UK in 21 Years, as News Corp. Pursues BSkyB
4fr
programming over the web without the need for a multichannel video subscription.
a Picture of the body of the MLB.com email sent tonight to CVC subscribers tonight at the bottom of this blog post.
a Below is a video we shot of the updated TV message running on Fox 5 across Cablevision homes: scroll to 1:23 into the video to see the discussion of the MLB.com discount being offered.
Meet the Authors
Tag Cloud
r
=
3D AAPL Advertising
AMX
AMZN ANF AOL BBI Bedtime
Brazil
BSY
Cable/Sat
CableNets CBS CC CHA CHINA CHL CHTR CHU CKEC CLWR CMCSA CNK Cox
CSTRCVC DIS DISAD DISCA DISCK DISH DT DTV DVD DWA EMI Exhibitors
Facebook FOMC GOOG Home Video HTC IMAX jobs Latam LEAP LGF LSTZA LYV
MCCC
MGM
MOT
Movie Movies
MSFT Music Myspace
NBCU
NIHD
NCMI Newspapers NFLX
NWSA PALM PCS Pre-paid

Retrans RGC RLD
S SNE SNI
r VIAB
SocialNets Sports T T-Mobde Technicals TEF Themeparks TNE
TSU TV TVL TWC
VIV VM VOD VoIP VZ Wimax Wireless WMG WMT YHOO
Also of Interest
Big Box Officer Lower Attendance: Good for Nobody: Blame 3D
Resident Evil: Afterlife, released on September 12th, broke franchise records with its opening weekend box office, generating $27 mm compared &hetlip
Want NFL Sunday Ticket Without Dh-ecTV Service? All You Have To Do [s Lie
Last year. DirecTV offered the NFL Sunday Ticket package via broadband and mobile devices to Manhattan consumers for $350 (click &hellip
TIG Research
>>
Blog Archive>> Hear What 285 Cablevision Customers Said About Fox plus Cablevision Now Encouraging Over-the-Top MLB
Appe Reents: Tune hic. and the Magazine hidustry Can Breathe a Sigh of Rellef
When Acple s Pad launcred erler tow .ear 1 otered the abilty to download a Wall Street Journal aophcton which enabled &hellip
Archives
2010 Jan 2009 Jan 2008 Jan 2007 Jan 2006 Jul Dec Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
LJnks
Follow us on Twitter About BTIG Research Help/FAQs Privacy Statement BTIG
BTIG, LLC 2010 Created by Net Theory
From: Andrew Schwartzman [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 2:50 PM ki; Rick Kaplan; Edward Lazarus; Marilyn Sonn; Michael Copps; Joshua Cinelli; Mignon Clyburn; FMeredith Baker; Krista Witanowski; Robert McDowell; Rosemary Harold; William Lake Subject: Fox/Cablevision
)4zL S 9 2
Andrew Jay Schwartzman Senior Vice President and Policy Director Media Access Project Suite 1000 1625 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 http: / /www.mediaaccess. org
October 28, 2010
Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12u Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Commission reviews the current retransmission consent impasse between Cable vision Systems Corporation (Cablevision) and Fox Networks Group (Fox), Media Access Project (MAP) urges you to examine whether Fox is improperly leveraging its unauthorized television duopoly in New York to extract unjustified rents from Cablevision. The retransmission consent process is but one part of a fundamentally broken system. The Commissions program carriage and program access policies are no less flawed and one-sided. 2 However, in no event should viewers be the victims of high-stakes gamesmanship between and among broadcasters, cable operators and cable programmers. While the Commissions powers with respect to retransmission consent are limited by an inadequate statute, MAP urges you to continue to take an expansive reading of the available remedies to restore carriage of the Fox stations at the earliest possible opportunity. MAP calls your attention to the fact that Fox has failed to comply with the requirement that it divest ownership of WWOR-TV or The New York Post by December 29, 2008. In fact, a reconsideration petition challenging the 2006 decision granting a now-expired temporary waiver of the Commissions ownership rules remains pending. Moreover, Foxs licenses for its two New 4 York market television stations expired on June 1, 2007, and have not been renewed, and have been
To avoid further complication ofwhat is already a confusing set of circumstances, this letter refers to each of News Corporation and its various subsidiaries as Fox. As 2 more fully detailed in MAPs May 18, 2010 comments and its June 3, 2010 reply comments (filed jointly with Consumers Union, Free Press and the Parents Television Council, the public is all too frequently victimized in disputes involving MVPDs. Each of these policy areas need reform to insure that current regulations and enforcement procedures in all three policy arenas can prevent such disputes from leading to more limited programming choices, higher prices for consumers, and MVPD service disruptions. News 3 Corp. previously failed to divest when a similar waiver expired in 2003. Free 4 Press submitted an objection to Foxs request for a waiver and the associated request for approval of a corporate restructuring. Oniy after Free Press sought judicial relief did the Commission even deign to address it. Free Press sought reconsideration of that decision more than a year ago, but the Commission has failed to act on it.
1625 K STREET, NW
-
SuITE 1000
WAsHINGToN, DC 20006 PHONE: (202) 232-4300 HTTP://WWW.MEDIAACCESS.ORG
FACSIMILE: (202) 466-7656
vigorously opposed. Foxs illegitimate TV duopoly unquestionably increases its leverage by 5 allowing the bundling of the two stations retransmission rights, especially in light of the fact that WWOR-TV is the weakest of the major stations in the New York market. Foxs newspaper/broad cast cross-ownership has exacerbated the mismatch by allowing Fox to use the pages of The New York Post to press its case to the public. It is regrettable that the Commissions protracted failure to enforce its divestiture requirement and its inaction on the pending challenges to News Corp.s requests for regulatory largesse have given News Corp. an unfair advantage in the retransmission dispute. The cha1lengs are not frivolous, as was made clear in the Commissions unprecedented public hearing in Newark on November 28, 2007, at which the testimony raised serious questions about News Corp.s entitlement to hold its license for WWOR-TV. The Commission should act promptly to restore carriage of Foxs services for the benefit of Cablevisions customers, and it should take long overdue action to enforce its ownership and license renewal policies with respect to Foxs TV stations. It should also take steps to avoid recurrence of similar programming disruptions by reforming its retransmission consent, program carriage and program access rules. Sincerely,
Andrew Jay Schwartzman Senior Vice President and Policy Director cc. Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Baker and Clyburn William Lake
The 5 Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc. and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition have challenged the renewal of both WWOR-TV and WNYW(TV), alleging, inter alia, that Fox violated Commission rules requiring truthful and candid representations to the Commission and the Commissions ex parte rules. Voice for New Jersey, a viewers group from northern New Jersey filed a separate challenge demonstrating that WWOR-TV has failed to meet its special, statutorily mandated obligation to give special attention to the problems needs and interests of the people of northern New Jersey. -2-
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:52 PM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: RE: New press release Hi C
--
Not sure why the bounce back.
This came through fine, thx.
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:51 PM To: William Lake Subject: New press release Have had this bounce back
-
please confirm receipt. Thanks!
From: William Lake Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:02 PM To: OConnell, Maureen Subject: RE: The Latest Missive from Cablevision thx
From: OConnell, Maureen [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:01 PM To: William Lake Subject: FW: The Latest Missive from Cablevision Importance: High
I will let you know if we decide to comment on this, but I think its unlikely. From: Brian Peterson [mailto: ] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:54 PM To: Grogin, Scott A ( Fox ); Tuzon, Rita L ( Fox); OConnell, Maureen Subject: The Latest Missive from Cablevision Importance: High
We may start getting inquiries on this. My suggestion would be no comment.. .This seems to me that theyre grasping at any straw they can find right now, trying to keep the battle going in the press. Thoughts?
bp
PRESS RELEASE: Cablevision Calls Upon Governmental Entities and Non-Profit Organizations to Consider Copyright Exemption That Would Permit Them to Retransmit the World Series for Free Over the Internet Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:15:36 PM (GMT-04:O0) Provided by: Dow Jones Cablevision Prompts Public Discussion About the Critical Role Governmental and Non Profit Retransmissions Can Play in Restoring the World Series to Millions of Viewers BETHPAGE, N.Y., Oct. 28 /PRNewswire/ For thirteen days, millions of viewers have been unable to view Fox broadcast programming on Cablevisions systems, and are now missing the World Series, which began last night.
--
In light of this harm to the public, Cablevision is calling on governmental entities and non-profit organizations to consider retransmitting the World Series over the Internet for free. In the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress gave governmental entities and non-profit organizations a critical role to play in retransmitting network broadcasting to the public. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. 11 1(a)(5) provides that a so-called secondary transmission of broadcast programming is not a public performance for which a copyright license
would be required if that secondary transmission is made by any governmental body, or other non-profit organization without (1) any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and (2) without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service. Congress also excluded these entities from the FCCs retransmission consent regime. Under the clear language of this statutory exemption, a governmental entity or non-profit entity could, for the purpose of serving the public interest, retransmit the World Series free over the Internet. With a simple antenna and Internet streaming capacity, a governmental entity or non-profit organization could do a tremendous public service and extend the reach of this broadcast programming just as Congress intended when it enacted 11 1(a)(5).
--
The decision whether to retransmit the World Series is one that only a governmental entity or a non-profit organization can make for itself. Cablevision urges any entity interested in providing this public service to independently examine the law. Cablevisions purpose in issuing this press release is to heighten public awareness about this existing statutory exemption, and to call upon governmental and non-profit entities to consider making use of it for the World Series and fulfill the critical role that Congress gave them in the dissemination of public broadcasting for free. About Cablevision Cablevision Systems Corporation (NYSE: CVC) is one of the nations leading telecommunications, media and entertainment companies. In addition to its Optimumbranded cable, Internet, and voice offerings, the company owns and operates News 12 Networks, MSG Varsity and Newsday Media Group. Cablevisions assets also include Rainbow Media Holdings LLC and its programming and entertainment businesses, AMC, IFC, Sundance Channel, WE tv and IFC Entertainment, as well as Clearview Cinemas. Additional information about Cablevision is available on the Web at www.cablevision.com. SOURCE Cablevision Systems Corp. /CONTACT: Jim Maiella,
/Web site: http://www.cablevision.com
From: Schatz, Amy [mailto: 1 Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 6:03 PM To: Jen Howard Subject: Fw: FCC Endorses Kerrys Legislative Approach to Modernizing Regulation on TV Disputes
Does the Chairman also endorse Sen. Kerrys plan to prevent broadcasters from pulling their signals in such disputes? Thanks, Amy
From: Smith, Whitney (Kerry) To: Smith, Whitney (Kerry) Sent: Fri Oct 29 17:54:59 2010 Subject: FCC Endorses Kerrys Legislative Approach to Modernizing Regulation on TV Disputes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 29, 2010 CONTACT: Jodi Seth/Whitney Smith,
FCC Endorses Kerrys Legislative Approach to Modernizing Regulation on TV Disputes

BOSTON Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today released a response letter from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) endorsing his legislative solution to protect consumers during disputes between broadcasters and cable providers that sometimes lead to televisions going dark and often threaten to disrupt service.
The New York Times Editorial Board today also endorsed Senator Kerrys legislative approach. The FCC today made it clear they agree Congress must revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in the marketplace call for reform, said Sen. Kerry. The FCC has said that reforms might include mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, but I believe less intrusive, more market-based options are the right answer. We will not pass legislation in time to bring this current dispute to resolution, Kerry added, but we can fix a broken system for the long term. Earlier this month, Senator Kerry sent a letter to Chairman Genachowski along with draft legislation to protect consumers from disputes like Cablevision/Fox. Its not our job to take sides, but it is our responsibility to help find a better way forward, Kerry wrote. The goal of this legislation is to offer a path towards resolution that reforms a broken system and protects the consumers who get caught in the middle.
###
Whitney Smith Press Secretary Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) www.kerry.senate.gov
From: John Eggerton < To: Jen Howard; Rick Kaplan Sent: Sat Oct 30 18:57:30 2010 Subject: Any statement on Fox/Cablevision?
John Eggerton Washington Bureau Chief
-Original Message From: William Lake Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:01 PM To: Catherine Bohigian Subject: I hear theres a deal?
Will it be announced soon?
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 5:55 PM To: Rick Kaplan; Maureen OConnell Subject: Re: Checking in Yes, sounds great! Original Message From: Rick Kaplan To: Maureen OConnell < Cc: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 30 17:37:46 2010 Subject: Re: Checking in Terrific
-
keep us posted!
Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen < To: Rick Kaplan Cc: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 30 17:12:36 2010 Subject: Re: Checking in Yes, we are getting very close. I was just going to call. Hoping to be done by game at 7 pm. I am reachable if you have questions. Call Obviously this is highly confidential, we dont want to screw up the deal. Sent from my iPad On Oct 30, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Rick Kaplan <
> >
wrote:
Congrats on the Dish deal.
Any update with Cablevision?
Original Message From: Rick Kaplan To: Maureen OConnell < Cc: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 30 18:56:38 2010 Subject: Re: Checking in
-
NYT just called saying they hear there is a deal... Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen < To: Rick Kaplan Cc: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 30 17:12:36 2010 Subject: Re: Checking in Yes, we are getting very close. I was just going to call. Hoping to be done by game at 7 pm. I am reachable if you have questions. Call Obviously this is highly confidential, we dont want to screw up the deal. Sent from my iPad On Oct 30,
>
2010,
at 4:08 PM,
Rick Kaplan
<
>
wrote:
Congrats on the Dish deal.
Any update with Cablevision?
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee) , you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
Original Message From: Catherine Bohigian < To: William Lake Sent: Sat Oct 30 19:14:00 2010 Subject: Re: I hear theres a deal?
-
Not official yet. We thought we had a deal a while ago and then we didn t. Original Message From: William Lake < To: Catherine BohigianR Sent; 10/30/2010 7:01:16 PM Subject: I hear theres a deal? Will it be announced soon?
The information transmitted in this email and any of its attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information concerning Cablevision and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or Any review, retransmission, dissemination or subject to copyright. other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete and destroy the communication and all of the attachments you have received and all copies thereof.
-Original MessageFrom: William Lake Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:25 PM To: Maureen OConnell Subject: Re: Final Cablevision Deal Congrats! Original Message From: OConnell, Maureen < To: Rick Kaplan; William Lake Sent: Sun Oct 31 18:15:59 2010 Subject: Final Cablevision Deal I just got word that we signed a final deal. Sent from my iPad
Rick Kaplan
>
From: Make, Jonathan [mailto: Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:43 PM To: Jen Howard Cc: Janice Wise Subject: any FCC statement re Fox-Cablevision dispute ending?
Hi Janice and Jen. Writing about retrans today, so wanted to see if there was a chairmans or FCC statement re Cablevision-Fox. Also, I am noting that except for the chairmans recent letter to Sen. Kerry on retrans, the commission is not poised to act by NPRM or other rulemaking procedure in the near-term on the general issue of retrans. Thank you both, Jonathan
From: Make, Jonathan [maiIto: I Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:43 PM To: Jen Howard Cc: Janice Wise Subject: any FCC statement re Fox-Cablevision dispute ending?
Hi Janice and Jen. Writing about retrans today, so wanted to see if there was a chairmans or FCC statement re Cablevision-Fox. Also, I am noting that except for the chairmans recent letter to Sen. Kerry on retrans, the commission is not poised to act by NPRM or other rulemaking procedure in the near-term on the general issue of retrans. Thank you both, Jonathan

Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp.: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp.: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

From: OConnell, Maureen Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:55 PM To: William Lake; Sherrese Smith; Joshua

retransmission consent on the afternoon of Oct. 6? Thanks, Catherine

10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if it

We can make the morning work.

> 10/1/2010 12:80 PM >>>

10:30 am on 10/6 would work for me if it

We can make the morning work.

10/1/2010 12:00 PM >>>

Have a good weekend!

Im tied up from noon on on Oct. 6. I could meet that morning, or

Are we expecting you at 10:30 this am?

Can you please give us a status update on the negotiations? Thanks.

From: Catherine Bohigian To: William Lake

Sent: Wed Oct 13 11:25:16 2010 Subject: Your call

> Please see the attached.

Dear Mike: This

response to the letter you sent to my office today.

Our chief negotiator sent the attached letter to FOX today.

October 13. 2010

Lets move forward as soon as possible.

> > > > > > >

I returned your call last night.

I hope you got my message.

Original Message From: William Lake To: Catherine Bohigian

I hope you got my message.

Nsa R&d (Mamas) AFSCME. Ad nfotmle Ccas-,oY I

Seth f-fade fASmnate4

P,sinsnd Ocsale La Cuss d Dun Pinko Nell SliRpilSl (ASemOte)

Su,bara K SHoe M,uhaoi flynn (Altotnate) Wow Jewsy EdomkMtofatHct

Bbas* Valise AJI,ce Eec Sdisczc.r

Ctlf Fcotd (ASl&o&) Comnitbos f vitaes, & RaskfenL SSlV

Phyllis Salowe-Kayc Executive Director

NJCA is on afThiatc etfUSAciktn, a national progressive coalition

eMv.ncllizenaCtionOrg Centre) Jersey

75 Rar)!an Avenue, SuIte 200

NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE

Fax: (202) 835-0747

Sally Greenberg Executive Director National Consumers League (202) 835-3323

LI)DCATIDN AND LABOR

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES W.SHINGTON, DC 205 .153204

(11 \EMS3I.!1:xT SII)(SURLL,

CAISrA!. AIM.1:Lrc, INSUIL;Nc( .5(I) En cci Sisc

October 12, 2010

S(E1351f In h(Ip://ricci1iInIcciirthy .IIIis.gov

Mr. James Dolan

Mr. Rupert Murdoch

The National Black Caucus ofState Legislators

Rep. Sharon Beasley-Teague, GA Region 6 Rep. Willie Perkins. MS

Rep. Arthur Turner, IL Region 8 Sen. Spencer Coggs, WI

Calvin Smyre President, National Black Caucus of State Legislators

444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NW, SUITE 622, WASHINGTON, DC 20001

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Qtirngrc of tfj uJ1ftniterj tate

CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP WEB PAGE hrtp:l/www.crowley.housegov

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN

ot Uje rntc tatc

COMMITTEE ON ENERGYAND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEES:

Otober 13, 2010

Eliot L. Engel Member of Congress

succn,MIZrCEC: CKAIEWOMAT1, 41,VIE, rcJIIEloI1 OPEEF4TIOIIG. AlIT)

SELECT INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT PANEL

LAIIC)8. H&ALfll AND I)U1.l)lt SE VICES, AlIT) EI)IJCA1 DII