Update November: Cable beat this back for now, but many of the Democrats likely to run the FCC in a few months have a deep belief in getting more stations on the air. I'd go further, and require cablecos to carry any other legal channel at a price that provides a modest profit over direct cost. The SDV and other equipment is becoming standard and cheap, so this will be a political, not an economic, issue. Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein refused to go along with Kevin, although Copps told me it's "The Right Thing To Do."
Kevin Martin has driven hard to get "Low Power TV" carried by cable systems. Experts tell me the cost today is high, but cable networks are installing gear that will drive the equipment cost to something like $1,000/per station installed. A second commissioner tells me it's "the right thing to do," and a third seems to agree in principal. Cable has 60+% of the viewing audience, giving them an effective veto over which networks succeed or fail. TV over the Net changes that some, but cable will continue dominant for years.
Today, most U.S. cablecos are stretched for capacity as they try to squeeze in more HD. They are investing in SDV and "analog reclamation" that should free up enormous capacity the next few years. That's vital in the competition for customers. Satellite and Verizon are advertising they have more HD channels, although everyone is fudging the numbers.
With SDV in place, It will be inexpensive to add 8 standard definition stations to most decent cable systems. Even including all the administration, it's hard to see that costing much more than $5,000. Some cable companies will be ready for that in 2009, others in 2012 or so. SDV is amazingly inexpensive per subscriber, so is being installed rapidly to save megahertz.. The only hardware needed is a QAM (pricing below $1,000) and what it takes to receive the signal. The rules are pretty strong that the stations must make it easy for the cablecos to receive the signal, so that shouldn't be a problem. The cost per channel added will be so low even a few viewers will allow LPTV to add value to the offering.
Comcast, TWC On Target: Don't Require LPTV Must-Carry Too Soon
The cablecos are resisting fiercely, and not just because they don't like regulation. Until they turn off analog, they don't have the channel capacity they want. Comcast and RCN are well advanced in the switch, with cheap digital to analog boxes bringing down the cost. Enormous progress is being made already, with most systems cutting over before 2012.
Requiring LP TV today would impose a burden, so the right course is to phase it in slowly over about 5 years. The smallest cablecos might be excluded even longer - or upgraded as part of universal service. Fighting against more stations is a dumb battle. Many of the most respected people in D.C. are battling for more voices on the air. "You have to choose your battles," Kevin Martin told me a while back. There are so many issues more important.
Comcast and TWC are mostly arguing now that a technicality in the law should hold off the FCC, and promising to tie things up in court for years. That's not the way to win friends and influence people who will be making several billion dollar decisions in the next few years. Cable's other arguments about must carry imposing heavy costs and squeezing out other stations simply won't apply as the networks are built out over the next few years.
NCTA Says Wait 3 Years
Dan Brenner's brief warns, "Today, channel capacity is at a premium because of dual carriage obligations for the next three years. Forcing carriage of all Class A stations – low power stations that are often located in some of the most congested broadcast markets in the country, markets that contain the highest number of must-carry stations– will result in a loss of diverse voices on the cable system as operators are forced to make room for these over-the-air low power broadcasters."
The Compromise: Go Slow
It's hard to make an argument against carrying more stations over time. D.C. has Martin has two votes and a logical third to require must carry, so perhaps it's time to make a deal. Phase in the requirement, setting 2010 as the primary date but allowing companies to ask for two years of delay if their equipment or channel capacity aren't ready. Exempt the small cablecos even longer. Require the channel to make it easy and inexpensive for the cableco to receive by meeting any reasonable technical requirement.
The "new cable companies" - Verizon, AT&T, and other telcos - all claim their systems can handle more stations and shouldn't have a problem.The tough battle over "media concentration" makes pretty clear D.C. wants more voices. Copps and Adelstein have spoken eloquently on the subject, and a key constituentcy of Martin's has a strong interest. Many of the small stations are religious, a politcal base Martin has cultivated. FCC battles followed by court challenges are expensive and disruptive. No one really wins. If the rules are sensible and the deadlines manageable, the cost of offering more stations this way is modest. There may be a pleasant surprise coming, because with carriage some of these stations might draw an audience.
What's The Matter With Verizon FIOS?
Dee May of Verizon surprised me with a strong opposition. Verizon is spending $23B for one of the best networks in the world. It's designed to handle almost anything thrown at it, with speeds soon practical above 200 megabits. The TV is today coming over a third wavelength with twice the available capacity of most cable systems. In the future, it will move to the even more expandable IPTV. It may be that the Verizon headends have a problem, or Verizon may be simply fighting to keep the FCC away.
"Inadequate Capacity At FIOS?" was my first thought for a headline. That's the last thing Verizon wants as a public face. Far better for them to fix the problem and be proud again.
Reporter's Note: I haven't specified the name of the senior FCC official quoted above. I could not check with that official if my quote was in context without running up against the "silent period" traditional for a week before an item is on the FCC agenda. It probably doesn't apply to reporters, but I'm happy to observe the spirit.
Some of the filings:
1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Must Carry Rights for Class A Low Power Stations, MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 06-121,
02-277, 01-235, 01-317, 00-244, 04-228
Dear Ms. Dortch:
In light of a recent press account inaccurately characterizing Verizon’s recent reply
comments filed in these dockets,1 the purpose of this letter is to make doubly sure that there is no
confusion concerning Verizon’s position. Contrary to this report: a) Verizon’s comments did not
suggest that the video marketplace is fully competitive nationally – particularly in areas that lack
head-to-head wireline competition; b) Verizon’s reply comments addressed only a single narrow
issue – the question of whether new must-carry rights should be created for Class A low power
television stations that go beyond what is authorized by statute; c) Verizon’s comments did not
address at all the existing must-carry obligations that are authorized by statute. In this final regard,
our comments were limited to the policy and legal reasons that the Commission should not adopt
new must carry rights for Class A low power stations, and why any such expansion is particularly
unwarranted in the case of competing new entrants such as Verizon.
First, Verizon did not suggest that the video marketplace is now fully competitive across
the country, nor is it. On the contrary, as the Commission has recognized, the vast majority of
consumers are still served by entrenched cable incumbents, and relatively few consumers live in
areas with a choice in wireline video providers. This fact is significant because the Commission
and the Government Accountability Office have both recognized the significant competitive
benefits to consumers that result from wireline competition.2 While such competition is now
emerging – thanks in part to the steps taken by the Commission to remove regulatory obstacles to
competitive entry and to address vestiges of the formerly exclusive monopoly franchises that
1 See Ted Hearn, “Must-Carry Mandates Outdated: Verizon,” Multichannel News (Sep. 2, 2008).
2 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable
Programming Service, and Equipment, 21 FCC Rcd 15087, ¶¶ 3, 48 (2006) (finding that in areas
with two or more wireline video competitors, rates are likely to be 17% lower than in markets
without such competition); Government Accountability Office, Telecommunications: Wire-Based
Competition Benefited Consumers in Selected Markets, GAO-04-241, at 4 (Feb. 2004) (finding
that rates were 15% to 41% lower in markets in which a wireline video competitor was present).
Marlene H. Dortch
September 4, 2008
continue to pose significant obstacles to competitive entry – it is still in its infancy. Of course, in
those areas where new competitive entrants have entered or are entering, those entrants face
ubiquitous competition from entrenched incumbents and those entrants self-evidently do not have
– and have never had – any “bottleneck” control. And this latter point is the one made in our reply
comments (at 11).
Second, the sole issue addressed in our reply comments is the question of whether the
Commission should create new must-carry obligations for Class A low power stations that go
beyond those authorized by statute. As we explained, while we share the Commission’s interest in
promoting diverse and local programming, creating new must-carry rights for Class A stations
could undermine those interests by crowding out diverse programming – including multicultural,
multilingual, or niche programming. We also noted that Verizon already voluntarily carries many
diverse sources of programming, including low power stations, that provide quality programming
to our subscribers, and that a primary reason that Verizon (and other operators) do not carry more
low power stations is that their carriage often would increase programming costs. This is because
the signals of these stations are often considered “distant” – and thus subject to increased royalty
fee assessments – under current Copyright rules. Therefore, absent Congressional reform of these
Copyright rules, mandatory carriage obligations would result in increased costs for consumers,
while reform of those rules would encourage the carriage of low power stations. Finally, we
explained that given the express limitations in the Cable Act – as well as the Commission’s
previous consideration of this issue and First Amendment problems in the case of new entrants –
there are significant legal impediments to the Commission creating new must carry requirements
for these Class A low power stations that go beyond what is authorized by the statute.
Third, our reply comments did not even address, let alone argue that the Commission can
or should do anything to change, the existing must-carry obligations authorized by statute. Indeed,
the requirement for cable operators to carry local commercial television stations and certain
qualified low power stations is established in Section 614 of the Cable Act, and those requirements
have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Instead, as explained above, our comments addressed
only the question of whether there were grounds to create new requirements that go beyond the
existing rules and beyond what the statute authorizes
We trust that this letter ensures that there is no confusion about what Verizon did – and did
not – argue in these dockets.
cc: Chairman Kevin J. Martin Elizabeth Andrion
Commissioner Michael J. Copps Amy Blankenship
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein Rudy Brioché
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate Rick Chessen
Commissioner Robert M. McDowell Rosemary Harrold
Daniel Gonzalez Monica Desai
Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership ) MM Docket No. 01-317
of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets )
Definition of Radio Markets ) MM Docket No. 00-244)
Ways To Further Section 257 Mandate and To Build ) MB Docket No. 04-228
on Earlier Studies )
REPLY COMMENTS OF COMCAST CORPORATION
Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) hereby replies to comments submitted in response to
the above-captioned Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”).1 The record demonstrates that
the Commission does not have the statutory authority necessary to further expand must-carry
burdens on cable operators, and that, even if the Commission did have authority to increase
1 In re Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report & Order and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd. 5922 (2007) (“Notice”).
- 2 -
must-carry burdens, doing so would disserve the interests of American consumers. Adoption of
any such unwarranted requirements at this crucial time in the transition to digital television
would be particularly unwise.
In the Notice, the Commission asked whether it has “authority under the Act to adopt
rules requiring  carriage” of Class A broadcast stations.2 The answer is a resounding “no.”
As explained by NCTA, the Commission has already asked and answered this question:
The Commission confronted this issue directly when it adopted the new Class A service. .
. . It concluded that qualifying for Class A status did not change a station’s status for
must-carry purposes. On reconsideration, the FCC reiterated that “Congress intended
that Class A stations have the same limited must carry rights as LPTV stations. . . . [T]o
be eligible for must carry, Class A stations, like other low power television stations, must
comply with the Part 74 rules and the other eligibility criteria established by statute and
Class A stations are a subset of LPTV stations that have been specially designated for the sole
purpose of fulfilling a statutory directive that certain LPTV stations be given special protection
against interference from other broadcasters.4 The statute does not empower the Commission to
grant any LPTV stations additional must-carry rights.
Even if there were any ambiguity in the statute, which there is not, the Commission’s use
of that ambiguity to expand cable operators’ must-carry obligations would further infringe on
cable operators’ editorial discretion to choose the stations they will carry and would violate the
First Amendment.5 The must-carry requirements established by Congress in 1992 survived
2 Notice ¶ 99.
3 NCTA Comments at 4 (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted); see also Cablevision Comments at
3-5; Time Warner Comments at 8-10. For purposes herein, unless otherwise designated, all citations to comments
are to filings made in MB Docket No. 07-294.
4 See 47 U.S.C. § 336(f); see also In re Establishment of a Class A Television Service, Report & Order, 15
FCC Rcd. 6355 (2000).
5 See NCTA Comments at 6-7; Cablevision Comments at 11-15; Time Warner Comments at 11-14.
- 3 -
Constitutional review only by the barest of margins, and only on the basis of marketplace facts
that no longer exist.6 Expanding must-carry rights for hundreds of LPTV stations would
substantially burden cable operators’ editorial discretion without furthering any compelling
government interest. Moreover, additional must-carry burdens cannot be justified by Congress’s
findings regarding the benefits and burdens of the must-carry regime adopted in 1992.
Although beyond the scope of this rulemaking,7 expanded must-carry burdens would also
be bad public policy. Contrary to the Notice,8 any notion that expanding mandatory cable
carriage of Class A stations “could” foster localism and diversity is refuted by fact. As the
Diversity and Competition Supporters assert: “[m]any – perhaps most – Class A stations
broadcast only minimal local programming and no multicultural or multilingual programming,
and thus offer the public little in the way of diversity of viewpoints and information.”9
Meanwhile, mandatory cable carriage of Class A stations would certainly decrease diversity by
6 See Comcast Ex Parte Letter, MB Dkt. No. 98-120, at 1-2 (Nov. 18, 2003) (reporting that “today’s market
conditions are dramatically different, in a variety of ways, from those reflected in the legislative hearings of the late
1980’s and early 1990’s, the Conference Committee Report on the 1992 Cable Act, the statute’s legislative findings,
the briefs filed by the FCC and the broadcasters in the Turner cases, and the Supreme Court’s Turner decisions
themselves”); see also Comcast Ex Parte Letter, MB Dkt. No. 98-120 att. A (Feb. 3, 2005) (describing seismic
changes that have occurred between 1992 and 2005 in the video marketplace that have destroyed the legal
foundation for must-carry).
7 The Notice simply inquired about the Commission’s legal authority to adopt expanded must-carry
obligations. Notice ¶ 99 (“We seek comment on whether we have authority under the Act to adopt rules requiring
such carriage.”). The Commission did not inquire about the policy implications of expanding must-carry
requirements, nor did it identify any new carriage rules the Commission might consider if it were to conclude --
contrary to its prior determination and the plain words of the statute -- that the Commission does have legal authority
to expand must-carry burdens. As the Supreme Court has explained, “The Administrative Procedure Act requires an
agency conducting notice-and-comment rulemaking to publish in its notice of proposed rulemaking ‘either the terms
or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.’ . . . The object, in short, is one
of fair notice.” Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339, 2351 (2007) (citing to 5 U.S.C. §
8 Notice ¶ 99 (asserting that “cable carriage of Class A television stations could promote both programming
diversity and localism”).
9 Diversity and Competition Supporters Comments at 23.
- 4 -
“overwhelm[ing] cable capacity at a time when bandwidth is at a premium” because cable
operators will be devoting even more capacity to carriage of full-power must-carry broadcast
stations to ease the digital broadcast transition.10 Comcast does in fact carry many Class A and
other LPTV stations already, pursuant to voluntary marketplace agreements with individual
stations and station groups, where they offer programming that Comcast believes its customers
want: Comcast has negotiated retransmission consent arrangements covering over 100 LPTV
stations, of which over 50 are Class A stations.
This is an especially inopportune time to consider any changes in must-carry burdens.
The video marketplace is more competitive and dynamic than ever.11 And as the National
Association of Broadcasters observed when the broadcast digital transition was at a less critical
juncture than it is today, “at this stage in the transition, stability and certainty in the rules and
policies governing the transition are critical.”12
10 NCTA Comments at 8. “Piling new must-carry requirements on top of the existing requirements and uses
will simply cause operators to drop other services to make room for the new stations. Not only would creating
additional scarcity of available channels be unfair to non-broadcast cable program networks, which have no such
guaranteed carriage, and to their viewers. But also the services most likely to be dropped are those that themselves
appeal to niche, minority and diverse audiences in the cable operator’s franchise area. Additional must-carry
obligations would most directly diminish the channel space available for prospective new minority programmers . .
. ” Id. at 9 (internal quotations omitted).
11 See, e.g., Comcast Comments, MM Dkt. No. 92-264, at 1-2 (Mar. 28, 2008); Comcast Reply Comments,
MB Dkt. No. 07-198, at 3-9 (Feb. 12, 2008); Comcast Ex Parte Letter, MB Dkt. No. 06-189 (Mar. 30, 2007).
12 In re Third Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital
Television, Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.,
and the National Association of Broadcasters, MB Dkt. No. 07-91, at 1 (Feb. 29, 2008).
- 5 -
Adoption of expanded must-carry obligations would be unlawful. The Commission
should not expend any further resources considering the matter.
/s/ Kathryn A. Zachem
Kathryn A. Zachem
James R. Coltharp
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20006
August 29, 2008
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE
NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) hereby submits its reply
comments in the above-captioned proceedings.
In our initial comments, we showed that the Commission is precluded by both the
Communications Act and the First Amendment from affording must-carry status to Class A low
power stations that do not otherwise qualify for such status under Section 614(h)(2). We also
pointed out that forcing cable operators to carry multiple low power stations at a time when they
are already about to be required to carry the analog and high definition digital signals of
television broadcasters would result in the displacement of cable program networks that appeal
to minority and niche interests throughout cable communities. And it would do so without any
evidence that such mandatory carriage of low power stations will have any effect on diversity of
broadcast ownership. Nothing in the comments filed by other parties refutes these showings.
I. THE COMMISSION IS BARRED BY THE MUST-CARRY PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 614 AND THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS PROTECTION ACT
OF 1999 FROM GIVING CLASS A STATIONS MUST-CARRY STATUS – OR
BY RECLASSIFYING THEM AS “FULL POWER” STATIONS.
The Act confers must-carry status on two categories of television stations – “local
commercial television stations” and “qualified low power stations.” Local commercial stations
are, by definition, “full power” stations, and do not include “low power television stations ...
which operate pursuant to part 74 of title 47 ... or any successor regulations thereto.” Class A
licenses are, by statute, available only to “licensees of qualifying low power television stations,”
and the Commission has already rightly determined that its rules governing Class A stations,
while codified in part 73 of the rules, are, indeed, “successor regulations” to the part 74 rules that
previously applied to those stations.
Even most proponents of must-carry status for Class A stations acknowledge that such
stations do not qualify for such status under the Act. But they contend that there is an easy way
to circumvent this statutory obstacle: Simply conduct a rulemaking proceeding to add the
channels currently occupied by Class A stations to the Commission’s Table of Allotments of full
power channels, and then reclassify Class A stations as full power stations. The Community
Broadcasters Association suggests that because the term “full power” is not defined in the Act,
the Commission can call any station it wishes a “full power” station. It maintains that “[w]hile
Class A stations are limited to less power than what are now known as ‘full power’ stations, the
power limit is again established by rule rather than statute; so it can be altered by the FCC
without a statutory amendment.”1
But while it may be the case that the power limit for Class A stations is established by
rule, the classification of Class A stations as “low power” stations is, as discussed above,
established by statute. The Commission cannot simply reclassify these very same stations,
operating at the very same power levels (which are significantly lower than the power levels at
which full power stations currently operate) as “full power” stations without running afoul of the
language and the purpose of the statute. As the title of Section 336(f) of the Communications
Act – which codifies the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 – makes clear, the
purpose of establishing Class A licenses was specifically to ensure the “Preservation of Low-
Power Community Television Broadcasting.”2 Turning Class A stations into full power stations
would stand this purpose on its head. Instead of preserving low power stations, it would
In particular, the Commission cannot reclassify Class A stations in this manner for the
purpose of giving them must-carry status. ZGS Communications asserts that “if the Class A
service had existed in 1992, Congress would have explicitly afforded it ‘must carry’ rights”
1 Comments of Community Broadcasters Association at 4.
2 47 U.S.C § 336(f).
along with full power stations.3 But there is no need to guess what Congress would have done if
Class A stations had existed in 1992. Congress could have explicitly afforded Class A service
must carry rights when it created the service in 1999 – and it chose not to do so. Instead, it
specifically established Class A stations as a subset of low power stations without in any way
altering the limits on and qualifications for must carry status for low power stations.
ZGS also suggests that it does not matter that Class A stations do not qualify for carriage
under the specific must carry provisions of the Act because the Commission has broad ancillary
jurisdiction under Sections 4(i) and 303(r) to grant such stations must carry rights.4 But
Congress has specifically stripped the Commission of any such ancillary jurisdiction to impose
must carry requirements or any other regulation of cable content. Section 624(f) of the
Communications Act provides that “Any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not
impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, except as expressly
provided in this title.”5 In other words, if the authority isn’t specifically spelled out in Title VI, it
II. GRANTING CLASS A STATIONS MUST-CARRY RIGHTS WOULD IMPOSE A
SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPERMISSIBLE BURDEN ON FIRST AMENDMENT
The fact that Congress chose not to confer must carry status on Class A stations (except
to the extent that such stations meet the general must carry qualifications for low power stations)
confirms that it would not only be unlawful but also unconstitutional for the Commission to do
so. As we explained in our initial comments, under the “intermediate” First Amendment scrutiny
standard applied by the Supreme Court, the must carry provisions of the Communications Act
3 Comments of ZGS Communications, Inc. at 3.
4 Id. at 11-13.
5 47 U.S.C. § 544(f) (emphasis added).
were narrowly upheld only because they furthered important government interests identified by
Congress in a manner that did not “burden substantially more speech than necessary” to further
those interests. If Congress specifically determined that carriage of low power stations was not
necessary to further the interests underlying the must carry provisions, and Congress
subsequently declined to give such status to Class A stations, it is hard to see how the statute
could be constitutionally construed to permit the Commission to impose an additional obligation
on cable operators to carry Class A stations.6
While ZGS seeks to portray the additional burden on cable operators as “relatively
small,”7 its own analysis reveals that the burden would be substantial. Thus, ZGS notes there
are, on average, about 2.6 Class A television stations per market.8 Adding 2.6 stations to channel
lineups that are already saturated with video programming and other services would hardly be a
small burden on cable operators – or on non-broadcast cable program networks competing for
access to scarce channels.
But, as ZGS shows, this average number masks the fact that the distribution of Class A
stations is not uniform throughout the nation. According to ZGS, a large number of Class A
stations are concentrated in a relatively small number of markets. One market has 17 Class A
stations; three markets have ten; two have nine; six have eight; and ten have seven.9 ZGS seems
to think that because this very substantial burden is imposed in only a relatively small number of
markets, while many other markets have an average of only two Class A stations per market, the
burden is insignificant. But the fact that a Class A must carry rule could add as many as 17 must
6 See NCTA Comments at 7.
7 Comments of ZGS Communications, Inc. at 18.
8 Id. at 19.
9 Id. at 20.
carry stations to even a single market, and seven or more stations to 22 markets only exacerbates
the burden and constitutional problem of such a rule even under the intermediate scrutiny First
In any event, extending must carry rights to Class A stations could be subject to an even
more stringent standard. The Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny only because the
must carry obligations that it considered were “content-neutral” in scope and purpose. Yet
several commenting parties in this proceeding urge the Commission to grant must carry status to
Class A stations precisely because of the content carried on such stations. For example,
according to ZGS Communications, “Class A stations are the only broadcast stations required to
broadcast a minimum amount of locally produced programming. There is no more truly local
station than a Class A station, as ZGS’s own stations can attest.”10 A must carry requirement
designed to promote specifically local programming would be content-based, not contentneutral.
As such, it would be subject to – and almost certainly would not survive – the even
more stringent standard of “strict scrutiny.”
10 Id. at 17. See also Comments of Diversity and Competition Supporters at 23: “Many – perhaps most – Class A
stations broadcast only minimal local programming and no multicultural or multilingual programming, and thus
offer the public little in the way of diversity of viewpoints and information. As such, the public would be better
served if the Commission would create and entitle to must-carry a new sub-class of Class A stations that are
hyper-local or that provide extensive multicultural and (especially) multilingual service.”
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in NCTA’s initial comments, the
Commission has no authority – and it would, indeed, be unconstitutional – to confer must carry
status on Class A low power stations, and there is, in any event, no public policy reason to do so.
/s/ Daniel L. Brenner
Daniel L. Brenner
Michael S. Schooler
Diane B. Burstein
Counsel for the National Cable &
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. – Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20001-1431
August 29, 2008 (202) 222-2445
The Commission may not grant full must-carry rights to Class A television stations.
July 30, 2008
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Time Warner Cable Inc.