*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 54528.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 January  18,  2006 
 DA  06-  143  Released:  January  25,  2006 


 Mr.  Thomas  P.  Basinger  Cable  One 
 1314  N.  Third  Street  3  rd  Floor 
 Phoenix,  Arizona  85004 
 In  re:  NAL/  Acct.  No.  06-  4110-  0001  FRN#  0003-  4743-  27 


 Dear  Mr.  Basinger: 
 We  have  received  your  response,  dated  December  21,  2005,  to  the  Notice  of  Apparent  liability  in  Nexstar  Broadcasting,  Inc.  v.  Cable  One,  Inc.,  DA  05-  2988  (rel.  Nov.  18,  2005)  along  with  your 
 payment  of  the  associated  $20,000  fine  for  violating  the  Commission’s  network  nonduplication  rules. 


 In  your  response  you  maintain  that  Cable  One’s  violation  was  not  the  result  of  “bad  faith,”  but  rather  the  result  of  an  attempt  to  balance  two  different  Commission  rules  --  the  requirement  that 
 you  provide  the  requested  network  nonduplication  protection  with  the  requirement  that  you  simultaneously  maintain  the  status  quo  pending  the  resolution  of  an  associated  market 
 modification  petition.  Consequently,  while  not  disputing  the  conclusion  that  a  violation  took  place,  you  contend  that  our  finding  of  an  “egregious”  violation  was  unwarranted. 


 After  a  review  of  your  explanation  and  the  facts  and  circumstance  involved  in  this  matter,  we  agree  that  Cable  One’s  violation  of  the  network  nonduplication  rules  was  not  properly 
 characterized  as  egregious. 


 Sincerely, 


 Donna  C.  Gregg  Chief,  Media  Bureau 
 cc:  Seth  A.  Davidson,  Esq. 
1